Vayeshev

Genesis:37:1

וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּאֶ֖רֶץ מְגוּרֵ֣י אָבִ֑יו בְּאֶ֖רֶץ כְּנָֽעַן׃ 1 P Now Jacob was settled in the land where his father had sojourned, the land of Canaan.
The text discusses how Yaakov's settling in Canaan signifies fear and humility, representing his transition to embodying fear and overcoming challenges to maintain divine judgment. It contrasts Yaakov's choice to dwell in the Chosen Land with Esau's permanent possession of Mount Seir, emphasizing Jacob's acknowledgment of his goodness and decision not to inherit land like Esau. The importance of rebuking children to prevent depravity, the imperfection preceding perfection in the world, and the significance of not taking entitlement to the Holy Land for granted are also highlighted. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains that whenever it says "And he dwelt" in the Torah, it signifies impending calamity.

Chasidut

The text discusses how Yaakov's dwelling in the land of his father's sojourning signifies the attributes of fear and humility, as Yaakov embodied both love and fear. Yaakov's settling in the land of Canaan represents his transition to embodying the attribute of fear, which led to challenges in maintaining divine judgment. The mention of Eisav's descendants in the Torah is seen as negative forces that exist for the righteous to overcome and achieve greater heights. This aligns with the concept that one nation gains strength from another, emphasizing that negative forces ultimately serve to perfect the side of holiness.

Likutei Halakhot, Orach Chaim, Laws of Morning Conduct 4:16:1

INCREASING THE LIGHT Earlier (§11), Reb Noson explained that the basis of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerned the appropriateness of drawing down a perception of Godliness to those on the lowest spiritual levels. He now applies this subject to the opposition raised against the tzaddikim in his time—especially Rebbe Nachman—who devoted themselves to bringing even the most spiritually distant closer to HaShem. Now, the aforementioned dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerned drawing near to HaShem those people who are so very spiritually distant from Him that, strictly speaking, it would be unseemly to draw them close. There we saw that Beit Shammai states that we “keep decreasing” the number of lights in order to conceal the light from the spiritually distant so they will not be drawn closer to HaShem. Beit Hillel, however, states that we “keep increasing” the number of lights, because we need to fashion appropriate vessels and constrictions so as to illuminate with His light even the spiritually distant, so that they too will be drawn near.

Likutei Moharan 228:1:4

This is the explanation of “Yaakov settled in the area of his father’s meguray (dwelling)” (Genesis 37:1). The Midrash states: “his father’s meGuRaY”—he made converts, as his fathers had (Bereishit Rabbah 84:4) ; as if it were written “miGiyuRaY (of the converts) of his father.”

Likutei Moharan 47:2:1

2. The Land of Israel also receives essentially through the aspect of Yaakov, as is written (Genesis 37:1), “Yaakov lived in the Land.” This is why it is called “land of the living,” for tefilin are called life, as is written (Isaiah 38:16), “O God, [with these things] on them, they live.”

Likutei Moharan 59:5:14

As it is written concerning Avraham, “the souls they made.” Likewise, it is written (Genesis 37:1), “Yaakov settled in the area of his father’s megurey (dwelling)”; and the Midrash states: This teaches that Yitzchak would make GeiRim (converts)—this is “his father’s meGuRey” (Bereishit Rabbah 84:4). And of Yaakov it is written (Genesis 35:2), “Yaakov said to his family and to those who were with him”—i.e., the converts—“Get rid of the alien gods.”

Maggid Devarav leYaakov 1:3

Or one might say, the dwelling of his father implies that every thought is an entire world, and they are sparks of holiness. He gathers them to the root. This is the meaning of the dwelling of his father, indicating that he, figuratively, gathers his father. This is the interpretation of "The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous." It is like the analogy of a son who, through his actions, brings the intelligence of his father into these actions. Similarly, the righteous, figuratively, do this for the Holy One, blessed be He, like an image that all their intellect is what He, may He be blessed, thinks. If they think with love, they bring the Holy One, blessed be He, into the world of love, as stated in the Zohar: "The king is bound with knots of thoughts. And this is explained: He contracted His Divine Presence between the two cherubim, meaning the wings of the vision of the Shechinah (Divine Presence). The Holy One, blessed be He, governs just as He thinks, and the eye is called intelligence. Intelligence is in the hand of the righteous. But how do they merit this level through their thoughts? They are dust and cannot perform any action without the strength of the Holy One, blessed be He. Thus, what they do, the Holy One, blessed be He, does, for if not for Him, He alone can do nothing. This is the meaning of "And good news from a distant land," for He thinks from the land, which is a distant land from the domain of the Evil Inclination. "And good news shall fatten the bones," as our Sages said: "Israel sustains their Father in Heaven." This is similar to a person who is satisfied due to pleasure. Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, takes pleasure due to the actions of Israel, fattening the bones, meaning that He nourishes and delights His own essence in the chamber, which is He Himself. This is the interpretation of "And you shall be cherished," using the language of strength, as if we are sustaining Him, may He be blessed.

Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Genesis, Vayeshev 1

“And Yaakov dwelled ….” (Bereshit, 37:1) “And Yaakov shall return, and be quiet and contented, and none shall disturb him” (Yirmiya, 30:10). “And it shall be afterwards I will pour out my spirit … your elders shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions” (Joel, 3:1). All the actions done in the world seem to be the actions of flesh and blood, but ideas and thoughts seem to come from God. But in these Parshiot God teaches us that it is the actions are in the hands of God and thoughts come from man, and all the actions that man does are only those that he is given leave to do, as it is written in the Gemara (Berachot, 33b), “all is in the hands of Heaven.” So the performance of a commandment or the opposite is in the hands of God, and only occasionally does He make the performance of a commandment dependent on man. We find in the Gemara (Sotah, 10a), “on the incident of Yehuda and Tamar, where he said, ‘she is more righteous than I,’ ‘than I,’ ‘mimeni,’ also means ‘from Me.’ Our Rabbis interpreted this to mean that a Divine voice came out of heaven to say that the whole incident came forth from Me.” It is said concerning the dreams of Yosef haTsaddik that they were inconsequential daydreams (that thoughts are really from the side of man), and truly his brothers gave him this response when he told them his dream. When Yaakov Avinu dreamed his dream en route to Lavan, he investigated it and taught all the depth within it to the tribes, and they studied it, each time receiving new Torah insights into its nature, for so many deep Torah insights are contained in this dream. So when Yosef haTsaddik said to them that he also dreamed dreams as precious as his father’s, they answered him, “will you surely rule over us?” For how could you resemble our father, for is not our father in a state of awe and cleaving to God all day long, and for this God shows him the depths of the Torah in his dreams, for he is cleaving God even in his sleep. But you are not on this level, so all your dreams are inconsequential fancies, and through your desire for greatness and status you dream these dreams, for you have no greatness from the qualities of the fear of God or humility. Yaakov Avinu, on the other hand, was constantly engaging in Divine service through these qualities—fear—meaning that he saw how God watches over everything, as it is written (Tehilim, 33:14), “from Your dwelling place you watch” and “he does not sleep” (Tehilim, 121:4). And humility—meaning he did not find himself superior to any part of creation, for “the superiority of a man over a beast is naught.” This, “naught” ayin in Hebrew, means that even though that truly from God’s point of view there is a difference between man and beast, from man’s point of view there is no (ain) distinction. This is “and Yaakov dwelled in the land of his father’s sojourning,” signifying fear (Zohar Bereshit 180a), and the continuation, “in the land of Canaan,” means humility. (The name Canaan is similar to the word for humility or submissiveness, c’niya.) And as the Midrash says, “he asked to live in peace.” This particular kind of peace occurs when a man conducts himself in a way as to remove himself and to guard himself from all doubt and all evil action. Concerning this, God told him that as long as man is connected to his body, it is not possible to reach the highest levels of self-guarding, fear, and humility. This is because God desires the actions of man, and in this world one must conduct himself with love, which means to act in ways that are not in the highest state of refinement. This is the formulation of the verse in Yirmiya, “and Yaakov returned [shav],” similar to “He restores [yeshovev] my soul,” in the delight of the Torah. “And be quiet,” meaning on the level of Shabbat, “and strangers shall stand and tend your sheep,” (Yesahya, 61:5). “And content,” meaning in thought, not to fear from wars and transient events. “And none shall disturb you,” meaning that even in your sleep you shall cleave to God, and not to fear, for nothing shall cause you to withdraw from God. This was the accusation of the tribes against Yosef haTsaddik. He too conducted himself in the attribute of fear. On this it says in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabba, 84:8), “the light of his face was similar to Yaakov,” meaning that he delved deeply into these two attributes of fear and humility, in order that he could proceed in confidence. Thus it was said of him, “he was the son of his old age,” meaning that just as Yaakov Avinu conducted himself according to the attributes of Yitzchak Avinu, namely fear, so too did Yosef conduct himself with this attribute, and with humility, just like his father. For this reason God was also exacting with Yosef haTsaddik down to a hairsbreadth, for even though these attributes are good, one still needs to trust in God, for the actions done on the part of man are not an everlasting structure. Even though Yosef guarded himself greatly, and from him emerged all the kings of Israel who were called great, as it says in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabba, 84:14), “It was the custom of great men to wear sackcloth [to suffer], for Yehoram dressed in sackcloth,” yet still, it is said of them (Kings 1, 11:39), “yet not all the days.” This means that (even through all their suffering) an everlasting structure was not to be in their portion, but rather in the portion of Yehuda. Even though he (Yosef) acted so his righteousness would stand in the world throughout the 6,000 years (until the redemption), still, the everlasting structure was the portion of Yehuda. And Yosef haTsaddik continually voiced the complaint—why is it that God causes all the actions of my brother Yehuda to succeed, yet with me, the Holy One, blessed be He, is exacting down to a hairsbreadth? So, in an answer to his query, God showed him the example of the wine steward and the baker. Every king has two attendants, one a wine steward and the other a baker. Truly, with the wine steward, if the king finds a fly in his cup it is not proper to punish him, for what could he do? The fly is an independent living creature, and if once the cup has been passed to the king the fly decides to land into the cup, then it is not possible to guard from it. Yet with the baker, if there is a pebble in the bread, isn’t it his fault, for the pebble is not a living being and he could have prevented it? In this God shows Yosef that he corresponds to the baker, for God established him in a bright and clean place over against Eisav, in order that Eisav would not have any room for accusation. This is why established Yosef against him, clean in all respects, as it is written (Ovadiah, 1:18), “and the house of Yosef is a flame [and the house of Eisav straw … and they shall devour them].” He gave him strength to be able to overcome all his desires. Then if some impure aspect comes to him from without, it is counted against him as a crime. Only out of God’s love for Yosef did He put another man in his place, and kill the baker, as it is written (Yesahya, 43:4), “and I will give men in your place.” From this he understood the matter. Yehuda corresponds to the wine steward, for King David is called “the King’s jester” (Zohar Shemot, 107a), and the songs of David are sung over the wine libation offerings. Truly, with Yehuda, concerning the incident with Tamar and all the happenings of the tribe of Yehuda similar to this, God instilled them with such a great power of desire that it was not even within their power to overcome it. As it is explained (Bereshit Rabba, 85:9), “the angel in charge of desire forced him.” Therefore it was not his fault that he could not overpower his inclination to evil. This is the meaning of “the King’s jester,” meaning that he lets God win over him, as King David said (Tehilim, 51:6), “in order that You should be shown right in Your word,” let whoever it pleases You to be right, You or I.

Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Genesis, Vayeshev 3

“And Yaakov returned to the land of his father’s sojourning, in the land of Canaan.” (Bereshit, 37:1) In this Parsha we find the first fine spiritual birrurs (birrurim) that occurred internally within Israel. Avraham Avinu was the root of the attribute of love, for he separated out all the kinds of love in the world that were not love solely given over to God’s will. Yitzchak Avinu was already refined in this attribute, for he was born from Avraham Avinu after he had refined himself with all such birrurs. So his attribute was only to refine fear, that is, to disencumber fear from any variety that is not the fear of God alone. With Yaakov Avinu, these two attributes were already well refined, and all of his dealings were in the attribute of tiferet—beauty (balance, splendor), termed the “middle bolt,” (See Shemot, 36:33) to arrange fear in its proper place and time, and so too with love. In the days of Avraham Avinu the depth of the preciousness of the Jewish people was not yet clearly recognized, and also in the days of Yitzchak, therefore they had to refine themselves from the attributes of the nations and to separate themselves from their power. This was not so with Yaakov Avinu, who had the twelve tribes of Yeshurun, who were all in their proper place, and not one deviated from God’s will. Here, all his efforts were to refine them among themselves, to clarify who would come first and who would come after. This too caused Yaakov Avinu suffering, for he asserted that Yosef was the chosen one. Yosef also thought this. These are the fine internal birurim that occurred within Israel, and will be explained further.

Noam Elimelekh, Sefer Bereshit, Vayeshev 1:1

And Yaakov settled in the land where is father dwelled etc. It seems to me that in combination with the verse "may there be peace in your walls, harmony in your palaces" (Ps. 122:7) that there is in the Gemarah "From the day that the Holy One of Blessing created the world there was no person who called him “Adon” until Abraham came and called him Adon" (Berakhot 7b) - and at the surface, why is it remarkable in that that he called God "Adon"? Yet, see that we need to unify the names Havaya"h and Ad-nai and then God's Blessed Name is called Adon, through what we sing "El Adon over all His Deeds", that "El" is Chesed as it is written "El's faithfulness [chesed] never fails" (Ps. 52:3), and through our unifying of the Blessed Name we cause and continue lovingkindness [chasadim] and compassion to the world, and this is "El", meaning, when we arouse lovingkindnesses through our unifying of God's Blessed Name then God is "Adon over all His deeds". And this is "and YHV'H in His holy abode— be silent before Him all the earth" (Habakuk 2:20), that the name Adona'i is the abode for the name Havaya'h, Blessed, as known. And at the moment that we unify God's great name in the holy abode, that is, the unification in the name Adona'i, "all the earth is silent", that is "has" [silent] in gematria is 'Adona'i' that is, then God was called Adon over all the earth.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 11:3

The Midrash explains that Yaakov's gathering with his sons protected him from Eisav. The Mishna (Avot 4:11) states, "Any gathering for the sake of Heaven will endure." While Yaakov faced many struggles and was away in Padan Aram, Eisav lived comfortably in Canaan. However, Eisav eventually left because of Yaakov, as his intentions were not for the sake of Heaven. Yaakov, despite his hardships, ultimately settled in the land of his fathers, showing that his journey was always intended for a higher purpose. The Mishnah (Avot 5:17) also teaches that any argument for the sake of Heaven will endure, suggesting that Yaakov's disputes with Eisav and Lavan were ultimately for a righteous purpose. This is evident as Yaakov's intentions were revealed to be for the sake of Heaven, ensuring his actions had lasting significance. The pasuk from Yeshaya 57:13, "When you call out, you will be saved," indicates that everything depends on intention. For Bnei Yisrael, help can always be found, especially when intentions are pure. When salvation comes through gathering, it signifies that the intention was for the sake of Heaven. The pasuk (Bereishis 37:1) states, "Yaakov dwelt in the land of his fathers - מגורי אביו," alluding to the connection back to the source, similar to the concept of Shabbos. Just as Yaakov now rested, when the effort of the weekdays is directed towards Shabbos, it is considered a gathering for the sake of Heaven. This gathering also refers to future generations, as the actions of the forefathers impact all generations. The forefathers' actions became Torah, teaching Bnei Yisrael, and their traversed places retained remnants of their holiness. The Midrash also explains Yaakov's lack of rest from Lavan, Eisav, Dina, and Yosef, symbolizing the four kingdoms that ruled over Bnei Yisrael. The lengthy exile is attributed to the sin of selling Yosef, emphasizing that our hatred towards one another has caused a wound in the source of the tribes, bearing the suffering of their sins.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 13:3

“And Yaakov dwelt in the land—מגורי of his fathers” (Bereishis 37:1). The Zohar explains that the word מגורי is an expression of fear. Our sages teach that each of our forefathers had a unique trait: Avraham embodied love and kindness, Yitzchak embodied fear, and Yaakov combined both. Until this stage, Yaakov primarily operated in the realm of Avraham’s loving kindness, which is associated with travel and spreading holiness, as seen in Avraham's commandment "Lech Lecha." Love and kindness extend beyond obligation and help bring those who are distant closer, making Hashem's name beloved through one's actions (Yuma 86a). Now, Yaakov transitioned to embodying the fear of Yitzchak. Just as Yitzchak was commanded not to leave Eretz Yisrael, Yaakov settled in the land. While pursued by Eisav, Yaakov was in the mode of Avraham’s loving kindness, drawing out sparks of holiness. Once this was complete, Yaakov shifted to the attribute of fear, which might explain why the “anger of Yosef” emerged. Yaakov, now dealing with divine judgment, found it challenging to maintain this state, as true completion requires a blend of divine judgment and mercy.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 7:4

Rashi (Bereishis 37:1), citing the Midrash Tanchuma (Vayeshev 1), compares the mention of Eisav's descendants to a gem that fell into sand. One sifts through the sand (Eisav's descendants) to find the gem (Yaakov and Bnei Yisrael). The Torah details the generations from Noach to Avraham to establish Avraham’s lineage, but why list Eisav's descendants, who were born after Yaakov? The explanation is that Yaakov's perfection came through overcoming these negative forces. The Torah first lists the kings of Edom (Bereishis 36:31) and then states "And Yaakov dwelt" (Bereishis 37:1). This sequence shows that the negative forces exist so the righteous can overcome them and achieve greater heights. This aligns with "And one nation will get strength from another nation" (Bereishis 25:23). Eisav’s power exists only to perfect the side of holiness. Thus, Eisav’s strength comes from Yaakov. When negative forces dominate, their true purpose isn't clear. The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 1:140) likens this to chaff boasting that the field was planted for it. Yet, when the wheat is fully grown, the chaff is blown away. The chaff does protect the wheat, but this becomes clear only once the wheat is fully developed.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 8:3

The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 84:1) explains the pasuk, "And Yaakov dwelt in the lands of his fathers" (Bereishis 37:1), emphasizing that the gathering of Yaakov and his sons saved him from Eisav. Our existence revolves around mending divisions within the world. Thus, our souls engage in various pursuits, contributing to the restoration of all things through our involvement. Final reparation, however, comes through nullification to the source, which is the essence of teshuva. When a person returns to their source and regrets their separation from holiness due to involvement in worldly matters, they can repair everything through the power of teshuva. The gathering and nullification were also due to Yaakov's prior efforts. As our sages teach (Megillah 6b), "If one says I toiled and I found [succeeded], you can believe him." This toil during the weekdays merits the rest of Shabbos. Yaakov's efforts during his travels out of Eretz Yisrael led him to return to "the land where his fathers dwelt," symbolizing nullification to the source. This is why the pasuk states, "These are the descendants of Yaakov; Yosef." The effort in toiling in Torah represents Yaakov, and if done with truth, it leads to Yosef, symbolizing gathering and addition. When one connects all power to oneness, they gain more strength from the source, akin to the unity experienced on Shabbos, "when everything is united with the secret of Oneness."

Torah Ohr, Vayeshev 1:1

And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father's sojournings, in the land of Canaan." To understand this matter, consider the repetition of the phrase "in the land of his father's sojournings, in the land of Canaan." It is written, "I walk before the Lord in the lands of the living." There are two lands that serve as vessels for drawing inspiration for higher life (and just as 'life' is a plural term, so are 'lands'). The explanation of this matter requires understanding why the Land of Canaan is referred to throughout the Torah as Eretz Yisrael. Indeed, Ham is the father of Canaan, and what is the significance of Eretz Yisrael being associated with this (also to understand what is meant by 'Canaan in his control with deceptive scales')? Also, what is written, 'And there shall be no Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day'? It is known that the entire Torah is alluded to in this, as opposed to that. Just as Laban and Esau are in the realm of impurity, and likewise, the minister of slaughter, and the minister of libations, etc., so are all these aspects within holiness, for this contrasts with that which God has made.

Commentary

The verse "And Jacob dwelt in the land of his fathers" contrasts Jacob's settling in the land of Canaan as a stranger with Esau's permanent possession of Mount Seir. This highlights Jacob's choice to dwell in the Chosen Land, fulfilling God's promise to Abraham and Isaac. The verse also emphasizes that Jacob alone will be considered the progeny of Abraham and Isaac, as opposed to Esau. Jacob's settling in Canaan is seen as an acknowledgment of his goodness and his decision not to inherit land like Esau, but to continue living as a sojourner. The repetition of details in the verse serves to highlight the significance of Jacob's settlement in the land where his fathers had sojourned.

Alshekh on Torah, Genesis 37:1:1-6

And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father's sojournings, etc." This verse seems disconnected, neither relating upward nor downward. The Sages in Bereishit Rabbah (64:4) explained that Jacob sought to dwell in peace, but Joseph's coat kindled his anger. It was not enough for the righteous to have what is prepared for them in the World to Come; rather, "and etc." shows that the verse connected it to what follows. Yet, their statement remains challenging because, is it not punishment for the righteous to seek peace in this world, not to mention a stranger being considered like a serpent? Why should one not enjoy the fruits of Torah and commandments in this world, with the principal awaiting in the World to Come? I have heard it said that this is explained by the phrase, "He pleaded with him," not saying "he desired." Even good is received from God, but one should not seek it and pursue it. The knowledgeable in Midrashim might occasionally say "seek" instead of "desire." However, I think the explanation relates to not judging enough. It is appropriate to pay attention to what is corrected for them, not what is prepared for them, and similar expressions. It is not a term preserving correction, signifying what was lacking correction. Indeed, we find several righteous individuals who refrained from enjoying the fruits of Torah and commandments specially designated for consumption in this world, such as Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, and others. Concerning their sayings, the Torah says before the Holy One, blessed be He: "It has wealth and honor, why does the poor suffer?" He replied, "Let them inherit lovers," etc. What is the answer? He will inherit them with a permanent fund in the World to Come, and the fruits in this world. However, God says, "If I let them eat the fruits in this world, their fruits will go to waste in the vain that is the goodness of this world, not in what has substance; therefore, I will make a permanent fund from their fruits for the World to Come." This is what it says here, "Jacob sought, etc." Perhaps you would ask, "Does Jacob lack in sitting in tents what he should consume of the fruits in this world?" To this, I would say that it is not enough for the righteous to have what is corrected for them from the fruits of their deeds, which are the goodness of this world and become spiritual good. There is no greater correction than this. However, they also seek good in this world. And in a straightforward manner, it is also connected to what will be said below, "to Shem his son." But on this, we recall our commentary on the well-known verse, "Know well that your seed will be strangers," etc. It is fitting to pay attention to the entry in singular form and the exit in plural form. So, it is stated in "you will dwell" but "and they will afflict." However, it instructs that the mockery begins with the four hundred years. This is because there are two aspects to the sojourning: there is sojourning in general, and there is self-imposed servitude and affliction. He said, "Know well that there are two types of knowledge. One is that the sojourner, who is a wanderer in the world, will be your seed. This is the seed that will be a stranger before it enters the general multiplicity. However, upon reaching the general multiplicity, it will become enslaved. When they become numerous and are oppressed, they will count the years from when they were in Egypt. Among the sojourning and the servitude, they total four hundred years.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:1:1

וישב יעקב, “Yaakov settled down;” this is recorded as something parallel to Esau’ settling down having been reported in Mount Seir in Genesis 36,8. After Esau having settled on what is now ancestral land for him. ( ואתן לעשו את הר שעיר, “I have given to Esau Mount Seir.) (Joshua 24,3) Yaakov is now described as having done something similar on the land promised by G-d to Avraham and his descendants commencing with Yitzchok and Yaakov. G-d had renewed this promise to Yaakov during his first vision in which he saw a ladder to heaven. Both Avraham and Yitzchok had only lived on that soil as sojourners, מגורי אביו; Yaakov’s claim was based on the law of the birthright, something he had purchased from Esau. At this time, when Esau went to the land of Seir, he went as an alien.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:1:2

בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען, “in the land in which his father sojourned, in the land of Canaan.” The Torah had to write both these details, even though it is common knowledge that Yitzchok never set foot on soil outside the land of Canaan. If the Torah had only mentioned the words מגורי אביו, “where his father had sojourned,” we would not know to which land it referred. In fact I might have thought that the Torah speaks about Ur Casdim where Avraham had sojourned for many years. If the Torah had only written: בארץ כנען, “in the land of Canaan,” I would not have known near which city Yaakov settled.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:1:3

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו. “Yaakov settled in the land his fathers had sojourned in.” The entire line was written in order to show that G-d had kept his promise to both Avraham and Yitzchok, and that one of their descendants had already not only sojourned in this land but had settled in it, and had acquired land in it through purchase. (33,19) In fact the expression ישיבה, referring to being settled did appear in connection with both Avraham and Yitzchok, as we know from 26,12, and 13,18.

Chomat Anakh on Torah, Genesis 37:1:1

The word "וישב" (And he settled) is composed of the same letters as the names Joseph, Dinah, Esau, and Laban. Our Rabbi Ephraim, may his memory be blessed, in his commentary, interpreted it cryptically. It is worth examining why these specific letters were chosen. It is possible that these letters, which allude to troubles, hint at the salvation because they spell out "ישוב" (settlement), indicating that ultimately there was settlement for him, and God placed peace for him from all his troubles. Since, in the end, he had settlement, significant like those, all his days were in a state of settlement, as our Sages mentioned. It also hints that "וישב" is a notarikon for "יסורין בתחילה ולבסוף שלוה" (suffering in the beginning and peace in the end).

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:1:1

AND JACOB DWELT. The Bible tells us (In the previous chapter, verse 8.) that the chiefs of Esau dwelt on the mountain of Seir but that Jacob dwelt in the chosen land. (The purpose of our verse is to teach us that Jacob, in contrast to Esau, dwelt in the land of Israel.)

Mizrachi, Genesis 37:1:1

... And that which he says, "and discards the pebbles," has no relation to the comparison; but it is rather only the end of the parable (a tangential detail). 

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:1:1

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. Jacob settled down in the land where his father sojourned, the land of Canaan. At first glance the entire verse seems superfluous seeing we have read in 35,27 that Jacob returned to Kiryat Arba the town where his father and grandfather had lived. As long as Jacob did not leave that town again, why did the fact that Jacob had settled there have to be repeated? Besides, why did the Torah have to say both: a) in the land his father sojourned, and b) the land of Canaan? If the Torah only wanted to pinpoint the place all that was necessary was the word "in Chevron." We already know that both Abraham and Isaac had lived there.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:1:2

However, since the Torah told us in the preceding paragraph that Jacob's brother Esau inherited the land of Se-ir thanks to the merit of his fathers, the Torah also had to tell us what Jacob's heritage was. The entire verse is an acknowledgment of Jacob's goodness. Although he had noted that his brother had inherited the land of Har Se-ir (see my commentary on 35,12), he, Jacob did not do so but was content to continue on the basis of his fathers who had merely considered themselves as sojourning on that land, i.e. he still viewed it as ארץ כנען.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:1:3

Another possibility is that it is called here the land of Canaan which had been given to Jacob by G'd as an inheritance although he personally conducted himself there as if he were only an alien until the trouble with Joseph happened. This is one of the meanings of: "These are the developments of Jacob, Joseph." It means that effectively, the history of the development of the Jews as a people began with the sale of Joseph, the subsequent descent into Egypt, how G'd redeemed them from there and kept His promise and how they eventually inherited the land of Caanan.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:1-2

אל תגזול דל כי דל הוא ואל תדכא עני בשער, כי ה’ יריב ריבם וקבע את קובעיהם נפש, "Do not rob the poor for he is poor; do not oppress the poor in the gate, for the Lord will fight their battle, He will put in their place those who tried to put them in their place" (Proverbs 22,22-23) In the two verses quoted above Solomon informed us of the penalty for stealing from the poor. It is well known that there are four categories of people concerning whom the Torah has expressed especial concern, asking people to be merciful towards them and not to inflict any harm upon them. They are: the poor, the orphans, the widows and the proselytes. Indeed we find that the Torah expresses a warning against discrimination against the aforesaid in one and the same verse in Deuteronomy 16,14 where we read: ושמחת בחגיך, אתה ובנך ובתך ועבדך ואמתך והלוי והגר והיתום והאלמנה אשר בשעריך. “You are to rejoice on your festival, you, your son, your daughter, your male servant and your maid servant, the proselyte, the orphan and the widow in your cities.” Our sages as quoted by Rashi comment: “these four are Mine (G’d speaking). If you will give joy to those who are Mine, I will provide joy for those that are yours.” Mention of the Levites is equivalent to mentioning the poor as the Levites have no source of income other than the generosity of the Jewish farmer. G’d Himself is their portion as we read in Numbers 18,20 אני חלקך ונחלתך, “I am your share and your inheritance.” When the Torah legislated the treatment of the poor it did so both as a positive as well as a negative commandment. It is written (Deut. 15,10) נתון תתן, “you shall surely give (repeatedly),” (15,8) “and you shall repeatedly open your hand for him (the poor).” The negative counterpart of this commandment is found side by side (15,10), לא ירע לבבך בתתך לו, “your heart must not feel bad when you give him.” We also find another basic aspect of this commandment in Deut. 15,7 לא תאמץ את לבבך ולא תקפוץ את ידך מאחיך האביון, “do not harden your heart or close your hand against your destitute brother.” Seeing that the Torah legislated against stealing altogether already in the Ten Commandments as well as in Leviticus 19, 19,13, there was no need to stress a prohibition against stealing from the poor. The instruction to give to the poor would have been sufficient to make it plain that it is forbidden to steal from the poor instead of giving to the poor. The fact that the Torah nonetheless writes words prohibiting this prompted Solomon to tell us that the penalty for stealing from the poor is far harsher than that for stealing from ordinary people. It was not Solomon’s habit to repeat commandments which have been spelled out in the Torah already and to simply repeat them in his volume משלי, Proverbs. Whenever he does so, he does so only in order to reveal an additional dimension to such a commandment. After all, who is so great that he could arrogate to himself to add to the Torah something Moses had not already thought of or been told by G’d to write down? Solomon, in common with later sages, only added “fences” to the Torah, i.e. warned against conduct which might lead to infringing Biblical commandments. This is why he said: “do not steal from the poor because he is poor,” i.e. stealing from him is so commonplace seeing that the poor is defenseless, that we must be warned not to exploit his weakness. The poor does not have protagonists such as the rich have. Everybody hates the poor and keeps his distance from him, even his relatives. This is why Solomon emphasises that the temptation to steal from the poor is great precisely “because he is poor.” Solomon therefore warns us not to think that because the poor do not have defenders of flesh and blood that they are without recourse. On the contrary, G’d Himself is their advocate and will see to it that they do not suffer because they are being exploited due to their poverty. He will go out of His way to administer punishment to anyone who steals from the poor. Contrary to the penalty for thieves who do not steal from the poor specifically, whose penalty the Torah expressed in terms of financial restitution and penal charges, someone who steals from the poor will endure chastisement of body and soul. This is the meaning of the words וקבע את קובעיהם נפש, “he will put in their places those who have tried to put the poor in their place.” The Torah warns us in many places not to disadvantage orphans and widows, i.e. כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, ”do not oppress any orphan or widow” (Exodus 22,21). Our sages in the Mechilta comment on this verse: “even the widow of a king (presumably wealthy and influential) is included in this commandment.” The same applies to children of a king left orphaned. The reason is that in spite of their financial resources, the state of mind of such widows and orphans is one of melancholy and they are apt to cry at the slightest provocation. It is unfortunately a fact of life that people do take advantage of orphans and widows. The Torah goes on to say: אם ענה תענה אותם.....והרגתי אתכם בחרב והיו נשיכם אלמנות ובניכם יתומים, “if indeed you will persecute them..then I will kill you and your wives will become widows and your children orphans.” The Torah conditions this harsh punishment on the assumption that the victim cried out to G’d for vengeance. Generally speaking, people faced with unfair treatment put their faith in seeking recourse from a human tribunal. The orphan and widow have no other recourse than G’d Himself. This is why G’d listens specifically to their outcries and fights their battles for them. Solomon also addresses the plight of orphans and widows in this chapter, and this is why he said (Proverbs 23,10-11) אל תסג גבול עולם, ובשדי יתומים אל תבא. כי גואלם חזק. הוא יריב את ריבם אתך. “Do not remove ancient boundary marks; do not encroach upon the field of orphans. For they have a powerful redeemer; he will fight their battles against you.” The Torah also takes up the plight of the proselytes (strangers, immigrants to the land of Israel) on many occasions For instance, we find in Exodus 22,20 וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים. “And do not taunt or oppress a stranger (convert) for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” The Torah cites an additional reason for treating the proselyte fairly when it writes (Exodus 23,9) כי אתם ידעתם את נפש הגר, “for you are familiar with the mentality of the stranger.” Significantly, the Torah did not speak of your “knowing the stranger,” but of your being familiar with נפש הגר, the soul, the mentality of the stranger. You know that the mentality of strangers is one of feeling subdued, humbled, etc., so that his eyes are constantly turned towards G’d seeing he lacks in self-confidence. The Talmud (Baba Metzia 58) speaks of the prohibition of reminding a proselyte or even his son of his former deeds or the deeds of his father. When such a proselyte comes to study Torah one is not to say to him: “ how can the mouth which used to enjoy all manner of forbidden foods presume to qualify to study the holy Torah.” The reminder of the Torah that when the Jewish people were still enslaved in Egypt their status was not superior to the recent proselyte is an example of the Rabbinic dictum מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך, “do not speak to your fellow man about a blemish as long as you yourself are afflicted with a similar blemish.” (Baba Metzia 59). In fact we find that the righteous themselves are referred to as גרים, strangers, the expression גר being derived from גרגיר, something that has been separated from its origin. The righteous is in the habit of viewing himself as distinctive, a loner, in the sense that he is different from the majority. For instance, he does not view his residence on this earth as something other than temporary. This is what King David had in mind when he said (Psalms 119,19) “I am only a stranger on earth, do not hide Your commandments from me.” He viewed himself as a tourist who has already been invited to commence a journey though he does not know the time of departure. Seeing that he does not know when he will depart, he must accumulate provisions for his journey to guard against a sudden and unprepared departure. What do these “provisions” consist of? The observance of G’d’s commandments. This is what David meant when he asked G’d not to hide His commandments from him. We also note that all of the patriarchs have been referred to as גרים on different occasions. Avraham said of himself (Genesis 23,4) “I am a stranger or a resident stranger amongst you” when he prepared to buy a burial ground for Sarah. Yitzchak was commanded by G’d to remain in the land of Canaan during the famine, albeit as a stranger. The wording is גור בארץ הזאת, “sojourn in this land on a temporary basis” (Genesis 26,3). Yaakov is referred to as a stranger in our verse (first verse of our portion וישב) as well as in Genesis 47,4 and when he described his long stay at Lavan’s as that of a stranger in Genesis 32,5.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:3-4

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען, "Yaakov settled in the land in which his fathers had lived as sojourners, in the land of Canaan." The Torah uses the term וישב, i.e. permanent residence, instead of ויגר, “he sojourned (as a stranger)“ in order to create a parallel with Esau who had been described as securely settled in the mountains of Seir in 36,8. Esau was so described as we were told about the kings, etc., which he established in his country starting at that time. His descendants remained on the same soil never to migrate again. The Torah had to contrast this with the fact that Yaakov took undisputed possession of a part of the (subsequent) land of Israel for the first time. Such possession is here described by the words וישב. His tenure is contrasted with that of either Avraham or Yitzchak, who a) lived there as nomads, b) as individuals, not having produced a clan of 70 people plus their in-laws as had Yaakov. At the same time the Torah also refers to the temporary status of the patriarchs in the land of Canaan by saying ארץ מגוריהם אשר גרו שם, (Exodus 6,4) where all of the patriarchs were referred to as only sojourning in that land. The fact is that whereas Avraham had been a first generation immigrant, both Yitzchak’s mother and Yaakov’s mother as well as the mothers of all of his children had been born outside the Holy Land thus making also their children “strangers,” at least technically. According to Midrash Tanchuma 1 on our portion, examination of the occurrence of the word וישב throughout the Torah will reveal that this term is always used when some unhappy event was associated with such “settlement.” The following examples illustrate the point. Exodus 32,6 speaks of וישב העם לאכול ושתו ויקומו לצחק, “the people settled down to eat and to drink and they arose to make sport (worship the golden calf).” On that day three thousand of the people were slain on account of this sin). Genesis 37,25 reports that after throwing Joseph into the pit, וישבו לאכול לחם וישאו עיניהם והנה אורחת ישמעלים באה.....וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “when the brothers had settled down to eat their meal they raised their eyes and here a caravan of Ishmaelites arrived,......and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites.” In Kings I 5,5 we read וישב יהודה וישראל בטח,...ויקם ה' שטן לישראל, “when Yehudah and Israel had settled safely,...G’d made an adversary against Solomon” (11,14) [as a punishment for transgressing certain commands in the Torah, Ed.] In Numbers 25,1 we read וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “when the Israelites settled down at a place called Shittim, the people started debasing themselves by whoring” (with the Moabite women which resulted in G’d killing 24,000 of them). In our instance too Yaakov’s “settling” in the land of Canaan had in its wake his traumatic experience of the loss of Joseph. G’d had said (according to the Midrash) “is Yaakov not satisfied with inheriting the world to come that he must now also inherit this terrestrial world. It is not appropriate for the righteous to enjoy the best of both worlds.” According to Tanchuma when Yaakov became aware of the extent of the kings and chiefs listed in the Torah as descendents of from Esau he became worried about not having anything to counter such physical prowess of the Edomites. The matter may be explained in the form of a parable. A caravan of camels was heavily laden with straw. The onlookers could not imagine that there were storage facilities large enough to accommodate all this straw and they were worried that the owners would demand their own (the onlookers’) facilities to accommodate all that excess straw. An old man amongst the onlookers told his compatriots not to worry seeing that it would require only a single match to set fire to the entire mass of straw carried by the camels. Similarly, G’d put Yaakov’s mind at rest telling him that Esau would go up in flames just as straw would go up in flames. This is what the prophet Ovadiah 18 described when he compared the fate of the house of Esau and the fate of the house of Joseph in the future. The “match” in our instance would be Joseph, whose descendants would vanquish the descendants of Esau.

Radak on Genesis 37:1:1

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. We have already commented on the meaning of this on 35,27.

Ramban on Genesis 37:1:1

AND JACOB DWELT IN THE LAND OF HIS FATHERS. The meaning of the verse is that since Scripture had said that the chiefs of Esau dwelt in the land of their possessions (Above, 36:43, the concluding verse in the previous Sedra.) — that is to say, the land which they took to themselves as a possession forever — it now says that Jacob, however, dwelt as his father had, as a stranger in a land which was not their own but which belonged to the Canaanites. The purport is to relate that they (Isaac and Jacob.) elected to dwell in the Chosen Land, (A term denoting the Land of Israel. See Ramban above, 19:5.) and that G-d’s words to Abraham, That thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, (Above, 15:13.) were fulfilled in them but not in Esau, for Jacob alone shall be called their progeny. (“Their”: Abraham and Isaac.)

Rashbam on Genesis 37:1:1

וישב יעקב, whereas Esau had moved to another country on account of his brother Yaakov, Yaakov settled near his father in the land in which both he, his father, and his grandfather had only sojourned up until now. He claimed this right as the result of having purchased the birthright from his older brother.

Rashi on Genesis 37:1:1

וישב יעקב AND JACOB ABODE — After it (Scripture) has described to you the settlements of Esau and his descendants in a brief manner — since they were not distinguished and important enough that it should be related in detail how they settled down and that there should be given an account of their wars and how they drove out the Horites (see Deuteronomy 2:12) — it explains clearly and at length the settlements made by Jacob and his descendants and all the events which brought these about, because these are regarded by the Omnipresent as of sufficient importance to speak of them at length. Thus, too, you will find that in the case of the ten generations from Adam to Noah it states “So-and-so begat so-and-so”, but when it reaches Noah it deals with him at length. Similarly, of the ten generations from Noah to Abraham it gives but a brief account, but when it comes to Abraham it speaks of him more fully. It may be compared to the case of a jewel that falls into the sand: a man searches in the sand, sifts it in a sieve until he finds the jewel. When he has found it he throws away the pebbles and keeps the jewel (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1). Another explanation of וישב יעקב AND JACOB ABODE: The camels of a flax dealer once came into a city laden with flax. A blacksmith asked in wonder where all that flax could be stored, and a clever fellow answered him, “A single spark caused by your bellows can burn up all of it.” “So, too, when Jacob saw (heard of) all these chiefs whose names are written above he said wonderingly, “Who can conquer all these?” What is written after the names of these chieftains? — and in this may be found the reply to Jacob’s question: These are the generations of Jacob — Joseph. For it is written (Obadiah 1:18) “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau, for stubble: one spark issuing from Joseph will burn up all of these (descendants of Esau) (Genesis Rabbah 84:5). The passage beginning “Another explanation” is found in an old Rashi text.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:1:1

(1-2) ישב und גור sind gewissermaßen Gegensätze. ישב verwandt mit יצב .יצב: feststehen, und zwar, dem צ-Laut gemäß, mit einer Hindernisse überwindenden Energie. ישב, dem ש-Laut gemäß: ein natürliches, ruhiges, hindernisloses Weilen: Sitzen. גור hingegen ist das Weilen an einem Orte, wo man nicht hingehört, keinen Boden hat. (Daher auch, auf Seelenzustände übertragen: Halt verlieren, "sich entsetzen" fürchten). Da, wo seine Väter nur die flüchtige Wanderstätte gefunden, hoffte Jakob nun, nach so vielen Wanderungen, sich ruhig niederlassen zu können; war es ja das Land Kanaan, das eigentlich für seine ruhige Entfaltung verheißene Land. Allein die Zeit war im Gottesrate noch nicht da. Vielmehr stehen wir hier erst an: תלדות יעקב. Bis hierher, wo er sich als selbständiger Familienvater niederließ, gehörte er selbst noch zumeist zu תולדות יצחק, war mehr passiv, bedingt durch Jizchaks Familiengeschichte. Jetzt erst beginnt der weitere Fortschritt der jüdischen Geschichte durch ihn und sein Haus. —

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:1:2

בן שבע עשרה שנה, wir sind alle Söhne unserer zurückgelegten Lebensjahre. Sie sind, bewusst und unbewusst, unsere bildenden Mütter und Erzieher. — בצאן ist nicht Objekt von רעה, sondern Ortsbestimmung: als Hirte befand er sich mit seinen Brüdern bei den Schafen. Nur die Tagesarbeit des "Berufes" führte ihn mit den Brüdern, den Söhnen Leas, zusammen. Aber "Jüngling" war er, sein Jugendleben und Jugendstreben entfaltete er mit den Söhnen der שפחות, die nicht seine "Brüder"; sondern die Söhne "der Frauen seines Vaters" genannt werden. Wir haben also einen mutter- und geschwisterlosen Jüngling vor uns. Alle anderen wuchsen im Verein mit Geschwistern, unter dem Fittich und dem Einflusse mütterlicher Liebe heran. Josef stand allein. Die Mutter war ihm früh dahingegangen und hatte nur ihn zurückgelassen. Benjamin war noch Kind, kein Genosse für den Jüngling. Bei den Stiefbrüdern fühlte er sich nicht recht heimisch, und sich mehr zu den Söhnen der שפחות hingezogen, zu denen — vielleicht — auch Eitelkeit ihn führte. Wir haben schon oben bei dem Entgegentreten zu dem gefürchteten Onkel den Unterschied zwischen den גבירות und שפחות gesehen; wir glaubten wenigstens annehmen zu dürfen, daß bei diesen, wie emporgehoben sie auch als Gattinnen Jakobs waren, sich doch ein Gefühl der Unterordnung nicht ganz verlor. Das mag sich auch auf die Söhne übertragen haben. In Josef steckte der künftige Herrscher. Er war ein bißchen eitel und ein bißchen anmaßend. Natürlich hielt er sich lieber zu den Söhnen der שפחות, die sich ihm vielleicht etwas unterordneten, ihm vielleicht etwas schmeichelten.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:1:3

Es sollten freilich alle diese Gegensätze in einem jüdischen Hause nicht sein, es sollte das Pflichtgefühl und die gemeinsame Unterordnung unter ein göttliches Lebensziel und die gemeinsame Arbeit an der Lösung dieser einen Lebensaufgabe alle Unterschiede ausgleichen. Allein das Ideal eines jüdischen Hauses ist erst Produkt der Erziehung durch das göttliche Gesetz und das jüdische Geschick. Wenn das, seiner Anlage nach עז שבאומות, keineswegs das gefügigste Volk, in dessen Anlage sehr wohl auch das נוקם ונוטר lag, das wir in seinen Uranfängen sogar aus קנאה und שנאה Verbrechen üben sehen, wenn dieses Volk durch die ihm durch Geschick und Lehre gewordene Erziehung so gehoben worden, daß solche grobe Verbrechen wie ש"ד und ג"ע Jahrhunderte herab in seinem Kreise nicht gekannt waren; wenn es das humanste, bruderliebendste Volk geworden; wenn die Vorsehung es wagen konnte, es — wie das die kaum entschwundenen Zeiten erlebt — den Misshandlungen von Gesetzgebungen in die Arme zu werfen, die Jahrhunderte lang ganz geeignet waren, den heftigsten Zwiespalt, die trostloseste קנאה und שנאה in den Schoß des jüdischen Familienlebens zu säen, indem sie Söhne auf den Tod des Vaters, jüngere Brüder auf den Tod der älteren hinwiesen, Kinder zu nichts kommen konnten, so lange die Väter, jüngere Brüder zu nichts, so lange die älteren lebten, und so die natürlichsten Bande in Fluch und Hindernis verkehrten — und doch das jüdische Familienleben mit Eltern-, Kinder- und Geschwisterliebe glänzend wie der Diamant und rein wie die Perle aus solchen heißesten Versuchungen hervorgehen, und die jüdische עזות sich zur Felsentreue und Standhaftigkeit gegen alle Versuchungen und Verlockungen verklären konnte —: so ist das eben ein Triumph der תורה, ein Triumph des göttlichen Gesetzes, das nicht aus uns, sondern an uns gekommen und seinen ersten glorreichsten Sieg in Eroberung unserer selbst feiern sollte. —

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:1:4

דבה .דבתם von דבב, verwandt mit טפף: das Trippeln, das schwankende Gehen des Kindes, verstärkt תפף: die einzelnen, in sich nicht zusammenhängenden Töne des Paukenschlages. Auf Worte übertragen, ist es Gegensatz zu der zusammenhängenden und inhaltsvollen Rede, die תפר ,תור ,טור ,דור) ,דבר) und חמר ,עמר) אמר ausdrücken. Also mehr: Geschwätz, Gerede. Daher auch דובב שפתי ישנים: die schwankende Lippenbewegung der Rede eines aus dem Schlafe Erwachenden. Im engeren Sinne heißt es dann: die Bösrede, der nicht sowohl der innere als biel- mehr der äußere Zusammenhang mit der Wirklichkeit der Tatsachen fehlt. Es ist zweifelhaft, wie hier das דבתם zu verstehen sei. Entweder: Gerede über sie, was er von ihnen sah, hinterbrachte er dem Vater, und zwar nicht in entschuldigender Weise, sondern רעה, ohne sie דן לכף זכות zu sein. Oder: es bezieht sich das Suffix auf die unmittelbar vorhergehenden Söhne Bilhas und Silpas. Deren Geschwätz über die anderen Brüder hinterbrachte er in unfreundlicher Weise dem Vater.

Sforno on Genesis 37:1:1

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. In the same region of the land of Canaan in which his father had sojourned. Compare a similar verse in 35,27 אשר גר שם אברהם ויצחק, “where Avraham and Yitzchok had sojourned.”

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:1:1

After it has written for you concerning the settlements of Eisov and his descendants... Re’m explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture not write first ואלה תולדות יעקב..., and then וישב יעקב..., which is the same format that it writes about Eisov. First Eisov’s descendants are enumerated (36:1) and then it tells where they had settled. Rashi answers: “After it has written for you concerning the settlements of Eisov and his descendants...” In other words, Scripture’s purpose is not to enumerate Yaakov’s descendants [as it did with Eisov], but only to explain the settlements of Yaakov and his descendants; and how they settled. [Thus, this section connects to the previous one as regards to settling,] as also the section about Eisov explained his settlement and that of his descendants. For it is written (36:8), “Eisov settled in Mount Seir,” explaining his settlement. Then it describes his descendants, “These are the descendants of Eisov...” and the descendants of his wives. Then it explains the settling of his sons (vs. 40-43), “These are the names of the chiefs of Eisov, each with their families, according to their places... These are the chiefs of Edom according to their places of residence.” Thus for Yaakov, too, Scripture tells about his settlements and that of his descendants, as it is written וישב יעקב..., which means, “Yaakov settled...” Then it is written אלה תולדות יעקב..., meaning: these are the settlements of the descendants of Yaakov, too, like [Scripture explained regarding] the descendants of Eisov. For at this point the Torah begins to recount what happened to them until they came there [to settle the Land]. It begins with “Yoseif at the age of 17,” then his being sold to Egypt and their enslavement there, then the Exodus — this and that happened to them until they came to settle the Land.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:1

Unlike Esau, who left Canaan to settle on Mount Se’ir, Jacob settled, while his father was still alive, in the land of his father’s residence, in the land of Canaan.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:1:1

וישב יעקב, “Yaakov settled, etc.” [the author addresses the strange line “in a land in which his father had been a stranger, the land of Canaan.” Ed.] Seeing that the Torah previously had reported that Esau had settled in the mountains of Seir, whereas Yaakov and family had dwelled like strangers in a land in which their fathers had dwelled only as strangers, in a land which was not theirs, and the prediction to Avraham their founder that his descendants would remain strangers for 400 years in a land not theirs had been in effect for a long time already, the Torah reminds us that this prediction had been meant for Yaakov’s descendants specifically, seeing that Yaakov’s father Yitzchok had never left the Holy Land since birth. The Torah had to remind us that the land of Canaan was not yet considered a “homeland” for Yitzchok’s or Yaakov’s descendants.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 1-2

“Jacob was settled in the land where his fathers had sojourned” [37:1]. Bahya writes. This portion teaches us that the righteous person in the world is like a sojourner who has no relatives and no home, no field and does not think of anything other than to wander and must prepare provisions, since he does not know where he would travel. So too is the righteous person. He thinks about death all the time and prepares provisions for the journey. These are the good deeds. Therefore, the verse says, “Jacob was settled in the land where his fathers had sojourned” [37:1]. That is, he dwelled like a sojourner like his ancestors, who were also sojourners in the world who thinks about the next world. (Bahya, Genesis, Vayeshev, Introduction.) Scripture had mentioned the children of Esau briefly in the previous Torah portion because he did not want to speak at length about the evildoers. However, when it came to the children of Jacob, it goes on at length and explicitly about how the children of Jacob fared. A parable. A person lost a pearl in the sand. He takes a sieve and searches for the pearl. As soon as he finds the pearl, he throws away the sand and takes the pearl. So too, the Torah writes about the children of Esau briefly, but when it comes to the children of Jacob, it speaks at great length and explicitly about how the children fared. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:1.)

Midrash

The text discusses the importance of rebuking children to prevent them from straying into depravity, using examples of Ishmael, Esau, Avshalom, and Adoniya. It emphasizes that chastising children leads to love and respect, as seen in the cases of Abraham with Isaac and Jacob with his sons. The text also highlights the role of suffering in promoting righteousness and mentions how Jacob's settling in Canaan was significant in terms of his father's legacy and the eventual settlement in Egypt.

Aggadat Bereshit 58:1

Chapter (57) 58: Torah [1] And Jacob dwelt in the land (Genesis 37:1). This is what the scripture says: "The eternal God is thy dwelling-place, and underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deuteronomy 33:27). At that time, when Israel dwelt securely, he relied upon the Lord alone (Deuteronomy 33:28). You do not know who preceded, whether it was the dwelling place or the God who preceded, but then David came and explained through Moses, "A prayer of Moses, the man of God. 'O Lord, You have been our refuge in every generation.'" (Psalm 90:1), meaning that God never preceded His creatures, as it says, "Who hath first given to Me, that I should repay him?" (Job 41:3). "And underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deuteronomy 33:27). R. Berechiah said that the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Although I have created the world and maintain it, when there are righteous men below, it is as if they were maintaining the world," hence "underneath are the everlasting arms." "And He will thrust out the enemy from before thee, and say: Destroy" (Deuteronomy 33:27), this refers to Esau (and his chiefs), for it is written, "And Esau took his wives" (Genesis 36:6). "And He will thrust out" and rely upon the Lord alone, "and Israel dwelt securely" (Deuteronomy 33:28).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:1

“Jacob settled in the land of his father’s residence, in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 37:1). “Jacob settled” – it is written: “Your gathering will save you when you cry out” (Isaiah 57:13). It is taught: His gathering and the gathering of his sons saved him from Esau. (Although originally Jacob was forced to flee from Esau, when he returned with his sons and they gathered in prayer together, Jacob was able to settle in the Land of Israel while Esau left and settled elsewhere (Genesis 36:6–8). ) “But all of them the wind will carry off; futility will take them” (Isaiah 57:13) – this is Esau and his chieftains. “And the one who trusts Me will inherit the land” (Isaiah 57:13) – this is Jacob. “Jacob settled.”

Bereshit Rabbah 84:3

“If a lash causes death suddenly” (Job 9:23) – Antoninos asked Rabbeinu, (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) he said to him: ‘What is the meaning of what is written: “If a lash causes death suddenly”?’ Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: ‘[If you were to] decree that one should receive one hundred lashes and they would give him one hundred dinars. (If he is able to withstand all one hundred lashes, he will receive one hundred dinars. ) The total of this is the total of that, but he will not get anything from him, and in that way he makes a mockery of the one receiving the lashes. (The individual being lashed will not be able to withstand all of the lashes, and may even die, in which case he will not receive the dinars and will have suffered for naught. ) “He mocks at the undoing of the innocent” (Job 9:23) – Rav Aḥa said: When the righteous live in tranquility and seek to live in tranquility in this world, (It is the pursuit of tranquility, rather than the experience or enjoyment of tranquility, that is considered improper for the righteous (see Anaf Yosef). ) the accuser comes and accuses them. He says: Is what is prepared for them in the World to Come not sufficient for them, that they seek to live in tranquility in this world? Know that it is so; Jacob our patriarch, because he sought to live in tranquility in this world, was confronted by the accuser regarding Joseph. (The heavenly accuser caused him to suffer distress due to the sale of Joseph. ) “I was not tranquil, was not silent” (Job 3:26). “I was not tranquil” – from Esau; “was not silent” – from Laban. “And I did not rest” (Job 3:26) – from Dina. “But turmoil came” (Job 3:26) – the turmoil of Joseph came upon me.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:4

Another matter: “Jacob settled…” – Abraham converted proselytes. That is what is written: “Abram took Sarai his wife…[and the people that they had made in Ḥaran]” (Genesis 12:5). Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: Were all who entered the world to assemble, they would be unable to create even a small gnat, and you say: “And the people that they had made in Ḥaran”? Rather, these are the proselytes that Abraham converted. Why, then, did it say “made” and did not say “converted”? It is to teach you that anyone who draws a proselyte near, it is as though he created him. Lest you say that Abraham was converting [proselytes] and Sarah was not converting [them], the verse states: “And the people that they had made in Ḥaran.” It is not written here, “That he had made,” but rather, “that they had made.” Rabbi Ḥunya said: Abraham would convert the men, and Sarah would convert the women. Why does the verse state: “That they had made”? It teaches that Abraham would bring them into his house, feed them, give them to drink, draw them near, and bring them under the wings of the Divine Presence. (The expression “that they had made” implies physical action, which is not necessarily included in converting proselytes. The midrash explains that the phrase refers to the fact that Abraham and Sarah would invite them into their home, feed them, and give them to drink (Yefe To’ar). ) Jacob, too, converted proselytes, as it is written: “Jacob said to his household, [and to all who were with him: Remove the foreign gods that are in your midst, and purify yourselves].… They gave to Jacob [all the foreign gods that were in their possession]” (Genesis 35:2, 4). In Isaac’s regard we have not heard. Where did we hear? Rabbi Yitzḥak said, and some taught it in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya Rabba in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon: Here it is written: “Jacob settled in the land of his father’s residence.” What is [the meaning of] “his father’s residence [megurei]”? Those whom his father converted [migiyurei].

Bereshit Rabbah 84:5

What is written prior to this matter? “These are the kings [who reigned in the land of Edom before the reign of a king for the children of Israel]” (Genesis 36:31). And here it is written: “Jacob settled” – Rabbi Ḥunya said: This is analogous to one who was walking on the way and saw a pack of dogs. He was afraid of them and he sat in their midst. (Dogs pursue those who run, so he sat and did not run.) So, when our patriarch Jacob saw Esau and his chieftains, he feared them and settled in their midst. Rabbi Levi said: This is analogous to a blacksmith whose [forge] was open to a plaza, and his son, a goldsmith, opened opposite him. He saw many bundles of thorns being brought into the city. He said: ‘Where will all these bundles be stored?’ There was a certain clever man there. He said to him: ‘Are you afraid of these? One spark will emerge from your [forge] and one spark from your son’s, and you will burn them.’ So, when Jacob saw Esau and his chieftains, he was afraid. The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Are you afraid of these? One spark from you and one spark from your son will burn all of them. That is what is written: “The house of Jacob will be fire, and the house of Joseph a flame” (Obadiah 1:18) – “Jacob settled.” “This is the legacy of Jacob. Joseph, seventeen years old, was herding the flock with his brothers, and he was a lad with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives; Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). So said the Sages: “This is the legacy [toledot] of Jacob, Joseph” – all of these offspring [toladot] resulted only due to the merit of Joseph and because of him. Did Jacob not go to Laban only for Rachel? All these offspring were waiting until Joseph was born. (Jacob was afraid to return to his father in the land of Canaan, which would require him to confront Esau, until Joseph was born. ) That is what is written: “It was, when Rachel bore Joseph” (Genesis 30:25) – when the rival of that wicked one (Esau) was born, “Jacob said to Laban: Release me, and I will go” (Genesis 30:25). Who caused them to descend to Egypt? Joseph. Who supported them? Joseph. The sea was split only due to the merit of Joseph. That is what is written: “The waters saw You, God; the waters saw You and were frightened” (Psalms 77:17); “the depths sounded its voice” (Habakkuk 3:10); “with Your arm, You redeemed Your people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph” (Psalms 77:16). Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Shimon said: The Jordan, too, split only due to the merit of Joseph. Another matter: “Jacob settled” – so said the Sages: Jacob our patriarch did not enjoy settlement until he resided in his father’s residence. Which is that? It is the land of Canaan, as it was there that his father, Isaac, resided. Another matter: The numerical value of “residence [megurei]” is two hundred and fifty-nine (Mem – 40; gimmel – 3; vav – 6; resh – 200; yod – 10. Together they sum to 259.) – [corresponding to the years] from the day that the Holy One blessed be He said to Abraham: “Know [that your descendants shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs]” (Genesis 15:13) – until the time that Jacob our patriarch settled in the land of his father’s residence [megurei].

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sanhedrin 11:99

(Num. 25, 1) And Israel abode in Shittim. R. Jochanan said: "Wherever such an expression is to be found it brings infliction. And Israel dwelt in Shittim and the people began to commit incest; (Gen. 37, 1) And Jacob dwelt in the land of his fathers' sojournings, and Joseph brought evil reports of them unto their father. (Ib. 47, 27) And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen; and (Ib. 29) And the days of Israel drew near that he was to die. (I Kings 4, 5) And every man dwelt in safety, and (Ib. 11, 14) And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite."

Midrash Lekach Tov, Numbers 25:1:1

And Israel settled in Shittim. Balak and all his people of Pethor took counsel and said, "We have no choice but to seek the advice of Balaam." Balaam... Balaam gave his advice. Balak came to curse the people of Israel. It is written in one place (Joshua 24:9), "And he fought against Israel." And in another place (Judges 11:17), "If we fight with them." But he came to fight, and it did not go well. Immediately they went and entrusted their daughters, as our sages said regarding the "remembered above" matter. Therefore, it is said, "And Israel settled in Shittim, and the people began to commit sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab." And it says (Numbers 31:16), "These caused the children of Israel to sin." Weren't they brought from Midian? Rather, it teaches us that Midian and Moab were in this advice that Balaam gave in order to cause Israel to stumble. When Israel saw that Balaam had no power to curse them, they immediately fell into immorality, and 24,000 of them perished. "In Shittim" means that they engaged in foolishness. As it is also said (Proverbs 7:7), "The adulterous woman lacks sense." Another interpretation: "And Israel settled in Shittim." Whenever the term "settling" is mentioned, it is a language of distress. It is said regarding Cain (Genesis 4:16), "And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod." (Genesis 37:1) "And Jacob settled." Joseph was sold. (Exodus 32:6) "And the people sat down to eat and drink." And they handed over Joseph. (Exodus 32:6) "And the people sat down to eat and drink, and they got up to play." And Israel settled in Shittim, and there were deaths, and the people began to commit sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab. They made profane what was once holy. "The daughters of Moab" refers to the plains of Moab on the eastern side of the Jordan. For the wilderness of Jeshimon is to the west of the land of Moab, close to the Jordan, as it is a day's journey.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 1:1

(Gen. 37:1:) NOW JACOB DWELT IN THE LAND WHERE HIS FATHER HAD SOJOURNED, < IN THE LAND OF CANAAN >. This text is related (to Deut. 33:27): THE ETERNAL GOD IS A DWELLING PLACE. R. Jeremiah said: We do not know (from the Hebrew text of Scripture) whether a DWELLING PLACE is GOD or whether GOD is a DWELLING PLACE. (Gen. R. 68:9 states the problem more clearly: “We do not know whether the Holy One is the place for his world or whether the world is his place.” Similarly, M. Pss. 90:10.) When it says (in Ps. 90:1): A PRAYER OF MOSES, THE MAN OF GOD: O LORD, YOU HAVE BEEN OUR DWELLING PLACE, [here the Holy One is the dwelling place for his world and the world is not his place]. Although the Holy One created his world, he did not dwell in the land but a righteous one; (Cf. MS 1240 from the De Rossi library in Parma: “He did not dwell in the land with < the > righteous.” Perhaps the text should read: “He did not dwell in the land but with the righteous. So Y. Elman in a private communication.) and by their merit < such righteous > ones sustain the world, as stated (in Deut. 33:27, cont.): AND UNDERNEATH ARE THE ARMS OF THE WORLD. (English translations generally render ARMS OF THE WORLD as “everlasting arms,” but here the midrash views the merits of the righteous as supporting the world like the arms of the mythological Atlas.) Come and see how, during all the time the wicked are in the world, the righteous never appear. And so you find that, during all the time Esau was in the land of Israel, Jacob was unable to appear. Esau passed on, as stated (in Gen. 36:6): THEN ESAU TOOK HIS WIVES, < AND WENT INTO A LAND AWAY FROM HIS BROTHER JACOB >. Immediately (one reads in Gen. 37:1): NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >. Therefore, (according to Deut. 33:27, cont.): SO HE DROVE OUT THE ENEMY FROM BEFORE YOU. At that time (according to vs. 28): THUS ISRAEL DWELT SAFELY ALONE.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 2:1

[(Gen. 37:1:) NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >.] This text is related (to Is. 57:13): WHEN YOU CRY OUT, LET YOUR ASSEMBLED ONES SAVE YOU. What are they? These are the angels who were placed to guard him when he went away to go to Aram-Naharaim, since the angels who minister in the land of Israel do not minister outside the land, nor do those who belong outside the land < minister > in the land of Israel. (So above, 8:3.) So (in Gen. 28:12) Jacob saw < some > ascending and others descending to go abroad with him. Then, when he came to return, the Holy One summoned those angels who had ministered to him in the land. He said to them: Here is Jacob returning. Come on and let us go out for a meeting (Gk.: apante, according to the metathesis suggested by Buber and assumed in the Jastrow lexicon. On apante used for apantesis, see Jud. 4:22 (LXX).) with him {i.e., to the border}. To what is the matter comparable? To a king whose son went away overseas to take a wife. After some time he came to return to his father's house. The king said to his court (’PSYQYN, which probably represents the medieval Latin word for “court,” i.e., obsequium.) {i.e., to his army}: Come and let us go out for a meeting with my son. So, when Jacob came to return to the land of his father, the Holy One called the ministering angels. He said to them: Come and let us go out for a meeting with Jacob. As soon as Jacob raised his eyes, he saw the angels, as stated (in Gen. 32:2 [1]): SO JACOB WENT ON HIS WAY, AND THE ANGELS OF GOD MET HIM…. When Jacob saw them, where is it shown that they ministered to him in the land of Israel? Where it is stated (in vs. 3 [2]): WHEN JACOB SAW THEM, HE SAID: THIS IS GOD'S HOST. It is therefore stated (in Is. 57:13): WHEN YOU CRY OUT, LET YOUR ASSEMBLED ONES SAVE YOU. These < ASSEMBLED ONES > are the angels. (Ibid., cont.:) BUT THE WIND SHALL CARRY THEM ALL AWAY. (Gen. R. 84:1.) These are Esau and his lords, as stated (in Gen. 36:6): < THEN ESAU TOOK HIS WIVES >, AND WENT INTO A LAND AWAY FROM HIS BROTHER JACOB. (Is. 57:13, cont.:) YET THE ONE WHO TAKES REFUGE IN ME SHALL INHERIT THE LAND. This ONE is Jacob, as stated (in Gen. 37:1): NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 3:1

[(Gen. 37:1:) NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >.] This text is related (to I Chron. 29:15): FOR WE ARE SOJOURNERS BEFORE YOU [AND TRANSIENTS LIKE ALL OUR ANCESTORS]. So are the righteous. The Holy One had made them the essential thing, but they make themselves subordinate. In the case of Abraham, the Holy One had magnified him, as stated (in Gen. 12:2): I WILL BLESS YOU AND MAGNIFY YOUR NAME. And so (in Gen. 13:17): ARISE, WALK ABOUT THE LAND < THROUGHOUT ITS LENGTH AND BREADTH, FOR I AM GIVING IT TO YOU >. < Yet > he says to the children of Heth (i.e., to the Hittites, in Gen. 23:4): I AM AN ALIEN AND A TRANSIENT AMONG YOU. So also with Isaac, the Holy One magnified him, as stated (in Gen. 26:12): SO ISAAC SOWED ON THAT LAND < AND REAPED IN THAT YEAR A HUNDREDFOLD, FOR THE LORD HAD BLESSED HIM >. It also says (in Gen. 26:6): SO ISAAC {SOJOURNED} [DWELT] IN GERAR. And so with Jacob (according to Gen. 36:6): NOW JACOB DWELT IN THE LAND WHERE HIS FATHER HAD SOJOURNED. It is therefore stated (in I Chron. 29:16): FOR WE ARE SOJOURNERS BEFORE YOU AND TRANSIENTS LIKE ALL OUR ANCESTORS.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 4:1

(Gen. 37:1-2:) NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >…. THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. What is written on the matter above (in Gen. 36:15)? THESE ARE THE LORDS OF THE CHILDREN OF ESAU. When Jacob saw them, he became alarmed and said: Who can stand against these? (Gen. R. 84:5; Tanh., Gen. 9:1.) To what is the matter comparable? To a goldsmith who would sit and ply his trade. His apprentice raised his eyes and saw a lot of camels who were loaded with straw. He began to say: Who can stand against these? His master said to him: If a spark went out of this furnace, it would burn all of them. So in the case of our father Jacob, when he saw all of Esau's lords, he began to be afraid and said: Who can stand against these? The Holy One said to him: Look at what is written below (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. By your life, someone shall spring from Joseph, < a person > who shall burn all of them, as stated (in Obad. 18): THE HOUSE OF JACOB SHALL BE A FIRE, AND THE HOUSE OF JOSEPH A FLAME, AND THE HOUSE OF ESAU SHALL BE STRAW; < THEY SHALL BURN IT >…. R.Hanina said: It is written (in Is. 47:14): SEE, THEY HAVE BECOME LIKE STRAW; FIRE CONSUMES THEM. It is therefore written (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH.

Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 1:10

Similarly, the verse And he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes alludes to Jacob. His father, Isaac, taught him the law and reprimanded him (as he studied) in the schoolroom, as it is said: And Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents (ibid., v. 27). After he had absorbed everything his father could teach him, he left his father’s home to live in Eber’s home, where he continued to study the law. (Cf. Megillah 17a. He remained there fourteen years.) Therefore, he deserved to inherit the land of Israel, as it is written: And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father’s sojourning (ibid. 37:1). Our patriarch Jacob also punished and rebuked his sons, and taught them his customs and practices lest blemishes should appear in their character. Whence do we know this? From the fact that Scripture states: And these are the names of the sons of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, etc. (ibid. 25:13). Scripture equates them all. (All of them are mentioned in the same verse.) Hence, he that loveth his son chasteneth him betimes.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1:1

And Jacob sat in the land (Gen. 37:1). Whenever Scripture uses the expression and he sat (also translated “and he dwelt”), it connotes misfortune: And Israel sat in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen, … and the time drew near that Israel must die (Gen. 47:29); And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to make merry (Exod. 32:6); And there fell of the people on that day three thousand men (Exod. 32:28); And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:25); And Judah and Israel sat safely (I Kings 5:5); And the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon (ibid. 11:14); And Israel sat among the cedars, etc., and the people began to commit harlotry (Num. 25:1). You may explain every other use of “and he sat” with this negative implication. In this instance And Jacob sat is followed by and Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:2).

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 38:8

Then Jacob dwelt safely and in peace in the land of his possession, and in the land of his birth, and in the land of the sojournings of his father.

Shemot Rabbah 1:1

“These are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob; each came with his household” (Exodus 1:1). That is what is written: “He who spares his rod hates his son, and he who loves him seeks for him admonition” (Proverbs 13:24). The way of the world is that a person whom another tells him: ‘So-and-so struck your son,’ he would harass him. What is the meaning when the verse states: “He who spares his rod hates his son”? It is to teach you that anyone who withholds rebuke from his son, his son will ultimately set out on a path of depravity and he will hate him. As we find regarding Ishmael, who was beloved (Literally, he had longings for his father, which could explain his father’s love for him.) by his father Abraham, who did not chasten him, and he set out on a path of depravity. He then hated him and expelled him from his home emptyhanded. What did Ishmael do? When he was fifteen years old, he began to bring an idol from the marketplace, and he played with it and worshipped it in the manner that he saw others doing. (Although he made it look like he was just playing with it and even mocking it, in fact his intention was to worship it.) Immediately, “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she bore to Abraham, playing [metzaḥek]” (Genesis 21:9), and metzaḥek means nothing other than idol worship, like you say: “They rose to carouse [letzaḥek]” (Exodus 32:6). (This verse is written in the context of the sin of the Golden Calf.) Immediately, “She said to Abraham: Expel this maidservant and her son” (Genesis 21:10), so that my son will not learn his ways. Immediately, “the matter was very troubling in the eyes of Abraham regarding his son” (Genesis 21:11), because he emerged to a path of depravity. “God said to Abraham: Let it not be troubling in your eyes about the lad…everything that Sarah says to you, heed her voice” (Genesis 21:12). From here you learn that Abraham was subordinate to Sarah in prophecy. Immediately, “Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water…” (Genesis 21:14), teaching you that he hated Ishmael because he set out on a path of depravity, and sent him and his mother Hagar emptyhanded, and for that reason expelled him from his home. Is it conceivable that Abraham, in whose regard it is written: “Abram was very wealthy in livestock, in silver, and in gold” (Genesis 13:2), would send his wife and his son from his house emptyhanded, without garments and without sustenance? Rather, it is to teach you that once he [Ishmael] set out on the path of depravity, he [Abraham] paid no attention to him. (Consequently the verse states that he gave them bread and water, implying that he did not give them other means of support. ) What ultimately became of him? When he banished him, he sat at the crossroads and would rob people, as it is stated: “He will be a wild man” (Genesis 16:12). Similarly, “Isaac loved Esau” (Genesis 25:28); therefore he set out on a path of depravity, because he did not chasten him, as we learned: The wicked Esau violated five transgressions on that day. He consorted with a betrothed young woman, killed a person, denied the revival of the dead, denied the principle [of belief in God], and scorned the birthright. In addition, he desired the death of his father and sought to kill his brother, as it is stated: “Let the days of mourning for my father approach and I will kill Jacob my brother” (Genesis 27:41), and he caused Jacob to flee from his fathers. And he [Esau] too went to Ishmael to learn from him the path of depravity and to add to his wives, as it is stated; “Esau went to Ishmael, [and took Maḥalat the daughter of Ishmael…in addition to his wives, as his wife]” (Genesis 28:9). Similarly, David did not chastise Avshalom and did not chasten him, [and Avshalom] set out on the path of depravity. He sought to kill his father, he lay with his [father’s] concubines, and forced him to walk barefoot, weeping; and thousands and tens of thousands from Israel fell. In addition, he caused him endless hardships, as it is written: “A psalm by David when he fled from Avshalom, etc.” (Psalms 3:1). What is written afterward? “Lord, how numerous are my tormentors, etc.” (Psalms 3:2). The path of depravity (A wayward child) in a person’s household is worse than the war of Gog and Magog, as regarding Gog and Magog it is written: “Why do nations rage and peoples meditate in vain?” (Psalms 2:1), and there it is written: “Lord, how numerous are my tormentors.” David acted similarly with Adoniya, as he did not chasten him with chastisement and he did not scold him; therefore, he set out on the path of depravity, as it is written: “His father never distressed him, [saying: Why did you do so? …and she bore him after Avshalom]” (I Kings 1:6). But wasn’t Avshalom the son of Maakha, and Adoniyahu the son of Ḥaggit? What is: “And she bore him after Avshalom”? Rather, because [Avshalom] set out on the path of depravity because his father did not chasten him, and in Adoniyahu’s regard, it is written: “His father never distressed him,” he, too, set out on the path to depravity. Therefore, it is written: “And she bore him after Avshalom.” “And he who loves him seeks for him admonition” (Proverbs 13:24); this is the Holy One blessed be He. It is because he loves Israel, as it is written: “I have loved you, said the Lord” (Malachi 1:2) that he promotes them through suffering. You find three excellent gifts that the Holy One blessed be He gave to Israel, and he gave them all to them by means of suffering: The Torah, the Land of Israel, and life in the World to Come. The Torah, as it is written: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord, whom You teach from Your Torah” (Psalms 94:12). The Land of Israel, as it is written: “For you know in your heart [that as a man rebukes his son, so the Lord your God rebukes you]” (Deuteronomy 8:5); what is written after it: “For the Lord your God will bring you [to a good land]” (Deuteronomy 8:7). The World to Come, as it is written: “For the mitzva is a lamp, the Torah is light, [and the reproofs of instruction are the way of life]” (This indicates that the way to merit everlasting life is through reproof, which involves suffering. ) (Proverbs 6:23). Anyone who chastises his son, the son adds love for his father and he honors him, as it is stated: “Admonish your son, and he will give you rest [and provide delights to your soul]” (Proverbs 29:17), and it is stated: “Admonish your son, as there is hope” (Proverbs 19:18). And he adds love for him, as it is stated: “And he who loves him seeks for him admonition” – because he sought for him admonition, therefore he loves him. You find that Abraham chastised his son Isaac, taught him Torah, and guided him in his path, as it is written in Abraham’s regard: “Because Abraham heeded My voice, [and kept My commission, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws]” (Genesis 26:5), and it is written: “And this is the legacy of Isaac, Abraham’s son: [Abraham begot Isaac]” (Genesis 25:19), to teach you that he was similar to his father in every sense; in beauty, wisdom, wealth, and good deeds. Know [that Isaac internalized Abraham’s lessons and accepted his authority], for he was thirty-seven years old when his father bound him, and it is written: “And Abraham was old, advanced in years” (Genesis 24:1), and he bound him and tied him, and [Isaac] did not prevent [him from doing so]. Therefore, “Abraham gave all that was his to Isaac” (Genesis 25:5); that is: “And he who loves him seeks for him admonition.” Similarly, Isaac would seek admonition for Jacob, as he taught him Torah and chastised him in his study hall, as it is stated: “Jacob was a simple man, [a dweller in tents]” (Genesis 25:27). He learned what his father taught him and then he took his leave from his father and secluded himself in the house of Ever to study Torah. Therefore, he merited blessing and inherited the land, as it is stated: “Jacob settled in the land of his father's residence, in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 37:1). Jacob our patriarch, too, chastised his sons, chastened them, and taught them his ways, until ultimately, there were none among them who was defective, as it is written: “These are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt [with Jacob]” (Exodus 1:1); the verse likened them all to Jacob, as they were all righteous like he was. That is: “And he who loves him seeks for him admonition.”

Musar

The text emphasizes the importance of not taking for granted entitlement to the Holy Land, warning against settling there permanently and profaning something sacred, as seen in the criticism of Jacob and the spies. It also discusses the imperfection preceding perfection in the world, with exiles alluded to in Genesis, and the need for repentance to merit the spirit of the Lord. Additionally, it highlights the danger of consuming one's merits in this world and the importance of charity and returning to G–d with all one's heart to avoid this.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Lech Lecha, Torah Ohr 25

The moral lesson is that just as strangers must not take for granted their right to live in their host country, so Jews must not take for granted their entitlement to the Holy Land not even after they have settled there. When our sages criticise Jacob of whom the Torah said: וישב יעקב בארץ כנען, "Jacob settled down in the land of Canaan," this is exactly what they had in mind. The fact that the Torah underlines in that very verse that Jacob's fathers had only sojourned there, only reinforces our sages' criticism (compare Genesis 37,1 and Bereshit Rabbah 84,1). An allusion to the fact that the tendency of Jews who display a vested interest in their residence in the Holy land can be counter-productive is found in the description of the land by the spies as ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא, "It is a land that consumes those who settle in it" (Numbers 13,32). This is expressed more forcefully in connection with someone selling his house in the Holy Land permanently. The Torah states clearly that the land cannot be sold permanently by ignoring the laws of return to the original owners in the Jubilee year, when G–d goes on record in Leviticus 25,23: כי גרים ותושבים אתם עמדי, "For you are strangers and settlers with Me." The moment Jews want to treat the Holy Land as the Gentiles treat their soil, i.e. for merely secular enjoyment, the land is liable to react by "consuming" those who presume to "own" it. The spies portrayed the land of Canaan in a derogatory manner and thus profaned something sacred; their mouthings had no effect on the land. The Torah has seen fit to quote their words in order to instill in us a positive teaching:

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Derekh Chayim, Vayeshev 1

וישב . Jacob wished to dwell in tranquility. G–d reacted to this wish by saying: "Are the righteous not satisfied with their portion in the Hereafter that they also demand tranquility in this world?" If this is the way G–d reacted when a man of Jacob's caliber wished for tranquility, what can an ordinary mortal whose life is full of transgressions look forward to? How can anyone of us expect to become the beneficiary of the good G–d pours out into this world? When the likes of us experience all this goodness of G–d in our daily lives, must we not be afraid that this is ultimately to our detriment? Are we not consuming our few merits already in this world? In order to make certain that this will not be so, we must practice charity in a generous manner and return to G–d with all our hearts. We must be mindful of the Zohar's comment on the words 37,1) ,מגורי אביו) that Jacob was afraid all his days of having offended G–d, just as his fathers had been so concerned all of their lives.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 125

When at the beginning of פרשת וישב, we are told that Jacob made an attempt to settle in the land of Canaan to live a quiet undisturbed life, G–d objected to Jacob at that stage wanting to enjoy both the present world and the Hereafter. This world is not slated to recover from the original sin, the time when the serpent polluted Adam and Eve, until the arrival of the Messiah. Ever since that sin our world operates on the principle that the קליפה, peel, precedes the פרי, fruit. It is this principle which forms the background of Bereshit Rabbah 2,4. We are told there by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that the reason that the Torah begins the story of Creation with the statement that there was Tohu Vavohu, in other words imperfection similar to the imperfection of the world experienced by the Jewish people in exile, was that imperfection has to precede perfection. The Midrash describes several such exiles as being alluded to in that verse. The word Tohu refers to the exile in Babylon; the prophet Jeremiah (4,23) describes the country thus. The word Bohu supposedly refers to the exile under the Medes, since we have a verse in Esther 6,14 where the king's messengers are described as ויבהלו להביא את המן, the word ויבהלו containing the letters of the word ובהו. The word חשך, which follows in Genesis 1,2, refers to the exile under the Greeks who blackened the eyes of Israel by demanding that the Israelites inscribe on the horns of their oxen that they had no further share in the G–d of Israel. Finally, the words על פני תהום, refer to the exile under the Romans, Edom, which seems bottomless like the תהום, Deep. When the Torah continues ורוח אלוקים מרחפת על פני המים, "The spirit of the Lord hovered over the expanse of the water," Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish views this statement as an allusion to the spirit of the Messiah of whom it was said in Isaiah 11,2 that: "the spirit of the Lord rested on him." How does one merit that the spirit of the Lord comes to rest on one? By the merit of repentance which is compared to water, as we know from Lamentations 2,18: "Fair Zion, shed tears like water day and night!"

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that "וישב" indicates long-term settlement, while Radak distinguishes between settling and sojourning, Rabbeinu Bahya discusses the conversion of people by Avraham and Yaakov, Haamek Sheilah criticizes later geonic scholars for not studying earlier geonic works, Tze'enah Ure'enah and Da'at Zekenim discuss conversions by Avraham, Sarah, and Yaakov, and the negative implications of "וישב" in the Torah.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 43:14:1

ואל שדי יתן לכם רחמים לפני האיש, “and may G–d Almighty give you mercy before the man what prompted Yaakov to single out the attribute of G–d known as shadday when blessing his sons before they commenced this journey? It teaches you that Yaakov had already endured many trials in his life. These had commenced already when he was still in his mother’s womb and Esau fought with him to become the firstborn. (Compare Genesis 25,22, when his mother was distraught and asked G–d what was going on inside her womb.) The sages concluded that the two as yet unborn children had already struggled for possession of two worlds. Esau tried to kill Yaakov already as soon as he was born as is evident from Amos 1,11, על רדפו בחרב אחיו, “when he pursued his brother with the sword (simile for trying to kill him). He had to flee to Lavan to save his life, and had endured many problems while with his “uncle” for 20 years. As soon as he left there Lavan pursued him. He lists them during the encounter with Lavan. (Genesis 31,40) Esau then came towards him in order to attack him, As a result he lost a great deal of the wealth he had acquired by buying him off with a gift. Next his best loved wife died on the way and he could not even bury her in the ancestral gravesite. Next his daughter Dinah was raped, and then his beloved son Joseph was lost. When he felt that finally he could settle down to a normal life in one place, (Genesis 37,1) the problems with Joseph began. During the brothers’ first trip to Egypt Shimon, his second oldest son was incarcerated and he now had to Shimon being incarcerated and his sons forced him to allow Binyamin to travel to Egypt in order to secure the release of Shimon. He could have said, as did Job in Job 3,26: “I had no repose, no quiet no rest; trouble came.” (Based on Tanchuma on our portion, section 10.) In light of all this, Yaakov now called on that attribute of G–d to signal that he felt he had undergone sufficient tribulations, i.e. די, to warrant a favourite response to his blessing/prayer.

Da'at Zekenim on Numbers 25:1:1

וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “Israel had settled down at a place known as Shittim, when the common people profaned themselves by whoring.” It is well known that whenever the Torah commences a paragraph with the word: וישב, what follows is some kind of disaster. Compare Genesis 37,1 when Yaakov “settled” down and the disaster with Joseph followed and he was sold by his brothers. When in chapter 50,22 of Genesis Joseph is described as having settled down, this is followed by his announcing to his brothers his premature death. (Genesis 50,24) When Israel is described as having settled down in Egypt, (Genesis 47,27) this is followed shortly by the report about Yaakov’s (premature) sickness and death. (verse 29) In Kings I,5,5 we read that the people of Israel including the tribe of Yehudah had settled securely, this is followed by a report in chapter 11,14, by: G–d arranging a revolt by the King of Edom against Solomon’s kingdom. [The Edomites had paid annual tribute to the state of Israel since David’s time. G–d had arranged this as His response to Solomon allowing his wife to erect an altar to the Moabite idol chemosh. Ed.]

Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 16:5

Behold the commentaries on the Rambam, his armor-bearers, and the others who felt the sun; they did not persist in studying the books of the early Geonim, such as the Bahag and the Sheiltos carefully. In fact, this [deficiency] extended to the philologist, our master, the author of the Kesef Mishneh and Beis Yosef [Rabbi Yosef Caro], (The last great codifier of rabbinical Judaism (Spain or Portugal, 1488–Safed, 1575). Although Caro is known chiefly as the author of the Shulhan Aruch and other works, it is his Beis Yosef that marks him as one of the greatest Talmudists of all time. It is a comprehensive compendium, going back to the Talmud and halachic Midrashim, discussing the pros and cons of the authorities cited by the Tur, and examining the opinions of authorities not mentioned by the latter. Beis Yosef briefly sums up and critiques thirty-two authorities, beginning with the Talmud and ending with the works of Isserlein. No other rabbinical work can compare with its wealth of material. See the description of R. Caro in The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 3.) [as demonstrated] in his book, the Bedek ha-Bayis, pertaining to the laws of mikveh. [Rabbi Caro stated] that it was [merely] by chance that the book of the Sheiltos came before him and that he found a certain item in it. Similarly with the responsa of the later Geonim of blessed memory: one cannot find them citing analyses of the works of the earlier Geonim, other than a little here and little there [on an ad hoc basis]. I do not [mean to imply], Heaven forbid, that they are to blame [for these omissions], for they were occupied with many tasks in their holy positions, (The word makom, usually translated “place,” has been translated here as “position.” Makom is can also describe a person’s state or status: see Ha’amek Davar, Ex. 3:5, and Gen. 18:33 and 30:25. An alternative translation is “in their holy locations.” Since Babylonia was well-established as a place where the Torah had been studied, it maintains a certain level of holiness and thus assists the subsequent generations in their performance of mitzvos and their study of Torah (Ha’amek Davar, Gen. 37:1).) and the light of publication was not as widespread as their need and use required, [and thus they lacked full access to the earlier geonic writings]. Therefore, the later geonic students would follow the approach of the heads [of their academies], seeking to examine the Six Orders of the Talmud in a manner familiar to Rashi and the other commentators. Thus, the new insights [of these later geonic students] depended upon these interpretations of the Talmud. In those instances when they found fresh ideas within the books of the earlier Geonim, it was an experience, as if they had found mandrakes (See Metiv Shir, Song of Songs 8:14, where the Netziv sees mandrakes as symbolic of great spiritual joy.) in places where no one had previously trod. Therefore, pertaining to many laws, they did not see the [earlier] sources and roots.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 12:5:2

A Midrashic approach to the word עשו is found in Bereshit Rabbah 39,14 where it is understood as applying to the converts Avraham and Sarah managed to make in Charan and whom they took with them to the land of Canaan. Avraham converted the males, Sarah the females. This is why the Torah speaks of that phenomenon in the plural, i.e. “they had made, each one separately.” If only Avraham had been busy proselytising the Torah should have written אשר עשה “whom he had made.” We also find that Yaakov did the same as his grandfather Avraham as the Torah speaks of his sojourn in the land of Canaan in these words (Genesis 37,1) וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו, “and Yaakov settled in the land in which his (grand)father had had succeeded in making converts” (Bereshit Rabbah 84,4). From this you learn that Yaakov was also making converts.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 15:16:3

The words עד הנה mean: “until the measure of their sin is full.” Actually, the Torah should have written: יבואו הנה “they will come here.” The reason the Torah chose to write ישובו הנה ‘they will return here,” is to point out that they will be considered as if they had already been settled in the land of Canaan previously seeing that Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov and his children had lived in Canaan before descending to Egypt. Remember that Yitzchak had never left the land of Canaan. Concerning Yaakov the Torah had written וישב יעקב בארץ “Yaakov settled in the land.” This is why now the Torah wrote that the fourth generation would return “here.” They would return to what had already been their land. Another message contained in these words may be an allusion to the sanctity of the land, the land in which there is found the “gateway to heaven” (Genesis 28, 17). This means that the Sanctuary of the terrestrial regions is on the soil of the land of Canaan. This is the point from which the souls ascend to the celestial regions. This is also where they enter the terrestrial regions. It is appropriate therefore to describe the land of Canaan as the place to which the souls return. The righteous and pious people therefore experience an urge to die near that location in order for their souls to immediately find the path to the celestial regions.

Radak on Genesis 20:1:2

וישב בין קדש ובין שור, the Torah did not bother to tell us precisely where Avraham settled. Later on, we are told that he settled in Gerar, the capital of the land of the Philistines. The part of the verse mentioning this fact is not related to the earlier part of the verse. Besides, the terms וישב and ויגר are totally different from one another, the former speaking of someone settling down with a view to remaining there for a long period, whereas the term ויגר always reflects the intention of the person described to remain there only for a relatively brief period of time, as for instance in Genesis 37,1 where when Yaakov settled down, the Torah contrasts this with the fact that his father and grandfather could not settle down there permanently but had only sojourned there,מגורי אביו. It is customary for Scripture to employ different words when repeating basically the same message. Perhaps, initially, Avraham had settled in one of the locations in the regions such as באר לחי רואי, subsequently moving to Gerar, seeing that באר לחי רואי was situated between Kadesh and Shur, as we know from Genesis 16,4.

Rashi on Exodus 2:15:3

[וישב בארץ מדין AND HE ABODE IN THE LAND OF MIDIAN — the word וישב means he stayed there, as (Genesis 37:1) “And Jacob abode (וישב)‎”.]

Rashi on Jeremiah 30:23:1

settling storm camping and dwelling an expression of “the land of the sojournings of (מְגוּרֵי)” (Gen. 37:1), and a similar case is “and a whirling (מִתְחוֹלֵל) storm” (supra 23:19) stated in the other verse is the same as this for both of them are expressions of camping.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Lech Lecha 10

The explanation is “that they made in Haran” [12:5]. Abraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women. They took these people with them. Isaac did the same, as the verse says, “Jacob was settled in the land where his father sojourned” [Genesis 37:1]. (The Hebrew term for sojourned is “megurei” which is similar to the word for convert “ger.”) This means, Jacob lived in the city where his father, Isaac, had done conversions. Jacob did the same, as the verse says, “Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, rid yourselves of the alien gods” [Genesis 35:2]. This means, remove the false gods from yourselves. (Bahya, Genesis, 12:5.)

Talmud

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains that whenever it says "And he dwelt" in the Torah, it signifies impending calamity, as seen in cases such as Israel's harlotry in Shittim, Joseph's sale due to dwelling in Canaan, Israel's approaching death in Egypt, and the rise of an adversary to Solomon after they dwelt safely.

Sanhedrin 106a:15

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everywhere that it is stated: And he dwelt, it is nothing other than an expression of pain, of an impending calamity, as it is stated: “And Israel dwelt in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab” (Numbers 25:1). It is stated: “And Jacob dwelt in the land where his father had sojourned in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 37:1), and it is stated thereafter: “And Joseph brought evil report of them to his father” (Genesis 37:2), which led to the sale of Joseph. And it is stated: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt in the land of Goshen” (Genesis 47:27), and it is stated thereafter: “And the time drew near that Israel was to die” (Genesis 47:29). It is stated: “And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree” (I Kings 5:5), and it is stated thereafter: “And the Lord raised up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the king’s seed in Edom” (I Kings 11:14).

Targum

Jacob lived peacefully in the land of Canaan, where his fathers had lived.

Onkelos Genesis 37:1

Yaakov settled in the land of his father’s residence, in the land of Canaan.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:1

And Jakob dwelt in peace in the land of the sojourning of his fathers, in the land of Kenaan.

אֵ֣לֶּה ׀ תֹּלְד֣וֹת יַעֲקֹ֗ב יוֹסֵ֞ף בֶּן־שְׁבַֽע־עֶשְׂרֵ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ הָיָ֨ה רֹעֶ֤ה אֶת־אֶחָיו֙ בַּצֹּ֔אן וְה֣וּא נַ֗עַר אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י בִלְהָ֛ה וְאֶת־בְּנֵ֥י זִלְפָּ֖ה נְשֵׁ֣י אָבִ֑יו וַיָּבֵ֥א יוֹסֵ֛ף אֶת־דִּבָּתָ֥ם רָעָ֖ה אֶל־אֲבִיהֶֽם׃ 2 J R This, then, is the line of Jacob: At seventeen years of age, Joseph tended the flocks with his brothers, as a helper to the sons of his father’s wives Bilhah and Zilpah. And Joseph brought bad reports of them to their father.
Chasidut: Yosef embodied the essence of Yaakov and blessed him with charity and pleasantness, symbolizing the integration of spiritual and physical worlds. Commentary: Various interpretations of "These are the generations of Jacob" are discussed, with insights from Rashbam, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Sforno, and others. Halakhah: Joseph's descent into Egypt was caused by lashon hara. Jewish Thought: The text explores the appellation 'youth' given to Yosef and others, the prohibition of marrying two sisters, Joseph as a stereotype of a Jew, and the distinction between derash and peshat in interpretation. Kabbalah: Jacob, Moses, and Joseph are interconnected, with Joseph mediating between the qualities of Avraham and Yitzchak. Midrash: Joseph was beloved to his father and knew seventy languages. Musar: The importance of refraining from lashon hara and the humility of Joseph are emphasized. Quoting Commentary: Joseph's flaws led to redemption, highlighting character development. Second Temple: Joseph is consistently referred to as young. Talmud: Joseph's semen was emitted between his fingernails, leading to Benjamin's descendants. Targum: Joseph reported his brothers' bad behavior to his father.

Chasidut

Yosef embodied the essence of Yaakov and was able to bless him with chein, representing both charity and pleasantness, as the begetting of offspring primarily comes through Yaakov and Yosef. Yosef's role as a tzadik involved constant renewal and humility, allowing closeness to Hashem and the ability to overcome evil forces. Joseph united his brothers and uplifted them through holy mystical unifications, symbolizing the complete integration of the spiritual and physical worlds.

Ba'al Shem Tov, Vayeshev 1:1

These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph was seventeen years old, and shepherded the flock with his brothers. (Genesis 37:2) The word “shepherd” (ro’eh) implies “to unite, join or link together,” as in the words “brotherliness” and “friendship.” (The Hebrew word ro’eh is grammatically connected to the word for “friendship” – re’ut.) A shepherd is called a ro’eh because he brings the flock together in one place, lest they become scattered. Thus, Joseph united his brothers – that is, all of Israel and the sparks of the Divine Presence. (The concept of mystical unifications – yichudim – is one of the central teachings of the Baal Shem Tov, and operates on many levels. The basic level is the recognition of the presence of the Creator in all aspects of creation, be they physical, emotional, conceptual, and even spiritual. Thus, the Baal Shem Tov said: “Whatever you see – remember G-d. If you feel love, remember the love of G-d. If you experience fear, recall the fear of G-d. Even when you go to the bathroom, think to yourself, I am removing the bad from the good, so that the good will remain in the service of G-d. This is the meaning of unification” (Tzivos HaRivash, p.3b). On a deeper level, it means the mystical recombination of the letters of creation, especially in prayer and Torah study, that can produce a revelation of the Divine Oneness in the world. In the verse above, the Baal Shem Tov is saying that Joseph, who represents the Tzaddik, is able to see the divinity in each Jew, and through this, uplift all of Israel to the Father in Heaven. Alternatively, Joseph could see the Hebrew letters that constitute all of reality, and combine them in patterns that would reveal the Divine Presence in creation.) He uplifted and repaired all of them by means of the holy mystical unifications that he performed. He did this with the “flock,” which implies Unifications. (The three letters of the Hebrew word for flock, tzon, can be divided into tz-o (tzade aleph), whose numerical value is 91, and nun. The number 91 is also the numerical value (gematria) of two of G-d’s holy names together – the Tetragrammaton, Y-H-V-H (26), and the name Ado-nai (65). The union of these names represents the complete integration of the spiritual and the physical, from the first emanations from G-d, until malchus, the world in which we live. (See Likutey Moharan I:66.) The letter nun usually represents the world of Binah, which corresponds to the revelation of the world-to-come, and is the sefirah through which Divine blessing flows into the world. All this is alluded to in the word tzon – the union of G-d’s two names, which leads to a subsequent outflow of blessing in the world. Thus, R. Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye writes, in the name of the Baal Shem Tov: “A human being in this world is composed of matter and form (i.e., the material and the spiritual), and through him, the lower world and the upper world are joined, and a union is created between the two names Y-H-V-H and Ado-nai, which have the numerical value of 91, from the world tzon. Whereas the effluence that pours forth from there is the expansion of the nun” (Tzafna Paneach, Teruma). It is also possible that the Baal Shem Tov uses the term tzon to represent this idea, because a flock is a group of animals that are joined together, and convey the idea of union. Furthermore, the word tzon is from the Hebrew word tze, which means “to go out,” and represents the idea of that which emanates from a source. (See Torah Ohr, by the Ba’al HaTanya, VaYetze, p. 23c, who discusses this idea).) Degel Machane Ephraim, Vayeshev

Flames of Faith 1:11

According to Jewish mystics, Joseph was the paradigm of virtue and righteousness, the personification of tzaddik yesod olam, a man of such holiness that his merit sustains the entire world. Joseph was also Jacob’s favorite son, and they shared a special relationship. (See Gen. 30:25 and Rashi’s comment on that verse; Gen. 37:2 and the respective Rashi; also Gen. 37:11, 37:35, 45:27-28.) When Jacob lay dying he called Joseph and requested burial in the Land of Israel. Although Joseph promised that he would ensure his father’s interment in Israel (Gen. 47:30), Jacob was not satisfied and demanded that an oath be sworn in God’s name: “And he [Jacob] said ‘Swear to me’ and he [Joseph] swore to him, and Israel [another name for Jacob] bowed back toward the head of the bed” (Gen. 47:31).

Likutei Halakhot, Orach Chaim, Laws of Morning Conduct 4:16:1

INCREASING THE LIGHT Earlier (§11), Reb Noson explained that the basis of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerned the appropriateness of drawing down a perception of Godliness to those on the lowest spiritual levels. He now applies this subject to the opposition raised against the tzaddikim in his time—especially Rebbe Nachman—who devoted themselves to bringing even the most spiritually distant closer to HaShem. Now, the aforementioned dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerned drawing near to HaShem those people who are so very spiritually distant from Him that, strictly speaking, it would be unseemly to draw them close. There we saw that Beit Shammai states that we “keep decreasing” the number of lights in order to conceal the light from the spiritually distant so they will not be drawn closer to HaShem. Beit Hillel, however, states that we “keep increasing” the number of lights, because we need to fashion appropriate vessels and constrictions so as to illuminate with His light even the spiritually distant, so that they too will be drawn near.

Likutei Moharan 1:4:2

And it was specifically Yosef who was able to bless him with chein. This is because Yosef, more than anyone else, embodied the aspect of Yaakov, as in (Genesis 37:2), “These are the chronicles of Yaakov: Yosef.” He was the essence of [Yaakov’s] chronicles, for Yaakov and Yosef are considered as one (Zohar I, 176b).

Likutei Moharan 80:1:5

Therefore, of Yosef it is said: “Yosef brought bad reports of them [to their father]” (Genesis 37:2). This is the element of severities, since the left hand pushes away (Sotah 47a). , “I am seeking my brothers” (Genesis 37:16). This is the element of benevolences, since the right hand brings close (Sotah, ibid .) .

Likutei Moharan, Part II 71:7:3

And this is the concept of “These are the offspring of Yaakov—Yosef” (Genesis 37:2). That is, the begetting of offspring comes about primarily through Yaakov and Yosef. Yaakov is the concept of charity, as it is written, “You execute justice and charity in Yaakov” (Psalms 99:4). And the begetting of offspring is primarily through charity, {the vessel for receiving the influx of Supernal Pleasantness. And, as will be explained below, Yosef is the concept of Pleasantness}.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 2:4

The Midrash (Tehillim 30:2) states, "I praise you Hashem for you have lifted me up." The Rav of Pershischa explained that דליתני (lifted me up) implies both elevation and humility. Hashem elevates a person while keeping them humble, allowing closeness to Him, as reflected in “He lifts the lowly” (Shacharis birkas krias shma). The Zohar interprets “Better a poor but wise youth” (Kohelet 4:13) as the good inclination, which is humble and wise. One who is wary of the evil inclination and fears sin experiences constant renewal. In contrast, comfort leads to stagnation. Wisdom (חכמה) is seen as כח מה (“strength from nothing”), recognizing that all strength comes from Hashem, as indicated by “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of Hashem.” The word דליתני also suggests renewal and humility. Yosef, described as "a youth" (Bereishis 37:2), signifies constant renewal through התעוררות (awakening). During Chanukah, Bnei Yisrael's lowliness allowed Hashem to perform miracles. As Tehillim (40:2) states, "I put my hope in Hashem... He lifted me out of the miry pit... and set my feet on a rock," illustrating that humility and calling out to Hashem bring salvation and renewal.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 3:3

“These are the descendants of Yaakov; Yosef…” (Bereishis 37:2). Ovadia 1:18 states, “The House of Yaakov is a fire and the House of Yosef is a flame, and the House of Eisav like straw.” The Midrash explains that just as a single spark can destroy a large pile of straw, so can Yosef, the flame, overcome Eisav’s forces. Yaakov symbolizes the Torah, which is above nature. To internalize the Torah’s light, one needs strong desire and enthusiasm, embodied by Yosef the Tzadik. Rashi (Bereishis 30:25) notes that a fire (Yaakov) without a flame (Yosef) cannot reach far. This implies that the more one feels distant from Hashem, the stronger their desire to draw closer. Thus, “These are the descendants of Yaakov; Yosef” means that through the desire and passion represented by Yosef, Yaakov’s influence extends and impacts the world.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 6:5

Yosef brought an evil report about his brothers to his father (Bereishis 37:2). It is clear that Yosef, the tzadik, was not involved in lashon hara (evil speech). However, a true tzadik cannot tolerate even the slightest hint of evil, similar to Eliyahu Hanavi, who said, “I have been extremely zealous” (Malachim 1:19:10). The tribes understood that if Yosef remained with his father, they would be marginalized because Yosef was exceedingly holy and separated from worldly matters. Yosef is called “the crown (נזיר) of his brothers” and “בן זקונים,” signifying his purity and complete detachment from any evil. Although his brothers were also tzadikim, Yosef had to be in Mitzrayim first to later realize that his brothers were righteous as well.

The Gate of Unity 36:1

Now, it is written, (Genesis 37:2) “These are the offspring of Yaakov; Yosef.”

Commentary

The text discusses the various interpretations of the phrase "These are the generations of Jacob" in relation to the story of Joseph and his brothers. Rashbam emphasizes the importance of studying the plain meaning of the text before delving into interpretations. Ramban explains that the term "generations" refers to the events that occurred to Jacob and his descendants. Ibn Ezra interprets it as referring to the events that befell Jacob. Sforno sees it as alluding to the events that were not planned but resulted in the settling of Jacob's descendants. Tur HaArokh suggests that the phrase refers to the settlements and events leading to the settling of Jacob's descendants. The text also delves into the details of Joseph's interactions with his brothers and his reporting of their actions to their father. Radak and Rabbeinu Bahya offer insights into the meaning of the phrase "generations" in this context. Or HaChaim discusses the significance of Joseph's actions and the reasons behind his interactions with his brothers. Rashi's interpretation of the text is also explored, with various commentators offering different perspectives on the story of Joseph and his brothers.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:2:1

אלה תולדות יעקב, “these are the descendants of Yaakov;” wherever a paragraph commences with the word: אלה, this means that this a paragraph that is not the continuation of the subject which had been discussed immediately before it. In this instance, the word is used to remind the reader that the personalities referred to immediately before this paragraph, were all wicked people, i.e. bastards, born of parents guilty of practicing incest. The personalities who are the subject of our chapter were all righteous, born from parents who had formed legitimate unions. They are the descendants of Yehudah and Joseph.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:2:2

אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף, “these were the descendants of Yaakov: Joseph;” the reason why this has been repeated here is because the Torah had interrupted reporting about Yaakov’s children who had been sired and born while he was with Lavan, Joseph having been the last of those. We find that the Torah employed a similar manner when describing Noach (Genesis 5,8) as siring three sons, interrupting with a description of the sins which led to the deluge, before returning to the subject in Genesis 6,9 with the words: אלה תולדות נח, although we had already known who his children were.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:2:3

היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, “who was tending flocks with his brothers;” The Torah calls the sons of Leah Joseph’s ”brothers,” as they were the sons of their father’s principal wives; it did not refer to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah by the same term. [although both Leah’s sons as well as those of the maids were half brothers. Ed.] An alternate exegesis of why the word אחיו was used here:והוא נער, “he was only tending flocks as long as he was still very young;” at that point it was not considered as below the dignity of the sons of Yaakov’s secondary wives to be tending flocks with them. The verse is actually truncated, and the complete text should have been: והוא נער היה רועה בצאן את אחיו בני בלהה ובני זלפה, “as long as he was a young boy he had been tending flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.” It is not surprising that he reported on what he considered misconduct by these “brothers,” seeing that he was still very immature, i.e. merely a .נער

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:2:4

בצאן, we would have expected the Torah to have written either “את צאן, or הצאן.” The reason why the Torah used the prefix ב, is to draw our attention to the fact that his major occupation was to watch if he could find fault with the manner in which these “brothers” fulfilled their tasks. He was also concerned that his “brothers” would not do something that would harm his father’s sheep, as he was extremely loyal to his father.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:2:5

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, “Joseph reported negative reports about them;” (no wonder that they all began to hate him as a tale bearer). The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah hated him as talebearer, and his other brothers hated him because he was a favorite of their father. They were therefore afraid that in due course their father would appoint him as his firstborn. When the Torah writes (in verse four: וישנאו אותו, “they hated him,”) it refers to all of the brothers except Binyamin who was only 10 years old. Each group of brothers had a different reason for hating him. They were afraid that their father would treat Joseph as their grandfather Yitzchok had treated his son Esau, because of emotional attachment, not based on objective considerations.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:2:1

The meaning of These are the generations of Jacob is: these are the events which befell him and the incidents which came upon him. Toledot (generations) comes from the same root as yeled (bring forth) in What a day may bring forth (yeled) (Prov. 27:1). (Toledot is not rendered generations but events, as evidenced by the word of the same root, yod, lamed, dalet in Prov. 27:1.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:2:2

BEING STILL A LAD, EVEN WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH, AND WITH THE SONS OF ZILPAH. The sons of the concubines (the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah) made Joseph their attendant (servant) since he was their younger brother. This was the evil report of them which he brought unto their father. Had the children of Leah, the mistress of the house, made Joseph their attendant, then no wrong would have been done. (Joseph would thus not have had any evil report of his brothers to bring unto their father.) The view that evil report pertains to limbs torn from living animals is a Midrashic interpretation. (According to the Midrash Joseph told his father that his brothers ate limbs torn from living animals. Cf. Bereshit Rabbah 84:7.) That Joseph did not bring an evil report to Jacob concerning Leah’s children is clear from the fact that Scripture only mentions the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah in our verse. (Our verse mentions only the sons of Zilpah and the sons of Bilhah. Hence the pronominal suffix of dibbtam (report of them) must refer to Zilpah and Bilhah’s sons. This comment is either a proof of what I.E. wrote above, viz., that Joseph spoke only about the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (Krinsky), or its purpose is to negate a Midrashic statement to the effect that Joseph spoke ill only of Leah’s children, viz., that he told Jacob that Leah’s children refer to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah as the children of slave girls (Filwarg).)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:1

אלה תולדות, These are the developments, etc. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 12,3 say that wherever a paragraph commences with the word אלה this represents a contrast to and criticism of what has been reported previously. On the other hand, when a paragraph commences with the word ואלה, it suggests a continuation of what preceded it. Here the word אלה is intended to criticise or disqualify what Esau had done. If that was indeed the intent of the Torah it is unnecessary seeing that Esau himself was unfit; anything he did would be improper anyway.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:10

The words היה רעה את אחיו בצאן refer to the sheep the brothers were accused of eating. The words והוא נער refer to Joseph's earlier childhood during which he had spent much time with the sons of Bilhah. The reason the Torah mentions נשי אביו is to tell us that Joseph did not discriminate against the sons of the handmaidens but related to their mothers as "his father's wives." This is especially mentioned as only Joseph treated Bilhah and Zilpah as wives of Jacob in the full sense of the word. According to the Midrash there Joseph suspected his brothers of eating parts of the sheep while the animal was still alive. The Torah disproved this suspicion later when it reported that the brothers even slaughtered an animal, which they were presumably not going to eat, before they dipped Joseph's tunic in its blood. [I suppose the author feels that the word רעה, tending, could also be read as רעה, evil, to account for this allusion to Joseph's suspicions of his brothers. Ed.] Joseph's suspecting his brothers of immoral behaviour may have stemmed from their viewing the handmaidens as merely slaves and their belittling the sons of the handmaidens. When Joseph observed how the brothers belittled their half-brothers this may have caused him to begin to belittle the sons of Leah instead. The author discusses the halachic aspects of the issue of someone who sleeps with a handmaid, concluding that at any rate someone of the stature of Jacob would certainly do so only in order to raise the woman in question to a higher status, and the children would automatically be free men.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:11

The problem with all the above speculations in the Midrash is why, if four of the brothers were treated as inferior, all of them voted against Joseph and agreed to sell him? Perhaps it was because Joseph had included them in the suspicions about their eating habits which he had related to his father. Alternatively, these four brothers exploited that opportunity to gain favour with the sons of Leah although they themselves harboured no ill feelings against Joseph.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:2

We also need to analyse the meaning of תלדת יעקב יוסף. What happened to the other tribes? Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,6 claim that Joseph was the principal descendant of Jacob. Others say that it reflects the similarities Jacob and Joseph experienced in their respective fates. Both were already born without a foreskin, etc. Of course, this is all homiletics.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:3

I believe that the plain meaning of the verse is what the other sages say, namely that Jacob wanted to enjoy peace and quiet in this world; as a result he suffered the upsetting experience with Joseph, literally, קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף. Joseph's sale, etc, is all blamed on Jacob's desire to enjoy peace and serenity on this earth. We therefore must understand the verse thus: "Jacob wanted to settle down; the consequence of Jacob's settling down was Joseph (his sale, etc)." The Torah teaches us the basic lesson that man brings upon himself whatever befalls him. Harm does not originate with G'd who is the source of all that is good by definition; Jacob was no exception to this rule.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:4

Our verse also wants to inform us that in spite of all the various trials such as the life and death struggle with Esau, his oppression by Laban, etc., which Jacob had experienced up until that point in his life, these were all as nothing compared to what he would still have to endure through the sale of Joseph, etc. This is why the Torah commences the paragraph with the word אלה. This word is meant to put his previous problems into a new perspective.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:5

Another meaning of these words is explained in Sotah 36 where we are told that Joseph was actually meant to become the father of twelve tribes; he lost that opportunity on account of his involvement with the wife of Potiphar, when, according to the Midrash, he was able to resist the lures of that lady only by ejaculating semen through his ten fingertips instead of through the regular channel for such an acitivity. As a result he became the founder of only two tribes, Ephrayim and Menashe. The defective spelling of the word תלדת, minimum plural two, hints at the above mentioned aggadah. The word אלה "cancelled" the previous intention to make Joseph founder of twelve tribes.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:6

Still another meaning that we can find in this verse is based on Psalms 77,16 בני יעקב ויוסף סלה. "The sons of Jacob and Joseph, selah." Sanhedrin 19 explains that the reason that the sons of Jacob and Joseph are lumped together here is that Joseph provided the brothers and their families with food during the famine. Whenever someone assumes the burden of feeding someone else he is entitled to be called by that someone's name. This is alluded to in the sequence of the words תלדת יעקב יוסף, "the descendants of Jacob were possible only by the grace of Joseph." These words could also be translated as "the descendants of Jacob and Joseph." We have several examples of this in the Bible, such as in Exodus 1,2 ראובן שמעון. The meaning is ראובן ושמעון. Here too we must mentally add a conjunctive letter ו before the name יוסף. The Torah provides the rationale why the whole family is included in the name Joseph, i.e. he was the whole family's provider.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:7

בן שבע עשרה שנה. seventeen years old. The reason the Torah had to tell us Joseph's age was because we know from Berachot 55 that if a person had a good dream he should wait up to twenty two years for it to become true. Had we not been informed here that Joseph was seventeen at the time he had these dreams we would not have known that rule.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:8

The Torah also alludes to another lesson mentioned in Kidushin 29. Rabbi Chisdah there describes himself as superior to his friends because he married at sixteen. The evil urge is not as strong in a person who is sixteen as it is in a person who is seventeen years of age. By telling us Joseph's age when the sale occurred we know that his evil urge was very active within him at that time. This may have accounted for his provocative conduct towards his brothers and the fact that he engaged in tale-bearing.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:2:9

היה דעה את אחיו בצאן, he used to tend the flocks with his brothers. The wording seems unusual. We would have expected: היה רעה הצאן את אחיו. Besides, why did the Torah add the words: "he was a lad," when we are told his age in the same breath? Bereshit Rabbah 84,7 explains this by saying that Joseph indulged in childish activities. If that were true why would he do so only with the children of Bilhah? Rashi explains that he felt at home in the environment of Bilhah who had been the handmaid of his mother. This is even more far-fetched; why did the Torah mention נשי אביו, "his father's wives? We must also know what precisely the רבתם רעה, the evil reports about the brothers which Joseph brought to his father consisted of? The Torah is not intended to complicate an issue by speaking in riddles but to help us understand it! We believe therefore that the Torah wanted us to know that this is what happened.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:1-3

אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, “These are the descendants of Yaakov, Joseph.” It would have seemed appropriate to list all of Yaakov’s sons. and daughters. According to the plain meaning of the text they are all subsumed under the name of Joseph seeing he combined all the good characteristics possessed by his brothers in his own person. He possessed the birthright which normally should have been Reuven’s as we know from Chronicles I 5,1 “when he desecrated the couch of his father, his birthright was given to (the tribe of) Joseph.” He possessed the prophetic qualities of Levi as mentioned by the Torah when he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41,13). He also combined within himself the Royal Powers of Yehudah as the Torah testifies in Genesis 42,6 “Joseph was the one who ruled the land (earth?).” He possessed the intelligence for which Issachar is famed, as we know from Genesis 41,40 “there is none as wise and full of insight such as you.” According to a Midrashic approach as found both in Tanchuma and Bereshit Rabbah, Joseph was selected as Yaakov’s prime issue as he was so like his father. This is what the Torah meant when writing כי בן זקונים הוא לו, that his features resembled those of his father. He also resembled his father in that many experiences which Yaakov endured were more or less duplicated in the life of Joseph. Whereas Yaakov had been pursued by his brother Esau, Joseph was persecuted by his brothers. Just as Yaakov’s mother had been barren for many years, so Joseph’s mother had been barren for many years. Just as Yaakov was born without a foreskin, so Joseph was born without a foreskin. We derive this from the fact that Yaakov was described by the Torah as איש תם, a perfectly formed human being, i.e. one that did not need to be circumcised in order to make him whole. The term תם is only used in connection with circumcised people as G’d told Avraham that in order to become תמים, perfect, whole, he had to circumcise himself (Genesis 17,1). The reason the sages believe that Joseph too was born without a foreskin is because the Torah equates Yaakov and Joseph in writing יעקב יוסף, as if to say that what applied to Yaakov applied to Joseph also. These similarities also showed up in that just as Yaakov’s mother experienced a difficult pregnancy and birth, so did Joseph’s mother experience difficulty when giving birth to Binyamin. Just as Yaakov’s mother gave birth to only two sons so did Joseph’s mother give birth to only two sons. Yaakov and Joseph both married while outside the land of Canaan. The children of both Yaakov and Joseph were born outside the land of Canaan. Both Yaakov and Joseph experienced the company of angels protecting them. Rabbi Yannai (compare Bereshit Rabbah 84,14) claims that Joseph was met by three angels while he searched for his brothers. He bases himself on the word איש, “man,” appearing three separate times in verses 15-16 in our chapter. Just as Yaakov emerged from a dream containing a vision spiritually uplifted, so Joseph emerged similarly uplifted after having certain dreams. Just as the environment of Yaakov (the house of Lavan, and, according to some sources the entire region) experienced G’d’s blessing, as well as the famine coming to an end when he descended to Egypt, so Joseph’s presence both in the house of Potiphar and in Egypt generally proved a blessing for all those around him. Just as Yaakov died in Egypt and his remains were embalmed there only to be buried in the land of Israel eventually, so Joseph died in Egypt, was embalmed there and eventually was reburied in the land of Israel. A kabbalistic approach to the sequence יעקב יוסף in our verse adds that Yaakov was the “cherub” (part of G’d’s entourage on earth) and so was Joseph. This is the mystical meaning of Sukkah 5, אפי רברבי ואפי זוטרי, that Yaakov was “the wing of a larger bird and Joseph the wing of a smaller bird, respectively.” Both Yaakov and Joseph have been referred to as נער, “lad” on different occasions. We read of Israel: כי נער ישראל ואהבו, for Israel was a “lad,” and He (G’d) loved him (Hoseah 11,1). Of Joseph we read in our verse that he was a נער.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:4

ויבא יוסף, “Joseph conveyed, etc.” Whenever we encounter the expression מביא דבה, “conveying information reflecting negatively on someone,” the Bible speaks about factual information not about slander. It means that he who conveyed the information backed it up with proof. When the Bible uses the expression הוציא דבה, however, this indicates that the information conveyed was slanderous, was untrue. A classic example of this is found when the Torah speaks of the information conveyed by the spies whom Moses had sent to the land of Canaan (Numbers 13,32. The Torah writes ויוציאו דבת הארץ. “They brought forth an (evil) report of the land.” We have a similar example in Proverbs 10,18 מוציא דבה הוא כסיל, “if someone spreads slander he is a fool.” It is clear that Solomon means untruths. We also have a verse in Job 8,10 ומלבם יוציאו מילים, “and they invent words (of a character-assassinating nature) which originate only in their hearts.”

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:5

את דבתם רעה, “evil reports of them.” Although we know that the expression דבה by itself refers to something of a negative nature, the Torah added the word רעה, “evil,” to underline the exaggerated nature of such evil. Rashi understands the word to teach that Joseph reported every single misdemeanour which he saw the sons of Leah commit. He reported that they were eating flesh from live animals, that they related to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah with disdain as inferiors, and suspected them of possibly engaging in illicit sexual relations. As a result, he was punished in three ways. Nachmanides writes that if indeed Joseph had stood up for the rights of his half-brothers the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah we would have expected these four brothers to have tried to rescue Joseph from his attackers. Should you argue that they might have been afraid of the sons of Leah, this is hardly likely considering there were four of them and that Reuven would most likely side with them in any quarrel, and, so of course, would Joseph himself. So there would be six against six. Nachmanides therefore concludes that Joseph badmouthed the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah and that explains why they were hostile towards him. The hostility of the sons of Leah is described in the Torah as the result of the sons of Leah (“the brothers” in verse four) observing that their father loved Joseph the most. As a result of these two factors Joseph was thoroughly hated by all his brothers except Binyamin. The sequence of the first four verses then is best understood as follows: “These are the descendants of Yaakov; Joseph was seventeen years of age at the time these events occurred and he was engaged in tending the sheep with his half-brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, wives of his father. He badmouthed them to their father. When the brothers (sons of Leah) noted that their father loved Joseph best, they hated him and could not speak peacefully about him.” This explains why all the brothers present at the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites were in full agreement.

Radak on Genesis 37:2:1

אלה תולדות יעקב, the meaning of the word תולדות in our context here is “happenings, developments.” It includes all kinds of traumas Yaakov would experience. Genesis 6,9 similarly introduced what happened to Noach with these words. The philological bridge to the word תולדות when it refers to biological progeny is Proverbs 27,1 כי לא תדע מה ילד היום, “for you do not know what the day will give birth to.”

Radak on Genesis 37:2:2

יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה, when he was still only 17 years old.

Radak on Genesis 37:2:3

רועה את אחיו בצאן, mark the fact that the Torah wrote בצאן “with the flocks,” instead of הצאן, “the flocks,” for being relatively young he was only allowed to work together with his brothers instead of being allowed to tends flocks all by himself. He was still a trainee.

Radak on Genesis 37:2:4

והוא נער, he was always going with them when they were engaged in tending the flocks.

Radak on Genesis 37:2:5

נשי אביו, the term “wives of,“ emphasises that they were full fledged wives, as had been stated when each of these women became married to Yaakov, i.e. “לאשה.” (compare 30,9; 30,4) Joseph’s keeping company with the sons of these women was in no way something disparaging for him, as he was not only their half brother just as he was a half brother to the sons of Leah, but they were his social equals.

Radak on Genesis 37:2:6

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, he told his father that his brothers hated him, i.e. both the sons of the former servant maids with whom he was being raised, as well as the sons of Leah to whom he felt superior because he enjoyed preferential treatment by his father. As a result, the brothers sought pretexts to treat him meanly. Yaakov was angry at the brothers on behalf of Joseph, interpreting the brothers’ hatred of Joseph as jealousy due to his loving Joseph excessively. (verses 3 and 4). In Bereshit Rabbah 84,7 we are told that according to Rabbi Meir Joseph told his fathers that the brothers were suspect of violating the commandment not to eat flesh from a still living animal, whereas Rabbi Yehudah is supposed to have said that Joseph accused them of treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah with disdain, referring to them as “slaves.” Rabbi Shimon is reported as saying that Joseph accused the brothers of casting lustful glances at the local Canaanite girls. Rabbi Yehudah bar Seymon claims that G’d repaid Joseph for all three accusations as we derive from Proverbs 16,11 פלס ומאזני משפט לה', “Honest scales and weights are the Lord’s.” G’d said to him: “you accused your brothers of violating the law of אבר מן החי, you will be a witness that even when they were engaged in a sinful enterprise such as dipping your cloak in blood before presenting it to your father, they first slaughtered the male goat ritually, as is required when they would eat it. You accused them of calling the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah slaves, that is why you yourself were sold into slavery (Psalms 105, 17) You accused your brothers of looking lecherously at the local girls, I will cause you to be tempted by this very phenomenon.” This is why the Torah described the wife of Potiphar attempting to seduce Joseph (39,7)

Ramban on Genesis 37:2:1

THESE ARE THE ‘TOLDOTH’ (GENERATIONS) OF JACOB. And this is an account of the generations of Jacob. These are their settlements and the events which occurred to them until they attained settlement status. The first cause was Joseph, being seventeen years old, etc. It was through this incident that it happened that they descended to Egypt. This is the literal explanation of the text, which permits each detail to fall into its place. These are the words of Rashi. But the word toldoth cannot apply to a settlement. (Ramban thus understood the above text of Rashi as interpreting the word toldoth as having reference to Jacob’s settlement. Mizrachi, however, points out that Rashi’s intent is that the word Eileh (these are) refers to the settlements, while the word toldoth is to be understood in its usual sense as meaning “children.” The sense of the verse thus becomes: “These are the settlements of the children of Jacob.”) And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said [that the verse should be interpreted thus]: “These are the events which happened to him, and the occurrences which befell him. This is similar in meaning to the usage in the verse, For thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. (Proverbs 27:1. The Hebrew is yolad yom (a day may bring forth). Similarly, according to Ibn Ezra, the word toldoth, which has the same roots as yolad, here means the events which evolved.) But a person is not said to bring forth his events; it is only to days that events can be ascribed. (Ramban makes the point that toldoth can mean events when it modifies a period of time. However, when referring to a person, as in the present verse, it cannot have this meaning. Ramban thus takes issue with Ibn Ezra’s interpretation.) Now perhaps the verse, according to Ibn Ezra, is saying, “These are the events which the days of Jacob brought forth.” The correct interpretation in my opinion is as follows: “These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph and his brothers, whom Scripture will mention further on.” Scripture here adopts a concise approach to their names since it already mentioned them above. (Above, 35:23-26.) But the intent of the verse is to say that these are the generations of Joseph and his brothers to whom the following happened. It is also possible that the word Eileh (these are) alludes to all those mentioned in this book: Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons. (Deuteronomy 10:22. The listing of the names of sixty-nine of these seventy people is found further on “in this book,” 46:8-27. Jochebed, who was born as they entered Egypt, is the seventieth.) Just as in the chapter, These are the generations of Esau, (Above, Chapter 36.) Scripture mentioned sons and sons’ sons, kings and chiefs, including all that there had been among them up to the time the Torah was given, (See Ramban above, 36:40.) so will Scripture count the generations of Jacob, his sons and grandsons, and all his seed, mentioning only the outstanding details in their generations.

Ramban on Genesis 37:2:2

AND THE LAD WAS WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH. His actions were those of youth: he would touch up his eyes and dress his hair. With the sons of Bilhah, that is to say, he associated with the sons of Bilhah because his brothers slighted them as being the sons of handmaids, and he therefore befriended them. Their evil report — he told his father about every wrong which he discerned in his brothers, the sons of Leah. This is the language of Rashi. But if this be so, why did the children of the handmaids not save him later on, inasmuch as he loved and befriended them, and told his father about his brothers’ slighting them. And if we say that they feared their brothers, they were four, (Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.) and Reuben was with them, (As expressly stated further on in Verses 21-22.) and, with Joseph himself, [they made a total of six]. Surely they would have prevailed against them especially when considering that the remaining five sons of Leah would not wage war against them. Moreover, it appears from Scripture that all (“All,” except Reuben, the eldest, and Benjamin, the youngest, (Rabbeinu Bachya, p. 306, in my edition.)) of the brothers concurred in the sale of Joseph. However, according to our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah, (84:7.) he uttered slander against all of them. (And not, as Rashi has it, that the evil report concerned only the sons of Leah.) In my opinion the correct interpretation is that this verse returns to explain that which it mentioned above, and its purport [is as if the phrases in the verse were transposed as follows]: Joseph being a lad of seventeen years, was feeding the flock together with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. A similar case requiring transposition of phrases is found in this Seder: (Sedrah or Parsha (section).) And they dreamed a dream both of them in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison. (40:5.) The verse returns to explain the word shneihem (both of them) which it had mentioned at the outset. Its purport, [after the phrases have been suitably transposed, is as follows]: And both of them dreamed a dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison, each man according to the interpretation of his dream. There are many similar verses. It may be that the word v’hu (and he was) requires another similar word, as if it were written: “and he was a lad, and he was with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, who were his father’s wives.” The verse thus states that because he was a lad he was constantly with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, never being separated from them on account of his youth, for their father had commanded them to watch over him and serve him, not the sons of the mistresses, and he brought an evil report concerning them (The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.) to their father. It was for this reason that these four brothers (Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.) hated Joseph. Following that, the verse says that his father loved him. Now when the other brothers (The sons of Leah.) saw that their father loved him more than all, they became jealous of him and they hated him. Thus Joseph is found to be hated by all: the sons of the mistresses were jealous of him because Jacob loved him more than them although they were also sons of a mistress as he was, and the sons of the handmaids, who would otherwise not have been jealous of his superior position over them, hated him because he brought their evil report to their father. The purpose of the redundant expression, dibatham ra’ah (their evil report), is to magnify, (I.e., to indicate that the report was of an exceedingly evil nature.) for dibah itself connotes evil. (Otherwise, why does Scripture add the word ra’ah (evil)? It does so in order to magnify the evil nature of the report.) Now according to the opinion of Rashi it is possible for dibah to be a good report. Thus when Scripture uses the expression, “he brings dibah“, it means that he tells what he sees, (He reports the truth.) but when it uses the term, he bringeth forth ‘dibah,’ it refers to the fool who speaks falsehood. (This opinion that dibah connotes evil only when used in conjunction with the word motzi (bring forth) is borne out by Numbers 13:32.) In line with the literal meaning of Scripture, the fact that it calls one a na’ar (lad) when he was seventeen years of age (Ramban’s intent is to disagree with Rashi’s interpretation of na’ar, which is that his actions were those of a youth.) presents no difficulty for since he was the youngest among them, it calls him by that name, indicating that he was not as sturdy as his brothers and therefore needed to be with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah on account of his youth. Now of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, it is written, And Rehoboam was young and faint-hearted and could not withstand them, (II Chronicles 13:7.) yet he was forty-one years old when he began to reign. (Ibid., 12:13.) Similarly the verse: Is it well with the lad Absalom? (II Samuel 18:32. Now although Scripture does not state how old Absalom was at the time of his death, it would appear certain that he was about thirty years old since he was born to David in Hebron (ibid., 3:3-5), and David ruled thirty-three years in Jerusalem. The rebellion of Absalom occurred three years before David’s death (see Seder Hadoroth, year 2921). Hence Absalom, at his death, was at least thirty years old, yet David calls him na’ar.) And Benjamin, upon going down to Egypt, was older than Joseph was now, (For Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years. Therefore Benjamin must have been at least thirty years old at the time he went down to Egypt.) and yet Scripture frequently refers to him as na’ar. (Further, 44:31 and 33.) Now Onkelos translated v’hu na’ar as “he grew up with the sons of Bilhah.” Thus the verse states that from the time he was a lad he was in their company. They raised him as a father would, and they served him. This interpretation is also correct according to the literal interpretation of Scripture, which I offered as an explanation, namely that Scripture relates that he brought evil report concerning [the sons of the handmaids, who, according to Onkelos, raised him. This is why they hated him, whereas] the sons of the mistresses hated him because of their jealousy, as explained above. (Ramban thus indicates that the authoritative interpretation of Onkelos is here consistent with his own.) The meaning of the expression, His father’s wives, is that they were his “wives” for he took them as such. Scripture calls them “handmaids” only when they are mentioned together with Rachel and Leah, who were their mistresses. Similarly, And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, (Above, 33:2.) as if to say that because they were handmaids of Rachel and Leah, Jacob placed them before them in a more exposed position. Similarly, And he lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine. (Above, 35:22.) [The word “concubine” is used to indicate] that if she were a mistress it would not have occurred. It is possible that during the lifetime of Rachel and Leah, Scripture calls them “handmaids” and “concubines,” but now that they had died [Jacob] took them as wives.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:2:1

אלה תולדות יעקב, intelligent people must remember that our sages taught us that in spite of all different methods of exegesis of the text of the written Torah, no verse may legitimately be explained in a manner which contradicts the plain meaning of the text. While it is true that the Torah, by means of allusions, grammatical anomalies, tone-signs, etc., teaches us far more than meets the eye when we look at the bald text, there are strict limitations even to these methods of exegesis such as the thirteen principles of Rabbi Yishmael and the 32 principles of Rabbi Yossi Haglili. Exegetes of former times, thanks to their piety, relied exclusively on the drashot i.e. allegorical and ethical interpretations of anomalies in the text of the Torah, thereby neglecting a thorough study of the text as it presents itself to the average, though not scholarly, reader. Seeing that our sages stated אל תרבו בניכם בהגיון, “do not burden your children overly with interpretation based on logic, on common sense,” and they also saidהעוסק במקרא מדה ואינו מדה, העוסק בתלמוד אין לך מדה גדולה מזו, “he who studies the written text of the Torah has accomplished something positive but has also failed to accomplish something positive, but on the other hand, he who has studied Talmud has chosen by far the best path in Torah study,” (freely translated), the result of such statements has been that students have not become used to studying the plain meaning of the text without immediately looking at exegesis. (Baba Metzia 33 and a source supposedly in Berachot 28, the correct text being מנעו בניכם מן ההגיון, prevent your children from indulging in speculative reason,” but this does not seem to have any connection with Torah exegesis in the context where the statement is made. Ed.] This principle has been illustrated in Shabbat 63; we read there in the name of Rav Kahane “I was already eighteen years old and had studied the entire Talmud, but had not ever been taught of the principle that אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, “that the text in the written Torah must not be interpreted in a manner which completely nullifies its plain meaning.” Also Rabbi Shlomoh, my mother’s father of blessed memory (Rashi) the brilliant exegete, who wrote commentaries on the entire Bible, was careful not to ignore the plain meaning of the text. I, Shmuel, son of Rabbi Meir, Rashi’s son-in-law, have argued with him, and he admitted to me that if he had the opportunity, he would compose an additional commentary in which he would concentrate on the plain meaning as it became clearer to him with each passing day. [I believe that the wording here means that Rashi meant that just as his published commentaries consisted mostly of anthologies, i.e. his quoting existing interpretations, so he would search out more commentaries based on the plain meaning to present to the reader when publishing another commentary. Ed.] I am now presenting to the reader what earlier exegetes had to say on our verse.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:2:2

אלה תולדות יעקב, “the following describes events and problems which Yaakov encountered in his life.” [by the way, Seforno, who lived hundreds of years later than Rash’bam, also accepts the interpretation described as nonsensical by Rash’bam. Ed.] This exegesis is nonsense. Whenever the expression תולדות occurs in the Bible, sometimes this word introduces the names of the grandsons of the party referred to, such as in Genesis 6,9 where the Torah after describing the righteousness of Noach tells us that Noach had three sons and proceeds to give us their names. The names of the sons could not be the purpose of the story there, as we had been told earlier in 5,32 that Noach at the age of 500 sired three sons and we were already told their names. The Torah then continues to describe mankind’s ongoing corruption and that Noach was the only one with whom G’d was pleased. When the Torah commences a second time with the line אלה תולדות נח in 6,9, clearly the Torah does not mean to repeat itself, but it leads to the Torah telling us of Noach’s grandchildren, something that is reported in greater detail in 10,1 under the heading of “and these are the generations of the sons of Noach.” [Perhaps the reason for the repetition of אלה תולדות בני נח in chapter 10, is that if, as the author says, the grandchildren were meant already in chapter 6, now after the deluge, the task of these children to generate a new mankind began in earnest, whereas up to that point they were charged with merely surviving the deluge. Ed.] Just as the Torah reported the growth and development of mankind after the deluge until we have a total of 70 such descendants of Noach being named, so in chapter 36,6 we have been told of the descendants of Esau who have been born in the land of Canaan, i.e. the land in which his father lived. After that, the Torah reported Esau’s further development in Mount Seir, commencing with verse 9 of that chapter. The Torah reports the development of Yaakov’s family in a parallel manner, 35,23 extending through verses 26-27 and listing all his children who had been born in exile, while he was in Padan Aram with Lavan. Now the Torah continues with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, concentrating forthwith on the grandchildren who combine to make up a total of 70 prior to the descent of the family to Egypt. Details of the birth of these various grandchildren are being provided, beginning with the chronicle of what happened to Joseph, who at 17 years of age experienced traumatic events, as a result of which his older brother Yehudah separated from the other brothers and started his own family in Keziv and Adulam, siring three sons, and grandsons respectively, i.e. Shelah, Peretz and Zerach. The history of Yaakov’s family became complicated further with Joseph having been brought to Egypt as a slave where Menashe and Ephrayim were born for him. Having attained high office, Joseph invited his father and family to join him in Egypt so that ultimately 70 members of Yaakov’s family wound up in Egypt. Moses had to record all this in order to substantiate his claim in Deuteronomy 10,22 that “your fathers descended to Egypt when they numbered only 70 persons.”

Rashbam on Genesis 37:2:3

בן שבע עשרה שנה, this was necessary so that we realise that the separation of Joseph from his father –during which time Yaakov had considered his as dead- lasted for 22 years. The Torah testified in 41,26 that Joseph was 30 years old when presented to Pharaoh, after which time 7 good years and 2 years of famine occurred before Yaakov and family descended to settle in Egypt, making a total of 22 years of separation.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:2:4

היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, the sons of Leah, are referred to as his brothers, seeing that they were the sons of a major wife, as opposed to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah who ranked lower on the social scale, though also half-brothers of Joseph. They are therefore referred to here only as the sons for their respective mothers.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:2:5

והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה, he spent most of his time in the company of those four children who were far closer to him in age. The fact that Joseph preferred the company of the sons of the servant-maids may have been the beginning of the sons of Leah resenting him.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:2:6

את אחיו, he was tending the sheep with his brothers, but, seeing that he still enjoyed his carefree childhood he spent most of his time with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, instead of in the company of the sons of Leah. As a 17 year old he should have acted like a נער, an adolescent lad approaching manhood. This is the meaning of the word נער in Hoseah 11,1 Samuel II 2,14. The Torah now enumerates a number of other causes which contributed to the brothers hating Joseph. [this was how Leah’s sons viewed his behaviour, not how Joseph explained it. Ed.]

Rashbam on Genesis 37:2:7

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, the language is somewhat inverted and means the same as את דבתם של אחיו רעה, “reports of his brothers‘ wrongdoing.” This is in line with the interpretation of Bereshit Rabbah, as quoted by Rashi that Joseph told his father that the sons of Leah treated the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah with disdain. He contrasted this with his own behaviour towards these half brothers of his, whom he professed to honour and spend extra time with them as proof of his considering them equal. Other commentators have not related to the principal meaning of our verse. [the brothers would not have known about Joseph badmouthing them as Yaakov would not have told them. Hence they never reacted to this. Ed.]

Rashi on Genesis 37:2:1

אלה תלדות יעקב THESE ARE THE PROGENY OF JACOB — And these are an account of the generations of Jacob: these are their settlements and the events that happened to them until they formed a permanent settlement. The first cause is found in the narrative, “Joseph being seventeen years old, etc. etc.” — it was through this incident that it came about that they went down to Egypt. This is the real explanation of the text and in it each statement finds its proper setting. The Midrash, however, explains that by the words, “These are the progeny of Jacob — Joseph”, Scripture regards all Jacob’s sons as secondary to Joseph for several reasons: first, the whole purpose of Jacob in working for Laban was only for Rachel, Joseph’s mother, (and all his children were born only in consequence of this); then, again, Joseph’s facial features bore a striking resemblance to those of Jacob. Further, whatever happened to Jacob happened to Joseph: the one was hated, the other was hated; in the case of the one his brother wished to kill him so, too, in the case of the other, his brethren wished to kill him. Many such similarities are pointed out in (Genesis Rabbah 84:5-6; Genesis Rabbah 84:8). Another comment on this verse is: וישב AND HE ABODE — Jacob wished to live at ease, but this trouble in connection with Joseph suddenly came upon him. When the righteous wish to live at ease, the Holy one, blessed be He), says to them: “Are not the righteous satisfied with what is stored up for them in the world to come that they wish to live at ease in this world too! (Genesis Rabbah 84:3)

Rashi on Genesis 37:2:2

והוא נער AND HE, BEING A LAD — His actions were childish: he dressed his hair, he touched up his eyes so that he should appear good-looking (Genesis Rabbah 84:7).

Rashi on Genesis 37:2:3

את בני בלהה WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH — meaning that he made it his custom to associate with the sons of Bilhah because his brothers slighted them as being sons of a hand-maid; therefore he fraternised with them.

Rashi on Genesis 37:2:4

את דבתם רעה THEIR EVIL REPORT — Whatever he saw wrong in his brothers, the sons of Leah, he reported to his father: that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal, that they treated the sons of the handmaids with contempt, calling them slaves, and that they were suspected of living in an immoral manner. With three such similar matters he was therefore punished. In consequence of his having stated that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal Scripture states, (Genesis 37:31) “And they slew a he-goat" after they had sold him and they did not eat its flesh whilst the animal was still living. And because of the slander which he related about them that they called their brothers slaves — (Psalms 105:17) “Joseph was sold for a slave.” And because he charged them with immorality (Genesis 39:7) “his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 84:7).

Rashi on Genesis 37:2:5

דבתם THEIR REPORT — The word דבה always means in old French parleriz; English, gossip: whatever he could speak bad about them he told to his father.

Rashi on Genesis 37:2:6

דבה has the same meaning as the verb of the same root in (Song 7:10) “(דובב) making speak the lips of those that are asleep”.

Sforno on Genesis 37:2:1

אלה תולדות יעקב, what happened to him, as a result of his “settling,” i.e. “retiring” there. (matters which he had not planned). Things described in Proverbs 27,1 as ילדי יום, brought on by the passage of time. Ever since Yaakov had left his father’s home what happened to him had the appearance of something not planned by him, not the result of his design. It is similar to the history of the Jewish people during the era of the first Temple. At any rate, the words וישב יעקב, Yaakov setlled down, remind us of the Jewish people in the land of Israel until the first expulsion. The words בארץ מגורי אביו, in the land where his father had been a stranger, remind us of the era of second Temple. This was followed by the destruction of Jewish statehood, and the loss of even the status of a satellite power, and our entering a long period of exile which will terminate only with the final redemption.

Sforno on Genesis 37:2:2

היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, he was giving guidance to them and instructed them in the finer points of being successful shepherds.

Sforno on Genesis 37:2:3

והוא נער, if, in spite of this, he badmouthed his brothers, this was due to his being still an adolescent, not as mature as he should have been or as his intellect made him appear to be. He was not experienced enough to realise what the ultimate effect of his badmouthing his brothers would turn out to be. While it is true that as a relative youngster at 30 he became the mentor of the wisest men in Egypt, the foremost political power, at the tender age of 17 he still had a lot to learn. (compare his wisdom as expressed in Psalms 105,22 where aged people are described as wise, whereas in Shabbat 89 we are taught that mature wisdom cannot be expected to be found amongst the physically young.

Sforno on Genesis 37:2:4

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, he told his father that his brothers, because of unintentional errors, i.e. lack of professional competence, caused him financial losses in his flocks, seeing that at the time they were preoccupied primarily with increasing their material wealth.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:1

This is the history of the children of Yaakov... This comment of Rashi relates to what he said before, that our verse is explaining the settlements of Yaakov and his descendants. Here, Rashi is answering the question: Where does Scripture explain the settlements of Yaakov’s descendants? It is written אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה..., [seemingly a different topic]! Thus Rashi explains that אלה תולדות... is about the chain of events leading to the eventual settlement of Yaakov’s descendants, who are the Tribes: Yoseif was seventeen, etc, and because of Yoseif they came to Egypt, after which they left and came to Eretz Yisrael. [Question:] אלה תולדות יצחק... (25:19) is similar, in that it begins with אלה תולדות and then tells the events before their births. Why did Rashi not ask the same question there? The answer is: Rashi’s question here is mainly because it begins with the settlements of Yaakov and then Scripture writes אלה תולדות יעקב, but the order should have been reversed!

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:10

Meaning that he associated with the sons of Bilhah... “With the sons of Bilhah” cannot be [a continuation of] the same point, that he did childish things with the sons of Bilhah. Would he not act the same way when he was not with them? Perforce, [it means, and in addition, he associated with them]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:11

Any wrong that he would see in his brothers, the sons of Leah. Rashi deduces this because it is not written ויוצא יוסף דבתם, as it is written about the Spies (Bamidbar 13:32), ויוציאו דבת הארץ. Perforce, the reason it is written here ויבא יוסף את דבתם is because Yoseif said what was true. I.e., he reported the events to his father according to how he saw and heard them, and he did not say things he did not see. However, with regard to the Spies it is written ויוציאו, “they brought out,” meaning they brought out [i.e., fabricated] falsehoods from within themselves.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:12

In his brothers, the sons of Leah. [Question:] In the verse it is written just, “With his brothers.” [How does Rashi know it means the sons of Leah?] The answer is: Yoseif was close with the sons of the handmaidens. If he considered them evil, how could he be close with them? Furthermore, since he was their friend, the evil that he reported surely was not about them.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:13

And that they are suspect in illicit relationships ... Question: How could the sons of Yaakov have been suspect of doing these things? And if they were suspect, why then was Yoseif punished on account of this? The answer is: They surely were not suspect of doing these things; Yoseif erred. And he was punished because he should have looked further into the matter before suspecting them. He thought they ate limbs of living animals because they ate from a properly slaughtered animal that was still convulsing. But the meat was permitted since it was after shechitah. Or, he saw them eating a ben pekoa [an animal found alive in the womb of its mother that had been properly slaughtered]. It is permitted [to eat it,] due to the shechitah of its mother. And even if it [develops into] a big bull it does not require to be ritually slaughtered. [It only needs to be slaughtered] because it appears to be forbidden. Yoseif however, considered it as being the limb of a living animal because it nonetheless requires to be ritually slaughtered, due to appearance. They demeaned the sons of the handmaidens by calling the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah “sons of handmaidens.” Although this was true, and even Scripture refers to them so, Yoseif thought it implied that their sons were non-Jewish slaves. But he erred, because their sons were not non-Jewish slaves, for Bilhah and Zilpah were freed women who assisted Rochel and Leah. Regarding illicit relationships: a man may not use another man’s wife to serve him (Kiddushin 70a), and Yoseif saw them using the services or doing business with a married woman, so he suspected them. But he erred, because a man is forbidden to use the services of a married for intimate purpose only, such as washing his face, hands and feet, or making his bed. But, non-intimate matters or doing business with her are permitted. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yoseif suspected them of all three things? The answer is: Rashi himself answers this by saying, “Yoseif was, in, turn, smitten by these three...” Another answer: There is a connection between דבתם רעה written here, and v. 33 חיה רעה אכלתהו (“A wild beast devoured him”). Just like there it involved a limb from a living creature, since a wild beast devours its prey alive, so too here it involved a limb from a living creature. [The matter regarding non-Jewish] slaves is derived from what it is written about a handmaiden in Shemos 21:8: אם רעה בעיני אדוניה. Just like רעה there involves slavery, so too here it involves slavery. [The matter regarding] illicit relationships is derived from what it is written in 39:9 regarding Yoseif: ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת (“How can I do such a great evil”). Just like רעה there refers to illicit relationships, so too here it refers to illicit relationships.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:14

“They slaughtered a goat” when he was sold, and they did not eat it while it was alive. I.e., the Torah had no need to write that they slaughtered it, since they did not eat it. Perforce, it comes to tell us that even though they did not intend to eat it, they nonetheless slaughtered it [because they were meticulous about shechitah].

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:2

These are their settlements, and occurrences... Re’m explains that Rashi adds, “And occurrences,” because the Torah recounts the actual settlements of only two and a half tribes among Yaakov’s descendants.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:3

The Midrash however explains: Scripture identifies Yaakov’s children as Yoseif... Rashi is saying that [according to the Midrash,] the Torah is indeed explaining the descendants of Yaakov, not their settlements. It is written אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף to convey that all Yaakov’s descendants are called after Yoseif. This is because Yaakov worked the first seven years due to his love for Rochel, to beget a son from her. But then Lavan deceived him and gave him Leah, from whom he begat sons. When Rochel saw that she had no sons, she gave him her maidservant Bilhah as a wife, from whom he begat more sons. Then Leah gave him her maidservant Zilpah as a wife, from whom he begat more sons. And then Rochel gave birth to Yoseif. As soon as Yoseif was born, Yaakov told Lavan that he wished to return to the place of his fathers. Thus we see that all Yaakov’s descendants were due to Yoseif who was born from Rochel.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:4

Yaakov’s entire purpose in working for Lavan was only for the sake of Rochel. You might ask: Binyomin also came from Rochel, so why is [only] Yoseif mentioned? The answer is as I explained before: Yaakov worked mainly for Yoseif, as it says (30:25), “When Rochel had given birth to Yoseif, Yaakov said to Lavan, ‘Send me on my way...’”

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:5

Yoseif’s זיו איקונין resembled his. Why did Rashi not use the term קלסתר פנים, as he did on 25:19, regarding Yitzchok [who resembled Avraham? The answer is:] Rashi learns Yoseif’s resemblance to Yaakov from the word זְקֻנִים, as Rashi explains on 37:3. And זְקֻנִים is an abbreviation for זיו אקונין.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:6

Also, everything that happened to Yaakov happened to Yoseif... [According to the above Midrash,] the verse is saying, so to speak: “These descendants” about which everyone can testify that they are “of Yaakov,” they are [none other than] “Yoseif,” [for only Yoseif’s facial features resembled Yaakov’s.] This is similar to Rashi’s explanation on (25:19) ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, [where everyone testified that Yitzchok looked like Avraham]. Alternatively, the reason why everyone knew Yoseif was Yaakov’s son was that the events which happened to Yaakov happened only to Yoseif, [and a son’s fate generally resembles that of his father].

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:7

Another Midrashic exposition: “[Yaakov] settled.” Yaakov was seeking to be settled in tranquility... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written ויחי יעקב בארץ..., [rather than וישב יעקב בארץ...]?

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:8

The righteous seek to be settled in tranquility, God says... In all places where Rashi explains that [ישב implies there was a lacking,] it is because it is written lacking [the vav of יושב]. Such as והוא ישב פתח האהל (18:1), and ולוט ישב (19:1). But here there is no reason to interpret it as, “Seek to be settled in tranquility,” [since וַיֵשֶב is not a lacking form of יוֹשֵב]. Thus, it should literally mean “settled.” [If so, why does Rashi interpret as he does?] The answer is: [This interpretation is needed] because it is written afterwards, אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, which has no connection with וישב יעקב. Alternatively, because it should have said אלה תולדות יעקב ראובן.... This forced Rashi to explain that אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף is the cause which prevented the fulfillment of Yaakov’s intention [to be settled in tranquility]. And קפץ עליו רגזו means the controversy and fighting [surrounding Yoseif]. The meaning of רגזו is similar to אל תרגזו בדרך (45:24), which Onkelos translates as אל תתנצון (do not quarrel). (Nachalas Yaakov)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:2:9

He did things that were childish... Otherwise, why does it say, “And the lad”?

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:2

This is the legacy of Jacob. Although Jacob remained active upon his return to Canaan, his contributions as a leader and builder started to decrease. Therefore the narrative shifts its primary focus to Joseph. Joseph, seventeen years old, was herding the flock of his household with his brothers, thereby continuing the traditional occupation of their family (see 46:32). And he was a lad, or assistant, with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives. Jacob himself gave no indication that the sons of the maidservants, Bilha and Zilpa, were of lesser status than the sons of Leah and Rachel. On the contrary, when Jacob blessed his sons, he equated the status of all of them (see 49:16). In practice, however, a disparity existed between them. Joseph became close to the sons of Bilha and Zilpa because he was closer in age to them. Yet Joseph brought evil report of them to their father, slandering their inappropriate behavior. 1

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:2:1

אלה תולדות יעקב, “These are the developments of Yaakov;” Rashi interprets these words as introducing the background to the many places Yaakov’s descendants lived and emigrated to, before they finally settled in the Land of Israel, previously the land of Canaan. The first cause for these wanderings is to be found in the story of Joseph and his brothers. Ibn Ezra’s commentary follows the same general approach as that of Rashi. Nachmanides claims that the expression תולדות cannot be applied to successive residences of a person or a people, but only to days, years, etc., i.e. generations, births, etc. A well known example is Proverbs 27,1 מה ילד יום, “what the day will bring” (give birth to). I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse is: “these are developments of Yaakov, Joseph and his brothers and what has been happening to them.” Possibly, just as the Torah listed the developments of Esau down to the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people, it lists what had happened to the descendants of Yaakov and all his descendants until they moved to Egypt, 70 in number.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:2:2

והוא נער את בני בלהה. “and he was a lad keeping company with the sons of Bilhah.” Rashi interprets this as Joseph’s immaturity, acting childishly. Onkelos interprets this to mean that already from his earliest youth, Joseph preferred the company of the sons of Bilhah who looked up to him and flattered him. Nachmanides writes that the words והוא נער, refer to what has been written previously, so that we have to understand the sequence of the verse as follows: “these are the developments in the house of Yaakov; Joseph, who was a lad of 17 years used to tend the sheep together with his brothers.” Ibn Ezra interprets the verse to mean that because Joseph was still immature at 17, the sons of Bilhah made him their personal valet. The Torah suggests that if Joseph had acted as valet to the sons of Yaakov’s real wives no problems would have arisen at all. This is the meaning of the דבתם רע, the evil reports Joseph brought to his father concerning the conduct of the sons of Leah. Joseph resented being assigned to being a valet to the sons of the handmaids. It is also possible that due to his youth, the Torah refers to him as נער, even though physically speaking he was fully grown. We encounter something similar with Avshalom, son of David, who was also referred to as נער, not because he was so young in years at that time, but because he was younger than his brothers. (Samuel II 19,33)

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:2:3

את בני בלהה, “the sons of Bilhah, etc.” According to Rashi Joseph befriended them because the sons of Leah shunned them.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:2:4

נשי אביו, “his father’s wives.” The Torah emphasizes that these ladies were Yaakov’s legal wives in the fullest meaning of the term. They were described as maidservants only in their status compared to Rachel and Leah, seeing that the latter were their seniors. This is why when Yaakov presented his wives to his brother Esau, and he first presented Zilpah and Bilhah, these are described as שפחות, maidservants, (33,6) seeing that in the event Esau would molest them, this would be a warning for Leah and Rachel to hide, or something. After all, Zilpah and Bilhah continued as maidservants in the employ of Leah and Rahel also after Yaakov married them. When Reuven was described as “sleeping” with Bilhah, she is also described as פלגש, a concubine, but this is only vis-à-vis her deceased mistress Rachel. It is quite possible that while Rachel and Leah were alive, Yaakov referred to them both as שפחות and as פילגשים, “maidservants and concubines.”

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:2:5

את דבתם רעה, ”evil reports about them.” Anything wrong that the sons of Leah did, Joseph reported to his father. Nachmanides queries that if that were indeed so, the sons of the maidservants should have loved him, and if so, why did they not save him at the time when the sons of Leah were about to kill him and eventually sold him? After all, there were four of them, and if you add Reuven who, as we know, tried to save Joseph, they would have been equal in number to the other five sons of Leah? Furthermore, from the text it appears as if all the brothers, including the sons of the maidservants agreed to sell him! According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah, Joseph reported evil deeds both of the sons of Leah and the sons of the maidservants. Accordingly, the meaning of the words את בני בלהה ואת את בני זלפה, is simply that Joseph spent most of his time in the company of these sons of the maidservants as they were so much closer to him in age. In fact, their father had commanded these sons of the maidservants to keep a constant eye on Joseph, to insure that no mishap would befall hum. They were to attend to his needs. He did not instruct the sons of Leah to tend to Joseph’s needs. Joseph brought tales of misconduct of the sons of the maidservants to his father, seeing that he had so much opportunity to observe their conduct. This is why they learned to hate him.. We hear only later, that as a result of his dreams and his telling the sons of Leah about them, the sons of Leah grew to be jealous of him and to hate him, especially when they could not help noticing how his father preferred him over them. Everyone of the brothers had his own reason for hating Joseph.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:2:6

דבתם רעה, “reports of their wrong doing.” According to Nachmanides the word דבה always implies something exaggerated. It is therefore evil by definition. Rashi explains that Joseph told his father that the sons of Leah were belittling the sons of the maidservants, that they were suspect of eating flesh from animals not yet slaughtered or dead, and that they indulged in incestuous sexual relationships. It is difficult to understand that if Joseph’s accusations were true, why he himself in the course of his life, was exposed to precisely these three potential sins. On the other hand, if Joseph’s accusations were unjustified, how could a person who is regarded throughout our history as an outstandingly righteous individual, a model of uprightness, have been guilty of defaming his brothers in such a manner? The answer usually given to this question is that even if his accusations had been true, he was wrong to act as a sole witness whose evidence was not supported by a second disinterested witness. The whole matter is reminiscent of a story in the Talmud Makkot 11A, where someone called Tuviah, had become guilty of a sin, and a single witness named Zigud testified against him and was punished for slandering him by unsupported testimony, whereas the alleged sinner went free.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 3-4

“This is the line of Jacob” [37:2]. This is the history of the children of Jacob. The first thing happened. Joseph was seventeen years old and he was raised with the children of Bilhah and Zilpah. He herded the sheep with their children. Therefore, the verse says, youth [na’ar]. That is, it was no shame that he herded with the children of the maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah, because he was still a youth, that is to say, young. So writes Hizkuni. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:2.) Rashi writes. He did childish deeds. He adorned himself and beautified his hair. Also, he still lived with the children of Bilhah and Zilpah. The other children separated themselves from them and held them in low esteem. However, the righteous Joseph joined these children. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:2.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 5-6

“Joseph brought bad reports of them” [37:2]. Joseph told his father everything that he saw the children of Leah doing. Rashi asks a question here. Why does it say here “Joseph brought”? This means, he brought reports to his father. Concerning the spies it is written, “They spread calumnies” [Numbers, 13:32]. This means, they drew out. The explanation is that Joseph was righteous. He told no lies about his brothers, but everything that he saw with his own eyes explicitly he told and brought to his father. However, the spies were evildoers. They embellished evil words; they even said falsehoods about the land of Israel. (Devek Tov, Genesis, 37:2.) What evil did Joseph see among his brothers? They were completely righteous. The explanation is that Joseph made a mistake. He saw them eating a calf whose mother had been slaughtered and the calf came out alive. One is allowed to eat the calf without slaughtering it. This what the brothers were eating, and Joseph told his father how they were eating it without having slaughtered it. Joseph also told his father how the children of Leah said to the children of Bilhah and Zilpah: you are children of maidservants, that is to say, of low esteem. Joseph said: one should not call anyone the son of a slave or the like. One should not call anyone the son of a maidservant. Joseph thought that it was a sin to call someone son of a slave or son of a maidservant. However, the brothers said that nonetheless they are sons of maidservants and one is allowed to call them sons of maidservants because in truth they are children of maidservants. Joseph also said about the children of Leah that they engaged in illicit sexual relations, since he saw that the children of Leah engaged in much commerce with the wives of the Cutheans. Joseph thought that they were certainly engaging in illicit sexual relations. However, Joseph was mistaken. One is allowed to talk much with women in order to engage in commerce with them. The Holy One punished Joseph with three things. The first thing that Joseph had said that they were eating animals without slaughter. Therefore, when they sold him, his brothers first slaughtered a kid in order to dip Joseph’s shirt in blood. The second was that Joseph said that the brothers called the children of Bilhah and Zilpah, slaves and servants. Therefore, Joseph was sold as a slave. The third thing that Joseph said was that the brothers engaged in illicit sexual relations. Therefore, Joseph was punished that his mistress wanted to sleep with him and he later was thrown into prison. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:2.)

Halakhah

The descent of Israel into Egypt was initially caused by lashon hara, as Joseph brought an evil report of his brothers to their father, leading to his own enslavement as a punishment, despite having a halachic license for doing so.

Chafetz Chaim, Introduction to the Laws of the Prohibition of Lashon Hara and Rechilut, Opening Comments 3

And the descent of Israel into Egypt, too, stemmed initially from this [i.e., from lashon hara], viz. (Bereshith 37:2): "And Joseph brought evil report of them [the sons of Leah] to their father," whence it was decreed by Heaven, measure for measure, that he be sold into slavery, his having accused them of calling their brothers [from the maidservants] "slaves" (viz. Bereshith Rabbah 84:7 and Yerushalmi Peah 1:1). Though Joseph had a heter [halachic license] for bringing this "evil report," as the exegetes explain, it is to be noted that this heter did not avail him [and he was sold into slavery].

Jewish Thought

The text discusses the appellation 'youth' given to Yosef, Joshua, Metatron, and David. It also explores the prohibition of marrying two sisters, suggesting that it was not yet a sin during the time of the patriarchs but was later prohibited due to potential jealousy issues. Additionally, the text delves into Joseph as a stereotype of a Jew, paralleling his experiences with those of the Jewish people. Finally, it discusses the distinction between derash (midrashic meaning) and peshat (literal sense) in Jewish biblical interpretation, highlighting the primacy of midrashic tradition over the plain sense of scripture.

Akeidat Yitzchak 28:1:5

Joseph is selected here as the stereotype of a Jew. Jacob's typical issue is described as "these are the generations of Jacob, Joseph..." (Genesis 37,2). Many other verses throughout the Bible express the same theme. Tanchuma at the end of Parshat Vayigash writes that whatever befell Joseph sooner or later befell Zion etc. Just as Joseph was tending the sheep near his brothers at the beginning of his historic career, so the Jewish people were close to the land of Edom their cousins at the beginning of its historic career when they received the Torah. By its acceptance of G-d’s law, Israel, so to speak, brought "evil" reports about other nations who had failed to accept the Torah when it was offered to them. When G-d says in Jeremiah 2,2, "I remember your love and kindness in your youth when you followed Me into the desert etc," this corresponds to Joseph being loved by his father more than his brothers. G-d gave Israel the Torah, accorded it special status, just as Jacob chose Joseph, gave him the colored coat and assigned him priestly duties (as Rachel's eldest). When the cousins (gentile nations) perceived this, they hated Israel just as the brothers had hated Joseph. Our sages point out that the reason the mountain on which the Torah was given was called Sinai, was because the word is reminiscent of hatred, i.e. events on that mountain accounted for the hatred of the Jewish people and Judaism by the gentile nations. Joseph's dreaming of the homage paid him reflects the homage paid the Jewish people during the early generations of their conquest of the land of Canaan, when most nations acknowledged Jewish achievements from afar in their respective countries. A time came when the nations became resentful of Israel's pre-eminence, and just as in Joseph's dream they challenged, "Do you want to rule over us or reign amongst us?" Joseph had dreamed of the more influential celestial bodies, since he foresaw Ishmael's and Esau's opposition, one of whom uses the lunar calendar whereas the other uses the solar system as basis for its calendar plus all the other eleven constellations excluding the constellation of Israel which does not revolve around the other constellations. The future will reveal that all these rival nations and destinies will submit to Joseph (Israel), resulting in shame and derision for sun and moon respectively, as we read in Isaiah 24,23, "And the moon will be ashamed, while the sun will feel disgrace."

Crisis and Covenant; Jewish Thought after the Holocaust, Chapter 8; Midrash and History 36

In the Middle Ages, under the influence of rationalism and the polemic with Christian biblical interpretation, a sharp distinction was made between derash, the midrashic meaning and peshat, the literal, grammatical or historical sense. For the first time commentators such as Abraham Ibn Ezra, Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam) and Rabbi Joseph Kara attached independent dignity to peshat, the “plain sense of things.” However, even for such commentators midrash retained its primacy as authoritative reading. Thus Rashbam, in a passage explaining his methods, writes that “the main point of the Torah” is to teach the laws and ethical principles derived by midrash. He confesses that his own concern, which is to seek “the deep plain sense of Scripture,” is of secondary significance. (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, Commentary to Genesis 37:2; see also his comments to Genesis 1:1.) Or as we might put it, if Torah yields a multiplicity of meanings, the plain sense is certainly one of them, (See the interesting, if speculative, comments of David Weiss Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah and Gemara (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), 105–15.) but what is normative for the life of the community is the midrashic tradition. What is more, a clear polarity between derash and peshat is unknown to the early sages. In a masterly essay, Raphael Loewe has shown that though the term peshat was used by the rabbis of the talmudic age, it referred not to the “literal” but rather to the recognised, accepted or authoritative meaning. (Raphael Loewe, “The ‘Plain’ Meaning of Scripture in Early Jewish Exegesis,” Papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964), volume 1, 141–85.)

Kol HaTor 2:94

“A youth” -- (Gen. 37:2) “and he was a youth” -- Four individuals were given the appellation ’ youth’: Yosef, Joshua, Metatron, and David.

Torat HaOlah, Part Two 44:7

However according to what we have indeed written about the matter of change in the commandments, everything is resolved. As it is possible that the prohibition of two sisters was not yet a sin at all during the time of the patriarchs, but was rather innovated afterward when the divine wisdom saw that a great catastrophe can come from this, given the jealousy of the children of Leah towards Joseph, the son of Rachel, the sister of their mother. Also [due to] the jealousy Leah and Rachel towards each other. As given that Leah and Rachel were Jacob's main wives, [their children] were jealous towards each other, which was not the case with the children of the maidservants. And that is why it is stated about Joseph: and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and the sons of Zilpah (Genesis 37:2). Behold it was from the angle of Leah and Rachel being sisters, and the jealousy of their children towards each other, that our ancestors went down to Egypt. And that is why [marrying] two sisters was subsequently forbidden. That is the reason for the need for the content of these stories: To make us aware of the reason for one of the commandments. And the Guide [for the Perplexed], Part III, Section 50 wrote something similar to this about the story of These are the kings, etc.. And it is possible that just like the law of sisters was changed, so too was marrying an aunt changed. And that is why Amram was permitted to marry his aunt. And our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded similarly to this concerning the prohibition of a sister, as it is stated about it:it is kindness (Leviticus 20:17). And our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 9:1), "What I permitted to Cain and Abel, etc." And that is why these sexual prohibitions were not yet forbidden during the time of the patriarchs until the time of the giving of the Torah when this law was innovated. And Ramban himself, may his memory be blessed, wrote like this concerning pillars, and these are his [words]: And the [prohibition of setting up a] pillar is a commandment that was innovated at a certain time, as they expounded (Sifrei, Deuteronomy 146) about that which is stated: in that the Lord, your God, hated it (Deuteronomy 16:22) — "He hated it, after it was beloved in the time of the forefathers." To here are his [words]. And since it is [the case] here, it is also [the case] there. For one should learn from what is revealed about what is hidden.

Kabbalah

Jacob took over the house through Joseph, allowing Moses to unite with the Shechinah only through Joseph. Jacob, Moses, and Joseph are interconnected as one. The quality of Understanding-Binah is referred to as "The Mighty One of Yaakov-Abeer Yaakov" because it depends on the quality of Jacob, who corresponds to the middle line and the letter Vav of the Name HaShem. Yaakov mediates between the qualities of Avraham and Yitzchak, with the verse "Yaakov was a perfect man, dwelling in tents" symbolizing his role as the middle line. The covenant of Yaakov is linked to the quality of "The Mighty One of Yaakov-Abeer Yaakov."

Sha'arei Orah, Second Gate, Ninth Sefirah 150

This quality is sometimes called (Genesis 49:24) “The Mighty One of Yaakov-Abeer Yaakov-אביר יעקב.” The reason is because it is from Understanding-Binah that the hawk of wisdom-Chochmah grows pinions-Ya’aver Neitz-יאב״ר נץ. (See Job 39:26; The word Mighty-Abeer-אביר shares the same letters as Ya’aver-יאבר.) This is the matter of the lower Shabbat and the upper Shabbat. (As explained before, the lower Shabbat is the quality of Foundation-Yesod, whereas the upper Shabbat is the quality of understanding-Binah.) The reason it is called “The Mighty One of Yaakov-Abeer Yaakov-אביר יעקב” and not “The Mighty One of Avraham” or “The Mighty One of Yitzchak” is because this quality depends on the quality of Yaakov, (This is as indicated by the verse (Genesis 37:2), “These are the progeny of Yaakov, Yosef.” That is, Yosef, who is the quality of foundation-Yesod, is the progeny of Yaakov, who is the quality of beauty-Tiferet.) for Yaakov is the middle line who mediates and corresponds to the letter Vav-ו of the Name HaShem-יהו״ה, blessed is He. Now, the matter of the letter Vav-ו of the Name HaShem-יהו"ה is unique to Yaakov, and is the matter of the quality of splendor-Tiferet. (The quality of beauty-Tiferet is between kindness-Gedulah, which is the quality of Avraham, and might-Gevurah, which is the quality of Yitzchak.) The qualities of Avraham and Yitzchak take hold of this quality, Avraham to its right, Yitzchak to its left, with Yaakov in the middle line. The sign by which to remember this is the verse, (Genesis 25:27) “Yaakov was a perfect-Tam-תם man, dwelling in tents-Ohalim-אהלים.” The matter of a “perfect-Tam-תם man” is the same as the matter of the “Twin leaf-Tiyomet-תיומת of the Lulav,” (See Talmud Bavli, Sukkah 32a and elsewhere.) which is the middle spine of the Lulav. The words, “dwelling in tents-Ohalim-אהלים” [in the plural] refers to the tent of Avraham and the tent of Yitzchak, which are the two sides of the Lulav. Thus, since the matter of Yaakov is that he is the middle line and is the matter of the letter Vav-ו of the Name HaShem-יהו״ה, we therefore say, “The God of Avraham, the God of Yitzchak, and the God of Yaakov-V’Elohei Yaakov-ואלה״י יעקב,” (In the Amidah prayer. Also see Exodus 3:6) with the addition of the letter Vav-ו in reference to Yaakov. The same is so of the words, (In the Amidah prayer. Also see Deuteronomy 10:17) “The Great-HaGadol-הגדול, the Mighty-HaGibor-הגבור, and the Awesome-V’HaNora-והנורא God.” The great matter is the verse, (Leviticus 26:42) “I will remember My covenant with Yaakov-יעקוב,” in which the word Yaakov-יעקוב is spelled with the Vav-ו, and the “covenant of Yaakov-Brit Yaakov-ברית יעקב” is the same as the matter of “The Mighty One of Yaakov-Abeer Yaakov-אביר יעקב.”

Zohar, Bereshit 13:149

Jacob took over the house through Joseph, as it is written: "These are the generations of Jacob Joseph" (Beresheet 37:2). Moses did not mate with her until he attained (the connection with) Joseph. When the Shechinah returned from the exile (Moshe) was able to unite with (the Shechinah) only through Joseph, as it is written: "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him" (Shemot 13:19). Why is it written: "with him?" Because the body is not (fit) for mating with the female unless it unites with the covenant (i.e. Yesod). This is why Moses took Joseph with him. Because, since (Yosef) was (connected) with him, (Ze'er Anpin) could mate with this Female principle in the proper manner. Thus, Jacob, Moses and Joseph go together as one.

Midrash

48:20). “Basin” – this is Joseph; do not read it as agan, but rather, as agam, who was as beloved [agam] to his father as the basin was filled with flour. “Seventy shekels” – corresponding to the seventy languages that Joseph knew, as it says: “And Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him” (Genesis 42:8). “In the sacred shekel” – corresponding to the sacredness of Joseph, as it says: “The firstborn of his cattle, honor is his” (Deuteronomy 15:19).

Aggadat Bereshit 59:1

Chapter (58) 59: Prophets [1] The vision of Obadiah. "Thus says the Lord God concerning Edom (Jeremiah 49:7): We have heard a report from the Lord, and a messenger has been sent among the nations: 'Rise up! Let us rise against her for battle!'" (Jeremiah 49:14). When Jacob, our father, saw the leaders of Esau, he became afraid and began to say, "Who can stand up against all of them, so many kings and leaders, and I am but one person? How can I stand up against all of them?" Then the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Do not be afraid. Look at what is behind you." "These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph" (Genesis 37:2). "Who can stand up against all of them?" "The smallest one among your children." "And the House of Jacob shall be fire and the House of Joseph a flame" (Obadiah 1:18). It is compared to a goldsmith who was sitting and doing his work, and his disciple was with him. The disciple raised his eyes and saw many camels loaded with straw. He began to wonder and said to his teacher, "Who can stand up against all of them?" His teacher replied, "One spark from the furnace can burn them all." So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jacob, "Are you afraid of them? One spark from you can burn them all," as it is stated, "Behold, they shall be as stubble, the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame" (Isaiah 47:14). This refers to Joseph, as it is stated, "And the House of Joseph shall be a flame" (Obadiah 1:18). Therefore, "and he (Jacob) descended" (Genesis 36:1), the descent (interpreted as) the worst (possible scenario) that Jacob loses them all, and the descent of your children is combined against Esau. Even Obadiah, the lowest of all the prophets, takes revenge against Edom, as it is stated, "The vision of Obadiah. "Why has Yaakov descended?" (Obadiah 1:18)

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:5

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:49). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]….” – this is the offering that he presented in the name of Jacob, who had him precede Manasseh, and in the name of Joseph, who, because of his love, Jacob blessed him all those blessings, just as it says: “He blessed Joseph and said: The God [before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked…]” (Genesis 48:15), and it says: “By you Israel shall bless, saying: May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh…” (Genesis 48:20). “Dish [kaarat]” – this is Jacob; do not read it as kaarat, but rather, as akeret, who uprooted [akar] the right hand from Manasseh in favor of Ephraim. “Silver” – after, “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20); what he said to Joseph: “His father refused, and said: I know, my son, I know; he too shall become a people…” (Genesis 48:19). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – corresponding to the one hundred and thirty words that there are from “he laid it on Ephraim’s head” (Genesis 48:14) until “he placed Ephraim before Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – this is Joseph, who was cast away [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “One” – as he was king in Egypt, just as it says: “One of the people (Avimelekh said this referring to himself.) almost lay [with your wife]” (Genesis 26:10). Likewise it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land…” (Genesis 42:6). “Silver” – after “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver,” as due to his wisdom he was privileged to achieve kingship, just as it says: “After God has disclosed all this to you.… You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:39–40). “Seventy shekels in the sacred shekel” – as Gabriel came and added one letter from the name of the Holy One blessed be He to his name and taught him seventy languages, as it is stated: “He established it as a precept for Joseph [bihosef] (He added a heh, changing Joseph [Yosef] to Yehosef.) when he went out over Egypt; I learned a language I had not known” (Psalms 81:6), as were it not so, the Egyptians would not have accepted Joseph to rule over them. “Both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” – Jacob and Joseph were both full-fledged righteous men, and the two of them resembled one another. This accords with what Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2). It should have said nothing other than: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Reuben.” Why is it stated: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph”? It is to teach you that Joseph resembled his father in every respect. Just as Jacob was born circumcised, so too, Joseph was born circumcised. Just as this one, his mother was barren, so too, that one, his mother was barren. Just as this one, his mother suffered from the pain of her pregnancy, so too that one, his mother suffered during birth. Just as this one, his mother bore two, so too that one, his mother bore two. Just as this one, his brother seeks to kill him, this one, too, his brothers seek to kill him. This one, his brother hates [soneh] him, and that one, likewise. This one is a shepherd and that one is a shepherd. This one is hated [nistam] and that one is hated. (See Genesis 27:41, 49:23.) This one was stolen from twice: “Stolen in the day and stolen at night” (Genesis 31:39); that one, there is a double expression of stealing: “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti] [from the land of the Hebrews]” (Genesis 40:15). This one was blessed with ten blessings, (See Genesis 27:28–29.) and that one was blessed with ten blessings. (See Deuteronomy 33:13–17.) This one departed and went outside of the Land of Israel, and that one departed and went outside of the Land of Israel. This one took a wife outside of the Land of Israel, and that one took a wife outside of the Land of Israel. This one begot children outside of the Land of Israel, and that one begot children outside of the Land of Israel. This one, angels accompanied him, and that one, angels accompanied him. (A midrash says that when Joseph went to his brothers at the behest of his father, three angels accompanied him.) This one ascended to greatness by means of a dream (See Genesis 28:10–16.) and that one ascended to greatness by means of a dream. This one, his father-in-law’s household was blessed on his account, and that one, his father-in-law’s (According to Bereshit Rabba 86:3, Joseph’s father-in-law Potifera was Potifar.) household was blessed on his account. This one descended to Egypt, and that one descended to Egypt. This one ended the famine and that one ended the famine. (See Bereshit Rabba 89:9.) This one administered an oath to his son, and that one administered an oath to his brothers. This one died in Egypt, and that one died in Egypt. This one was embalmed, and that one was embalmed. This one, his bones ascended, and that one, his bones ascended. Because Joseph resembled his father, that is why it is stated: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph”; and that is why it is stated: “Both of them full…” – regarding Jacob and Joseph. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:50). “One…ladle [kaf]” – it corresponds to the palm of his right hand, which he placed on Ephraim’s head. Why does it call it “one”? It is because it is more significant than the left. “Gold…ten shekels” – it corresponds to the ten words that there are from: “Israel extended his right hand” (Genesis 48:14) until “and he was the younger” (Genesis 48:14). “Filled with incense” – Jacob saw this matter through the divine spirit, that Ephraim was worthy for him to place his right hand on his head. Likewise it says: “Guiding [sikel] his hands, as Manasseh was the first born” (Genesis 48:14). His hands were guided [hiskilu] by the divine spirit, just as it says: “Maskil of Eitan the Ezraḥite” (Psalms 89:1). (This is a psalm stated by Eitan the Ezraḥite with divine guidance.) “One young bull, one ram, one sheep in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:51). “One young [ben bakar] bull” – corresponding to Abraham, as it is stated: “Abraham ran to the cattle [habakar]” (Genesis 18:7). “One ram” – corresponding to Isaac, in whose regard it is written: “[Abraham…] took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son” (Genesis 22:13). “One sheep” – corresponding to Jacob, in whose regard it is written: “Jacob separated the sheep” (Genesis 30:40). Why did he sacrifice these three kinds of burnt offerings? It corresponds to the three patriarchs, corresponding to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “Let my name and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, be called upon them” (Genesis 48:16). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:52). “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Elishama son of Amihud” (Numbers 7:53). “One goat as a sin offering” – corresponding to Joseph, as it is written: “They slaughtered a goat” (Genesis 37:31). Why did he sacrifice this corresponding to Joseph? It is because when Jacob blessed them with the name of the three patriarchs, likewise, he blessed them with the name of Joseph and made them dependent upon him, as it is stated: “By you Israel shall bless, saying: May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the two blessings that he blessed them: the former, “[may the angel…] bless the lads” (Genesis 48:16), and the latter, “by you Israel shall bless….” “Five rams, [five goats, five lambs]” – three species, corresponding to three generations that Joseph saw for Ephraim, who were attributed to Joseph, and they were patrilineal houses, as it is stated: “Joseph saw great-grandchildren from Ephraim” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise it says: “These are the sons of Ephraim by their families: Of Shutelaḥ.… And these are the sons of Shutelaḥ: Of Eran…” (Numbers 26:35–36). Ephraim, Shutelaḥ, Eran, these are three sons from three generations. Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five words (In the Hebrew phrase.) of “he placed Ephraim before Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20), as it is from there that Ephraim merited to present his offering first. “This was the offering…” – because he presented the offering in this order, the Holy One blessed be He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Elishama….”

Bamidbar Rabbah 2:21

And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day that God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai (Numbers 3:1). Anyone with whom the Omnipresent engages to establish a nation or a family tree from him, the Omnipresent would also engage with him to write generations in his regard, as you find twelve instances of generations in the verses. The first: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 2:4); “this is the book of the generations of Adam” (Genesis 5:1); “these are the generations of Noah” (Genesis 6:9); “these are the generations of the sons of Noah” (Genesis 10:1): “these are the generations of Shem” (Genesis 11:10); “these are the generations of Teraḥ” (Genesis 11:27); “these are the generations of Ishmael” (Genesis 25:12); “Isaac” (Genesis 25:19); “Esau” (Genesis 36:1); “Jacob” (Genesis 37:2). These are ten generations with which the Holy One blessed be He engaged to create the world and to establish nations. And there are two people that the Omnipresent wrote their generationst, one for the royal dynasty and one for the priestly dynasty: “These are the generations of Peretz” (Ruth 4:18), to establish the royal dynasty from him, and “these are the generations of Aaron and Moses"(Numbers 3:1), for the priestly dynasty.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:17

“They sat to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balm, and ladanum, going to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). “They sat to eat bread” – Rabbi Aḥva bar Ze’eira said: The transgression of the tribes is remembered forever; it gave hope to the world. “They sat to eat bread” – he gave everyone in the world bread to eat. (The sale of Joseph led to his appointment to viceroy in Egypt and to his role as dispenser of food during the famine.) “And they lifted their eyes and saw…” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: But is it not typical of the Ishmaelites to bear only hides and tar? Rather, see what the Holy One blessed be He prepared for that righteous one at that moment: Sacks filled with spices, so that the wind would blow through them [and provide a pleasant smell] to counteract the odor of the Arabs. (Because the Ishmaelites generally transported foul-smelling substances, they and their equipment had an unpleasant odor. God arranged for the caravan carrying Joseph to Egypt to have pleasant-smelling spices in order to mask the foul, unpleasant odor. ) “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood” (Genesis 37:26). “Judah said to his brothers…” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: The verse is speaking in praise of Judah. In three places, Judah spoke before his brothers and they crowned him king over them. (They accepted his advice or his leadership. ) “Judah said to his brothers”; “Judah and his brothers came [.…And Judah said]” (Genesis 44:14); (This was after Benjamin was caught with Joseph’s goblet; Judah led the brothers in their return to Joseph and spoke as their representative.) “Judah approached him [and said]” (Genesis 44:18). (This was after Joseph informed them that Benjamin would be his slave. Judah again spoke on behalf of the brothers, argued for Benjamin’s release, and offered to take Benjamin’s place as a slave. ) “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers heeded him” (Genesis 37:27). “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” – they said: Let us adopt the way of the world. Canaan, who sinned, (Canaan reported Noah’s nakedness to Noah’s sons (see Bereshit Rabba 36:7). ) was he not cursed to be a slave? This one, too, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites. (Joseph had slandered his brothers (Genesis 37:2; see above, section 7). Therefore, they considered him worthy of a similar fate to that of Canaan. ) “His brothers heeded him.”

Bereshit Rabbah 84:5

What is written prior to this matter? “These are the kings [who reigned in the land of Edom before the reign of a king for the children of Israel]” (Genesis 36:31). And here it is written: “Jacob settled” – Rabbi Ḥunya said: This is analogous to one who was walking on the way and saw a pack of dogs. He was afraid of them and he sat in their midst. (Dogs pursue those who run, so he sat and did not run.) So, when our patriarch Jacob saw Esau and his chieftains, he feared them and settled in their midst. Rabbi Levi said: This is analogous to a blacksmith whose [forge] was open to a plaza, and his son, a goldsmith, opened opposite him. He saw many bundles of thorns being brought into the city. He said: ‘Where will all these bundles be stored?’ There was a certain clever man there. He said to him: ‘Are you afraid of these? One spark will emerge from your [forge] and one spark from your son’s, and you will burn them.’ So, when Jacob saw Esau and his chieftains, he was afraid. The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Are you afraid of these? One spark from you and one spark from your son will burn all of them. That is what is written: “The house of Jacob will be fire, and the house of Joseph a flame” (Obadiah 1:18) – “Jacob settled.” “This is the legacy of Jacob. Joseph, seventeen years old, was herding the flock with his brothers, and he was a lad with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives; Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). So said the Sages: “This is the legacy [toledot] of Jacob, Joseph” – all of these offspring [toladot] resulted only due to the merit of Joseph and because of him. Did Jacob not go to Laban only for Rachel? All these offspring were waiting until Joseph was born. (Jacob was afraid to return to his father in the land of Canaan, which would require him to confront Esau, until Joseph was born. ) That is what is written: “It was, when Rachel bore Joseph” (Genesis 30:25) – when the rival of that wicked one (Esau) was born, “Jacob said to Laban: Release me, and I will go” (Genesis 30:25). Who caused them to descend to Egypt? Joseph. Who supported them? Joseph. The sea was split only due to the merit of Joseph. That is what is written: “The waters saw You, God; the waters saw You and were frightened” (Psalms 77:17); “the depths sounded its voice” (Habakkuk 3:10); “with Your arm, You redeemed Your people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph” (Psalms 77:16). Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Shimon said: The Jordan, too, split only due to the merit of Joseph. Another matter: “Jacob settled” – so said the Sages: Jacob our patriarch did not enjoy settlement until he resided in his father’s residence. Which is that? It is the land of Canaan, as it was there that his father, Isaac, resided. Another matter: The numerical value of “residence [megurei]” is two hundred and fifty-nine (Mem – 40; gimmel – 3; vav – 6; resh – 200; yod – 10. Together they sum to 259.) – [corresponding to the years] from the day that the Holy One blessed be He said to Abraham: “Know [that your descendants shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs]” (Genesis 15:13) – until the time that Jacob our patriarch settled in the land of his father’s residence [megurei].

Bereshit Rabbah 84:7

“Joseph, seventeen years old…” – and you say he was a lad? (The term lad, used here in connection with Joseph, generally indicates someone younger than seventeen.) It is because he would perform the actions of a lad – he would groom his eyes, lift his heels, and curl his hair. “Was herding…Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” – what did he say? Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon: Rabbi Meir says: Your sons are suspected of eating the limb of a living animal. Rabbi Shimon says: They are directing their glances at the girls of the land. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are demeaning the sons of the maidservants and calling them slaves. Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said: He was punished for all three of them. “Balance and scales of justice are the Lord’s” (Proverbs 16:11) – the Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You said: Your sons are suspected of eating the limb of a living animal; as you live, even at their time of corruption, they will slaughter and only then will they eat’ – “and slaughtered a goat” (Genesis 37:31). (After the sale of Joseph, they slaughtered a goat and dipped Joseph’s tunic in its blood. The verse emphasizes that they first slaughtered the goat. ) ‘You said: They are demeaning the sons of the maidservants and calling them slaves’ – “Joseph was sold as a slave” (Psalms 105:17). ‘You said: They are directing their glances at the girls of the land; as you live, I will incite the bear against you’ – “His master’s wife cast her eyes [upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me]” (Genesis 39:7).

Bereshit Rabbah 86:1

“Joseph was taken down to Egypt and Potiphar, the official of Pharaoh, the chief executioner, an Egyptian man, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him down there” (Genesis 39:1). “Joseph was taken down to Egypt.” It is written: “With ropes of man I drew them, [with bonds of love; I was for them like those who lift the yoke above their jaws, and I leaned to them to provide food]” (Hosea 11:4) – these are Israel, [as it is stated]: “Draw me; after you I will run” (Song of Songs 1:4). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – as it is written: “I loved you, said the Lord” (Malachi 1:2). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea 11:4) – as I elevated their enemies over them. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that they expressed with their jaws, as they said: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:8). (This was stated by the Israelites as they committed the sin of the Golden Calf. ) But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food” (Hosea 11:4) – I provide them with many foods to eat; “There will be abundance of grain in the land” (Psalms 72:16). Another matter, “with ropes of man I drew them [emshakhem]” (Hosea 11:4) – this is Joseph, [as it is stated]: “They pulled [vayimshekhu] and lifted Joseph from the pit” (Genesis 37:28). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – “Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea11:4) – as I elevated his enemies over him. Who was that? It was Potiphar’s wife. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that he expressed with his jaws – “Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food (Hosea 11:4) – an abundance of food. (Eventually, after his actions caused him to be brought down to Egypt, Joseph ended up providing food for his entire family, as well as for the entire population of Egypt and other lands. )

Bereshit Rabbah 98:18

“Joseph is a fruitful tree, a fruitful tree alongside a spring; branches run over the wall” (Genesis 49:22). “Joseph is a fruitful [porat] tree ” – a son who broke faith [shehefer] with his brothers; a son whose brothers broke faith with him; (Joseph brought his father evil reports about his brothers (Genesis 37:2); they later sold him into slavery (Genesis 37:28). ) a son who defied [shehefer] his master’s wife; a son whose master’s wife turned against [shehefera] him. Rabbi Avin said: The son who achieved greatness through cows [parot]. (Joseph rose to prominence after interpreting Pharaoh’s dream, which featured cows.) Joseph is the son who achieved greatness through produce [perot]. “Joseph is a fruitful tree” – Joseph achieved greatness. Regarding them all it is written: “The maidservants approached…” (Genesis 33:6) (See Bereshit Rabba 90:4.) – this is what he said to him: I must repay you for that eye. (Jacob wanted to compensate Joseph for having obscured Rachel from Esau’s eye.) “Branches [banot] run [tzaada] over the wall…” – you find that when Joseph emerged to rule over Egypt, the daughters [banot] of kings would peer through the slits and would cast upon him bracelets, pendants, nose rings, and rings so he would lift his eyes and look at them. Nevertheless, he did not look at them. The Holy One blessed be He said: You did not lift your eyes and look at them; as you live, you will cause your daughters (The daughters of Tzelofḥad.) to have a foothold [tze’ida] in the Torah. What is a foothold? A Torah portion. (A passage regarding the laws of inheritance (Numbers 27:1–11) was stated as a response to the request of the daughters of Tzelofḥad. )

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Bava Batra 8:18

R. Chelbo questioned R. Samuel h. Nachmeni: "What is the reason that Jacob took away the privilege of the first-born from Reuben and gave it to Joseph?" You ask for the reason? Does not the Scripture state the reason When he defiled his father's bed? "What I ask, is this: Why did he give it to Joseph?" and he rejoined: "I will tell you a parable to which this case is similar: There was one who had raised an orphan in his house. At a later period the orphan became rich, and thought, I will recompense my benefactor." R. Chelbo said to him: "And how would it have been had Reuben not sinned? Then Jacob would have given nothing to Joseph?" R. Samuel b. Nachmeni replied: "Your teacher, R. Jonathan, did not explain it so, but as follows: The first-born was destined to come from Rachel, as it is written (Ib. 37) These are the generations of Jacob and Joseph. But Leah was preferred by virtue of her prayers. Nevertheless, because of Rachel's discretion, the Holy One, praised be He! returned it to her." And in what consisted Rachel's discretion? As it is written (Ib. 12) And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son. The brother of her father? Was he not the son of her father's sister? It was thus: He asked her whether she would marry him. She said, "Yea, but my father is very shrewd, and you cannot persuade him." And to the question: "What does it mean?" She answered: "I have a sister who is older than me, and my father will not give me to you while she is not married." Then he said: "I am his brother in shrewdness." She then asked him: "Is it, then, allowed to the upright to be shrewd?" And he answered: "Yea, as (II Sam. 22, 27) With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure, and with the perverse thou wilt wage a contest." And then he furnished her with some signs, that when she should be brought to him he would ask her for these signs, and he might be sure that she was not exchanged for Leah. Thereafter, when Leah was about to be brought to him instead of Rachel, the latter said to herself: "Now my sister will he ashamed." She went and confided the signs to her. And this is what is written (Gen. 29, 25) And it came to pass that in the morning, behold, it was Leah. From which it is to be inferred that until the morning he did not know that she was Leah, because of the signs which Leah received from Rachel.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Berakhot 9:5

R. Berachia said: "There may be a dream which thought in part fulfilled, yet is impossible of being entirely fulfilled. We can derive it from Joseph, for it is written (Gen. 37, 9.) The sun and the moon and the eleven start. — Shall we indeed come, I and thy mother, and thy brothers (Ib. b). And at that time his mother was dead." R. Levi said: "A man should look forward to the realization of a good dream even for as long as twenty-two years; as it is written (Gen. 37, 2.) These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph was seventeen years old [when he had the dreams], and it is written also (Ib. 41, 46.) And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh. From seventeen to thirty are thirteen years, to which add the seven years of plenty and the two years of famine, will make the total of twenty-two years." R. Huna said: "To a good man bad dreams are shown, and to a bad man good dreams." We have also a Baraitha to the same effect: "During all the years of David he never dreamed a good dream, and during all the years of Achitophel he never dreamed a bad dream." R. Bizna b. Zabda, in the name of R. Akiba, who spoke in the name of R. Panda, who, in turn, spoke in the name of R. Nachum, who quoted R. Birim, said: "A venerable man by the name of R. Bana'ah had told him there were twenty-four places in Jerusalem for the interpretation of dreams; that once he had a dream and went to each one of these places; each one gave a different interpretation and each was fulfilled." This establishes what is written: "Every dream is in accord with its interpretation." Is this a passage? Yes, as R. Elazar said, for R. Elazar said: "Whence do we learn that every dream is realized according to its interpretation? It is written (Gen. 41, 13.) And just as he interpreted it, so it was."

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 7:19

(Fol. 36) GEMARA: How is the word (Josh. 8, 33) V'hachetzyo (and the other half of them) to be explained? Said R. Cahana: "This means that just as they were divided here at Mts. Gerizim and Ebal so were they also divided in the same manner upon the stones of the Ephod. An objection was raised from the following Baraitha: Two precious stones were fixed upon the shoulders of the High-priest, one stone on one shoulder and the other stone on the other shoulder. The names of the twelve tribes were inscribed, thereon, six on one stones and six on the other stone, as it is said (Ex. 28, 10) Six of the names on one stone and the remaining six names on the other stone, according to their birth. This means that the second stone was according to their birth, but the first stone was not according to their birth, because Juda preceded the others. Fifty letters were there altogether, of them twenty-five were on one stone and twenty-five on the other. R. Chanina b. Gamliel says (Ib. b) "They were placed upon the Ephod not in accordance with their division mentioned (Num. 1, 5), but they were placed in an Ephod in accordance with their division mentioned in (Ex. 1, 1-5). How so? The children of Leah were placed in accordance with their age. Then came the children of Rachel, one on one stone, and the other on the other stone. The children of the hand-maids were placed in the middle. As to the question how can the passage, According In their order of birth, be upheld? We must explain it that it was inscribed with the names as they were called by their father and not with the names they were called by Moses — Reuben but not Reubeni, Shimon but not Shimoni, Dan but not Dani, Gad but not 'Gadi.' Hence this will refute the above statement of R. Cahana, [because none of the above opinions is in accordance with the arrangements of the Ephod]. The refutation is indeed sustained. If so, then what is the meaning of V'hachezyo? We are taught in a Baraitha that the half that was placed opposite Mt. Gerizim was more than the half placed opposite Mt. Ebal, for, the Levites were below the hill. On the contrary, since the Levites were below the hill, hence the number of tribes facing Mt. Gerizim was less? We must therefore say; Although the tribe of Levi were below the hill, nevertheless the sons of Joseph were with thim, and completed the amount, as it is said (Josh. 17, 14) And the children of Joseph spoke unto Joshua, saying 'Why hast thou given me, but one lot ... ... ... and Joshua said unto them, if thou art a numerous people, then get up to the wood country, etc. He said to them, "Go and hide yourselves in the forest so that no covetous eye may afflict you." Whereupon they answered him, "We are the descendants of Joseph whom a covetous eye cannot afflict, as it is written (Gen. 29, 22) Joseph is a fruitful bough by a spring, and R. Abahu explains thus: "Do not read Aleh Ayin (by a spring), but read it Ole Ayin (above the covetous eye.'" R. Jose b. Chanina said: "From this it may be inferred that Joseph's children are not subject to the affliction of a covetous eye, (Ib., 48, 16) And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. This [the word grow used by Jacob which has the derivation of Dog (fish) is to mean that just as the fishes in the sea because of their being covered by water, no eye can afflict them, so also are the children of Joseph not subject to the affliction of a covetous eye." But how do you say above that there were fifty letters in the inscription of the Ephod. Behold there were only fifty letters less one? Said R. Isaac: "The fiftieth letter was used as an extra letter to the name of Joseph, as it is said (Ps. 81, 6) He appointed it in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out over the land of Egypt." R. Nachman b. Isaac raised an objection: "The passage says that it was in accordance with the names of birth, and this is not so." We must therefore say that the extra letter was inserted in the name of Benjamin, which is spelled in the entire Torah with only one Yud, but here in the Ephod, Benjamin, is spelled with two Yuds, as it is written (Ex. 25, 18) But his father called him Benjamin [with two Yuds]. R. Chama b. Bizna said, in the name of R. Simon the pious: "Joseph, who sanctified Heaven's name in secret was rewarded with only one additional letter of the name of the Holy One, praised be He, but Juda, who sanctified Heaven's name publicly was rewarded so that his entire name was equal to that of the Holy One, praised be He." What happened with Joseph? as written (Gen. 39, 11). And it came to pass on a certain day ... ... ... We are taught in a Baraitha, Joseph was destined to produce twelve tribes, just as they were by his father Jacob, as it is said (Gen. 37, 2) These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph, however, they were produced through his brother, Benjamin. They were nevertheless called after the name of Joseph, as it is said (Ib. 46, 21) And the sons of Benjamin, Bela, Mecher, Ashbel, Gera, Na'aman, Achi, V'rosh, Muppim, Chuppim and Ard; i.e., Bela because Joseph was swallowed (lost) among the other nations; Mechcr, because he was the first born of his mother; Ashbel, because he was captured with the consent of God; Gera, because he lived in inns (having no settled home); Na'aman because he was very sweet Achi V'rosh, because he was my brother and leader; and Chuppim, because he did not see my wedding canopy nor did I see his; and Ard, according to some because he was driven among idolatrous nations, and according to others because his face was like a rose.

Learning to Read Midrash, Introduction 27

For the most part, classic Bible commentary from Rashi (eleventh century) to the Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin of Volozhin, author of Ha’amek davar among other works.) (nineteenth century) assumes the task of interpreting the text, rather than offering a homiletical approach to it. (See, for example, Rashi’s programmatic statement in his commentary on Genesis 3:8 (“ vayishme’u…”) and the Rashbam’s on the necessity of explaining the plain sense of the text in his commentary on Genesis 37:2 (“eila...”) Also note the distinction the Ramban draws between the plain sense of the text and its mystical meaning in his commentary on Genesis 1:3 (“yehi ohr...”). We may assume that commentators who do not make programmatic statements of this sort also share the goal of explaining the plain sense of the text since they often argue the merits of their reading (or disagree with others’ readings) on the basis of the distinction between the plain sense of the text and a homily.) Even in instances when biblical commentary of this type spills over into homiletics, the homily is usually an aside, parenthetical to the overall agenda of the commentator.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Ki Teitzei 16:1

(Deut. 25:18, cont.:) WHEN YOU WERE TIRED AND WEARY, AND HE DID NOT FEAR GOD. TIRED from thirst AND WEARY from the road, AND HE DID NOT FEAR GOD. (Above, Gen. 7:15; 8:5; 12:13; Tanh., Gen. 12:14; Deut. 6:10, cont.; PRK 3:13; PR 13:4; Gen. R. 73:7; cf. BB 123b.) R. Pinhas said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahmani: It is a transmitted aggada Esau (i.e., Rome) will fall at the hand of the children of Rachel (Joseph and Benjamin), as stated (in Jer. 49:20): SURELY THE YOUNGEST OF THE FLOCK SHALL DRAG THEM AWAY. Why does it call them THE YOUNGEST OF THE FLOCK? Because they were the youngest of the tribes, for YOUTH is written with reference to the one and LEAST is written with reference to the other (i.e., with reference to Esau). YOUTH is written with reference to the one (in Gen. 37:2): SINCE HE (Joseph) WAS A YOUTH WITH THE CHILDREN OF BILHAH . And LEAST is written with reference to the other (in Obad., vs. 2): I WILL SURELY MAKE YOU (Edom, i.e., Rome) LEAST AMONG THE NATIONS. The one (Esau) grew up with two who were righteous (i.e., with Isaac and Rebekah) and did not learn from their deeds, while the other grew up with two who were wicked (i.e., Potiphar and Pharaoh) and did not learn from their deeds. Therefore, the former will come and fall by the hand of the latter. The former, of whom it is written (in Deut. 25:18): AND HE DID NOT FEAR GOD, will come and fall by the hand of the latter, of whom it is written (in Gen. 42:18): I FEAR GOD.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 20:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT. There were three natures within him. < He was > a Torah scholar, a prophet, and one who nourished his brothers. < He was > a Torah scholar, for it is so written (in Gen. 37:3): BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE (ZEN). (ZQN here is interpreted in the Talmud as an abbreviation (notarikon) for Zeh Sheqanah Hokhmah, which means, “This is the one who has acquired wisdom.” See Qid. 32b. See also Targum Onqelos, Gen. 37:3: BECAUSE HE WAS A WISE SON TO HIM.) It is also written (in Deut. 32:7): ASK YOUR FATHER, AND HE WILL INFORM YOU; [YOUR ELDERS (rt.: ZQN), AND THEY WILL TELL YOU]. And where is it shown that he was prophet? Where it is stated (in Gen. 37:2): SINCE HE WAS A YOUTH WITH THE CHILDREN OF BILHAH…. It is also written (in Exod. 33:11): HIS ATTENDANT, JOSHUA BIN NUN, A YOUTH. Again it is written (in I Sam. 2:21): AND THE YOUTH SAMUEL GREW UP. (Since prophets like Joshua and Samuel are called youths, the designation must mean that Joseph also was a prophet.) And where is it shown that he fed his brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 50:21): SO NOW, FEAR NOT; I WILL NOURISH YOU….

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 4:1

(Gen. 37:1-2:) NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >…. THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. What is written on the matter above (in Gen. 36:15)? THESE ARE THE LORDS OF THE CHILDREN OF ESAU. When Jacob saw them, he became alarmed and said: Who can stand against these? (Gen. R. 84:5; Tanh., Gen. 9:1.) To what is the matter comparable? To a goldsmith who would sit and ply his trade. His apprentice raised his eyes and saw a lot of camels who were loaded with straw. He began to say: Who can stand against these? His master said to him: If a spark went out of this furnace, it would burn all of them. So in the case of our father Jacob, when he saw all of Esau's lords, he began to be afraid and said: Who can stand against these? The Holy One said to him: Look at what is written below (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. By your life, someone shall spring from Joseph, < a person > who shall burn all of them, as stated (in Obad. 18): THE HOUSE OF JACOB SHALL BE A FIRE, AND THE HOUSE OF JOSEPH A FLAME, AND THE HOUSE OF ESAU SHALL BE STRAW; < THEY SHALL BURN IT >…. R.Hanina said: It is written (in Is. 47:14): SEE, THEY HAVE BECOME LIKE STRAW; FIRE CONSUMES THEM. It is therefore written (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 5:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. < The interpretation is > that Jacob's face was like Joseph's. (As Rashi informs us (ad loc.), the midrash needs to explain why Jacob’s generations are being ascribed to Joseph. Cf. Gen. R. 84:6, which argues that one should expect any discussion of Jacob’s children to begin with Reuben.) Where is it shown? Where it says so (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH [MORE THAN ALL HIS SONS BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE. But look, Benjamin was younger than < Joseph >; yet it says: < Joseph was > THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE. It is simply that he had features (Gk.: eikonion.) which resembled him. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH]. Just as Jacob raised up tribes; so did Joseph raise up tribes. It is so stated (in Gen. 48:5): EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH SHALL BE MINE LIKE REUBEN AND SIMEON. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 5:2

Another interpretation: Just as Jacob hid from his father for twenty-two years, so did Joseph hide from his father for twenty-two years. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. (So Rashi with considerable explanation on Gen. 37:34.) R. Levi said: Rabbi Johanan said: Wherever it says, HE WAS, the HE saw three worlds. (Cf. Gen. R. 30:8; Esth. R. 6:3.) It is written of Noah (in Gen. 6:9): HE WAS PERFECT. He saw the world when it was inhabited before the flood came, he saw it destroyed, and he saw it afterwards in its restoration. It is therefore said of him: HE WAS. In the case of Moses, it is written (in Exod. 3:1): HE WAS TENDING < THE FLOCK OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW JETHRO, THE PRIEST OF MIDIAN >…. He saw Israel before the bondage tightened its grip, he saw the bondage, and {they} [he] saw them when they had been redeemed. [Of Mordecai it is written] (in Esth. 2:5): THERE WAS (literally: HE WAS) A CERTAIN JEW IN THE CITADEL OF SHUSHAN. He saw them (Israel) before they were enslaved at the hand of Haman, he saw them under the edicts which had been decreed against them, and he saw them in their redemption. Of Job it is written (in Job 1:1): THERE WAS (literally: HE WAS) A MAN IN THE LAND OF < UZ >, and he saw three worlds. He was whole, he suffered afflictions, and he was healed. So also in the case of Joseph, HE WAS is written of him (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH AT THE AGE OF SEVENTEEN WAS (literally: HE WAS) TENDING < THE FLOCK WITH HIS BROTHERS >….

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 5:3

All the things which happened to Jacob happened to Joseph. It is written in connection with Jacob (in Gen. 31:39): SNATCHED BY DAY. Also in the case of Joseph, it is written of him: FOR I WAS SURELY SNATCHED. Jacob had < his brother > Esau persecute him; and Joseph had his brothers persecute him. Jacob was enslaved to Laban, and Joseph was enslaved in Egypt. (Gen. R. 84:6 has a longer list of parallels.) It is therefore written (in Gen. 37:2) THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 6:1

(Gen. 37:2:) AND JOSEPH BROUGHT BAD REPORTS OF THEM < UNTO HIS FATHER >. What is the meaning of BAD REPORTS? That he had said something slanderous against his brothers. And what slanderous thing did he say against them? R. Judah said: He said against them that they would cut a limb from a living animal and eat it. (yPe’ah 1:1 (15d-16a); Gen. R. 84:7.) The Holy One said to him: You have said something slanderous against the tribes. Tomorrow, by your life, you are going down to Egypt. Then you shall invite them to eat with you, but they shall suspect you there in regard to the ritual slaughtering. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 43:32): THEY SERVED HIM BY HIMSELF, < AND THEM BY THEMSELVES >…. R. Me'ir says: He said to him: My brothers have set their eyes on Canaanite women. The Holy One said to him: You have said something slanderous against your brothers. Tomorrow, by your life, you are going down to Egypt. Then that woman (Potiphar's wife) shall say (in Gen. 39:17): THE HEBREW SLAVE < WHOM YOU BROUGHT TO US > CAME UNTO ME < TO FONDLE ME >. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): AND JOSEPH BROUGHT < BAD REPORTS OF THEM UNTO HIS FATHER >.

Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 10:1

(Deut. 25:18, cont.:) And he cut off (rt.: znb) all who were lagging behind you. He smote them with a blow to the tail (rt.: znb). (The word can also denote the penis. See PR 7:3; 12:10, 13; 13:1.) And this agrees with what R. Hanina bar Shilqa, said, “What did the House of Amalek do to Israel? (Below, section 14.) They cut off their penes and flung them heavenward, as they said, ‘This is what You have chosen, take for Yourself what You have chosen.” As Israel did not know what the nature of spit was, until Amalek came and taught them, as stated (with reference to Ezek. 8:17), “here they were sending the spit in their faces.” From whom did he learn it? From his grandfather Esau, as stated (in Gen. 27:36), “And he said, ‘Is he not (hky) rightly named Jacob?’” (Gen. R. 67:4.) He rubbed (rt.: hkk) his throat and brought out the spit. (Deut. 25:18), “All who were lagging behind you.” R. Judah, R. Nehemiah, and the masters [differed]. R. Judah said, “They said, ‘If He is master over all of out deeds, we will serve Him; but if not, we will revolt against Him.’” R. Nehemiah said, “They said, ‘If He furnishes us with our food like a king who is living in the province, such that the province lacks nothing at all, we will serve Him; but if not, we will revolt against Him.’” And the masters said, “They said, “’If we have a thought in our hearts and He knows what we are thinking, we will serve Him; but if not, we will revolt against Him.’” R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Levi, “In their heart they had a thought, and the Holy One, blessed be He, granted them their request.” And what is the evidence? (Ps. 78:18:) “They tested God in their heart by asking food for themselves.” See what [else] is written there (in vs. 29), “So they ate and were very full.” Another interpretation (of Deut. 25:18), “all who were lagging behind you”: R. Judah, R. Nehemiah and the masters [differ]. (PRK 3:12; PR 12:13, cont.; PRE 44; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Exod. 17:8 and Deut. 25:18.) R. Judah says, “Whoever was overcome was discarded.” R. Nehemiah says, “Whomever the cloud vomited up was discarded.” And the rabbis say, “It was the tribe of Dan that the cloud vomited up, [as] they all served idols, as stated (The reference is to the idol which the Danites took from Micah. See Jud. 17–18.) (Deut. 25:18, cont.), ‘when you were tired and weary, and did not fear God.’” [You were] tired from thirst and weary from the road, and you did not fear God. (Above, Gen. 7:15; 8:5; 12:13; Tanh., Gen. 12:14; Deut. 6:10, cont.; PRK 3:13; PR 13:4; Gen. R. 73:7; cf. BB 123b.) R. Pinhas said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahman, “It is a transmitted aggada [that] Esau will fall at the hand of the children of Rachel (Joseph and Benjamin), as stated (in Jer. 49:20), ‘Surely the youngest of the flock shall drag them away.’ Why does it call them the youngest of the flock? Because they were the youngest of the tribes.” Hence, Moses said to Joshua (Exod. 17:9), “Choose men for us.” As he was [descended from] Joseph, about whom it is written (Gen. 42:18), “I fear God.” And about Esau, it is written (Deut. 25:18), “and did not fear God.” Youth is written with reference to the one and small is written with reference to the other (i.e., with reference to Esau). Youth is written with reference to the one (in Gen. 37:2), “since he (Joseph) was a youth with the children of Bilhah [and with the children of Zilpah].” And small is written with reference to the other (in Obad. 1:2), “I will surely make you (Edom) smallest among the nations.” The one (Esau) grew up with two who were righteous (i.e., with Isaac and Rebekah) and did not learn from their deeds, while the other grew up with two who were wicked (i.e., Potiphar and Pharaoh) and did not learn from their deeds. The one received the birthright as a result of his good deeds, while the other lost his birthright from his evil deeds. The one supported his brothers, while the other sought to kill his brother. The one fenced himself away from sexual immorality and from the spilling of blood, while the other sullied himself with sexual immorality and the spilling of blood. The one conceded to the revival of the dead, as stated (Gen. 50:24), “God will surely remember you”; while the other denied the revival of the dead, as stated (Gen. 25:32), “Behold, I am going to die.” The one offered his life for his mother’s honor, as stated (Gen. 33:7), “and after, Joseph and Rachel came forward and bowed”; while the other sought to kill his mother, as stated (Amos 1:11), “and he destroyed his uterus.” (This is a homiletical translation of the verse, which would otherwise be translated as, AND HE REPRESSED HIS PITY.) Therefore, the one (Esau) will fall by the hand of the other (Jospeh). And R. Johanan said, “All of the ministering angels sought to battle with the ministering angel of Esau, but he would not fall by their hand, as he would remove each and every one with a response: To Reuben, he says, ‘You were suspected about your father’s concubine.’ To Simeon and Levi, ‘You also killed [the inhabitants of] Shekhem.’ To the other tribes, ‘You sold your brother and sought to kill him.’ To Judah, ‘You were also suspected about your daughter-in-law, Tamar.’ To Benjamin he said, ‘You were suspected about the concubine in Giveah.’ When the ministering angel of [Joseph] came and battled with him, he immediately fell in front of him, as he had no response to answer him. This is what is written (Obad 1:18), “And the House of Jacob shall be fire, and the House of Joseph flame, and the House of Esau shall be straw.”

Midrash Tanchuma, Miketz 3:7

Our sages interpreted the verse Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons (Ps. 45:17) to mean that everything that occurred to Jacob likewise happened to Joseph. Jacob was born circumcised, and so too was Joseph, as is said: These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph (Gen. 37:2). The former was called The son of my firstborn, Israel (Exod. 4:22), and the latter was spoken of as the firstborn was Joseph’s (I Chron. 5:2). The former was exiled to Haran, and the latter to Egypt. Jacob was exalted through a dream, as it is said: And He dreamed, and behold, a ladder set upon the earth (Gen. 38:22). Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream. R. Simeon the son of Gamliel said: Joseph was rewarded for his actions, for his mouth did not kiss in sin. Thus, according to thy mouth shall all my people be ruled (ibid. 41:40).

Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 5:3

He was righteous (Gen. 6:9). This suggests that he was one of the seven men born circumcised. (Tradition differs as to the number of men born circumcised. Buber Tanhuma, Noah 6 mentions ten, Midrash on Psalms 9:7 lists thirteen.) Adam and his son Seth were born circumcised, as it is written: He begot a son in his own likeness after his image, and he called him Seth (Gen. 5:3). Noah was born circumcised, as it is written: He was righteous (lit. “perfect”) in his generations (ibid. 7:1); Jacob was born circumcised, for it is said: And Jacob was a quiet (lit. “perfect”) man (ibid. 25:27); Joseph was born circumcised, for it is written: These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph (ibid. 37:2) because he resembled his father; Moses was born circumcised, as it is said: And she saw that he was a goodly child (Exod. 2:2); and Job was born circumcised, as it is written: A wholehearted (lit. “just”) and upright (“perfect”) man (Job 1:1).

Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 11:1

And they brought the tabernacle unto Moses (Exod. 39:32). It is written elsewhere in reference to the verse: He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He setteth them forever, and they are exalted (Job 36:7). What does this verse signify? That the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deny the righteous man the realization of his plans. Therefore He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous. You may know this to be so from Abraham, who begot Isaac, who resembled him closely, as it is said: These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham begot Isaac (Gen. 25:19). And Jacob begot Joseph, who resembled him, as is said: These are the generation of Jacob: Joseph (ibid. 37:2). Reuben, Simeon, et al., are not mentioned here but only Joseph. It says also: Because he was the son of his old age (ibid., v. 3). (Word-play on zikunim (“old age”) and kunim (“features”).) Hence, He draweth not His eyes from the righteous.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1:1

And Jacob sat in the land (Gen. 37:1). Whenever Scripture uses the expression and he sat (also translated “and he dwelt”), it connotes misfortune: And Israel sat in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen, … and the time drew near that Israel must die (Gen. 47:29); And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to make merry (Exod. 32:6); And there fell of the people on that day three thousand men (Exod. 32:28); And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:25); And Judah and Israel sat safely (I Kings 5:5); And the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon (ibid. 11:14); And Israel sat among the cedars, etc., and the people began to commit harlotry (Num. 25:1). You may explain every other use of “and he sat” with this negative implication. In this instance And Jacob sat is followed by and Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:2).

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1:8

Another comment on These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, etc. (Gen. 37:2). Was not Reuben actually the firstborn? He was, but since he defiled his father’s couch (I Chron. 5:1), his birthright was given to the descendants of Joseph, the descendants of Israel. However, they are not actually accounted as the firstborn in the genealogy of the people. Another explanation. These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph. You find that Joseph resembled his father in every way, and that everything that happened to Jacob also happened to Joseph. Jacob’s brother was envious of him, and Joseph’s brothers were envious of him; Jacob was exiled to Haran, and Joseph was exiled to Egypt; Jacob said: Whether stolen by day or stolen by night (Gen. 31:39), and Joseph said: For indeed, I was stolen away (ibid. 40:15).

Midrash Tehillim 101:2

"I will act wisely on the innocent way. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah. Rabbi Judah says, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, "Appoint for Me a priest." Moses said to Him, "What tribe?" He replied to him, "Do not put Reuben before Me, who sinned with Bilhah, his father's concubine, as it is said (Genesis 35:22), 'And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine.' " He said to him, "From the tribe of Simeon." He said to him, "They are engaged in violence, which I hate, as it is said (Genesis 49:5), 'Simeon and Levi are brothers, weapons of violence are their wares.' " He said to him, "How about the tribe of Dan?" He said to him, "They will cause My anger, for they are idolaters, as it is said (Zechariah 10:11), 'And they shall cross the sea with affliction, and smite the waves in the sea, and all the depths of the Nile shall dry up; and the pride of Assyria shall be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt shall depart.' " This is a reference to the image of Micah. Moses therefore warned Israel (Deuteronomy 29:17), "Lest there be among you a man or woman or family or tribe." And it is said (Judges 18:30), "And the children of Dan set up the graven image for themselves." He said to him, "How about the tribe of Joseph?" He said to him, "They speak evil behind their brethren's backs, as it is said (Genesis 37:2), 'And Joseph brought evil tales of them unto their father.' " He said to him, "How about the tribe of Judah?" He said to him, "He is arrogant of eye and wide of heart, as it is said (Genesis 38:15), 'And Judah saw her, and thought her to be a harlot.' " Moses then said, "Whose tribe, then, shall I appoint?" He replied, "Appoint for yourself from your own tribe." Rabbi Nehemiah said, "And there are those who say it in the name of Resh Lakish, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'One who serves Me in this world will serve Me in the World to Come, and will not sit in the midst of My house.' " Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, "A person must be modest within his own home, and needless to say in the home of his friend."

Midrash Tehillim 9:8

"You rebuked nations. This refers to Amalek, as it is said (Numbers 24:20), 'Amalek was the first of the nations.' You destroyed the wicked. This refers to Esau, the wicked one, as it is said (Malachi 1:4), 'They will call them the border of wickedness.' He committed five sins in one day: he had relations with a betrothed woman, committed murder, denied the resurrection of the dead, denied God's sovereignty, and showed contempt for the birthright. Their name shall be blotted out, as it is said (Exodus 17:14), 'I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek.' Rabbi Levi said: It is written (Genesis 25:23), 'Two nations are in your womb.' What did [God] say to her [Rebecca]? 'Two governments are in your womb.' I reveal to you what is hidden: 'The first of the nations shall emerge from you,' as it is said (Jeremiah 2:3), 'Israel is the holy first fruits of his harvest.' Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: God never needed to rely on an intimate relationship with a woman, except for that righteous woman [Rebecca], and even she was only through the medium of an angel. Rabbi said in the name of Rabbi Yose: It was through the name of Noah's son that [Rebecca] was blessed. 'Two nations are in your womb' - I [God] made seventy nations from [Noah's three sons], as it is said (Genesis 10:19), 'These are the three sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.' How? Japheth had fourteen descendants, Gog and Magog had thirty, and Ham had thirty. That makes seventy. (Genesis 10:5) 'From these the isles of the nations were separated.' 'And two nations are in your womb' - I will make from one [nation], seventy souls, and they will be fruitful and multiply. Another interpretation of 'two nations' is that one is proud of his wealth, and the other is proud of his royalty: Edom among the nations and Solomon among Israel." Another matter, two nations whose hatred is embedded in your womb, all hate Esau and all hate Jacob. Another matter, two nations that hate each other. They will separate from your womb. From this, we learn that Jacob was born circumcised and uncircumcised. He is one of the thirteen who were born circumcised. Adam, the first man, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Terah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah were all born circumcised. Adam was at the beginning of the creation of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated, "And he begot in his likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3). Enoch, as it is stated, "And Enoch walked with God" (Genesis 5:24). And it is stated, "Noah walked with God" (Genesis 6:9). Noah, as it is stated, "Noah was a righteous man" (Genesis 6:9). Shem, as it is stated, "These are the generations of Shem" (Genesis 11:10). Whoever had his name repeated was born circumcised, such as Shem, Shem, Noah, Noah, Terah, Terah. Jacob, as it is stated, "And Jacob was a straightforward man" (Genesis 25:27). And it states, "Jacob, Jacob" (Genesis 46:2). Joseph, as it is stated, "These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph" (Genesis 37:2). This teaches us that he was born circumcised like him [Jacob]. Moses, as it is stated, "Moses, Moses" (Exodus 3:4). And it is stated, "And she saw that he was good" (Exodus 2:2). He was born circumcised. (Samuel I 3:10) (meaning Samuel IV, as it is written) Samuel, Samuel. Isaiah, as it is stated, "The Lord called me from the womb" (Isaiah 49:1). Jeremiah, as it is stated, "Before I formed you in the belly I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). David, as it is stated, "A golden Psalm of David" (Psalms 16:1). And much will the young servant serve. Rav Huna said, "If he merited, he will serve, and if not, he will not serve." And when David saw how Esau made Israel slaves, he said before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Rebuke the nations who seek to destroy me" (Psalms 44:6).

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 38:9

Rabbi Ishmael said: Every son of the old age || is beloved of his father, as it is said, "Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age" (Gen. 37:3). Was he then the son of his old age? Was not Benjamin the son of his old age? But owing to the fact that (Jacob) saw by his prophetic power that (Joseph) would rule in the future, therefore he loved him more than all his sons. And they envied him with a great envy, as it is said, "And his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren; and they hated him" (ibid. 4). Further, because he saw in his dream that in the future he would rule, and he told his father, and they envied him yet more and more, as it is said, "And they hated him yet the more" (ibid. 8). Moreover, he saw the sons of his father's concubines eating the flesh of the roes and the flesh of the sheep whilst they were alive, and he brought a reproach against them before Jacob their father, so that they could not see his face any more (in peace), as it is said, "And they could not speak peaceably unto him" (ibid. 4). Jacob said to Joseph: Joseph, my son ! Verily I have (waited) many days without hearing of the welfare of thy brethren, and of the welfare of the flock, as it is said, "Go now, see whether it be well with thy brethren, and well with the flock" (ibid. 14). And the lad was wandering in the field, and the angel Gabriel met him, as it is said, "And a certain man found him, and, behold, he was wandering in the field" (ibid. 15). (The word) "man" (here in this context) is Gabriel only, as it is said, "The man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision" (Dan. 9:21).

Seder Olam Rabbah 2:2

Our forefather Jacob was 63 when he was blessed. Ishmael died at that time as is written, "Esau saw that Isaac had blessed...Jacob listened to his father...Esau saw [the Canaanite women] were bad [in the eyes of Isaac]...Esau went to Ishmael..."(Genesis 28:9). There seems no need for the verse to state "sister of Nebaioth." What do we learn from the fact that it says "sister of Nebaioth"? We learn that Ishmael died and Nebaioth [Ishmael's firstborn therefore] married off his sister to Esau. Jacob our forefather hid [from Esau] 14 years in the land of Israel and served Eber. Eber died two years after Jacob went to Aram-Naharaim. [Jacob] left and went to Aram-Naharaim and he was found by the well when he was 77 years old and he was in Laban's house for 20 years: 7 before he married any matriarchs, 7 from when he married in the Matriarchs and 6 years after the 11 tribes and Dinah were born. It comes out that all the tribes were born in seven years besides Benjamin. Each and every one each 7 months. He left Aram-Naharaim and came to Succoth and stayed there 18 months as is written "And Jacob went to Succoth" (Genesis 33:17). He left Succoth and went to Bet El and made 6 new encampments close to the place.

Shemot Rabbah 30:3

Another matter, “these are [ve’eleh] the ordinances,” Rabbi Abahu said: Every place where ve’eleh is written, it adds to the previous matter, and every place that eleh is written it rejects the previous matter. How so? “This is [eleh] the legacy of the heavens and the earth on the day that they were created” (Genesis 2:4). What did it reject? He had been creating heavens and earth and examining them. They were not pleasing to Him, and He would restore them to emptiness and disorder. When He saw this heavens and earth, they were pleasing to Him. He said: “This is the legacy of the heavens and the earth,” but what came before was not a legacy. Similarly, “this is [eleh] the legacy of Noah” (Genesis 6:9). What did it reject? It rejected the generation of Enosh, the generation of the Flood, and Keinan and his counterparts. Therefore it says: “The sons of Yefet, Gomer and Magog” (Genesis 10:2). (The Torah enters into great detail when enumerating the descendants of Noah, but not with the preceding generations.) Similarly, “this is [ve’eleh] the legacy of Ishmael son of Abraham” (Genesis 25:12), adds to the previous matter. Who are they? What is written beforehand, as it is stated: “She bore him (Ketura bore for Abraham.) Zimran and Yokshan” (Genesis 25:2). Here, too, “this is [ve’eleh] the legacy of Ishmael son of Abraham…the firstborn of Ishmael is Nevayot” (Genesis 25:12–13). They were wicked like them. (The sons of Ishmael were wicked like the sons of Ketura. ) Similarly, “this is [ve’eleh] the legacy [toledot] of Isaac son of Abraham” (Genesis 25:19) adds to the previous matter, to what was written beforehand: “The sons of Ishmael” (Genesis 25:16). Who was it? It was Esau and his sons, for he was a son of Isaac. If so, it may be said that since only “this is [ve’eleh] the legacy” is written, Jacob, too, who was part of the legacy of Isaac, is included with Esau? You find that every [time the word] toledot appears in the Bible it is written defectively, (It is written without a vav between the tav and lamed or without a vav between the dalet and the tav.) except for: “This is the legacy [toledot] of the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 2:4), and “this is the legacy [toledot] of Peretz” (Ruth 4:18). And there is a compelling reason why it says: “This is the legacy [toledot] of the heavens and the earth” in full. It is because the Holy One blessed be He created His world and there was no angel of death in the world. That is why it is complete. When Adam and Eve sinned, the Holy One blessed be He minimized all the toledot in the Bible. When Peretz arose, his toledot became full, because the Messiah will emerge from him, in whose days the Holy One blessed be He will eliminate death, as it is stated: “He will eliminate death forever” (Isaiah 25:8). That is the reason that toledot of the heavens and earth and toledot of Peretz are full. This is the reason that toledot of Isaac is defective, to exclude Jacob from the category of the wicked. (The Messiah can also be traced back to Jacob, and therefore the word toledot should have been written regarding Isaac with the vav. It is written without the vav as an indication that it is referring only to Esau and not to Jacob. ) Similarly, “this is [eleh] the legacy of Jacob” (Genesis 37:2), it rejected the chieftains of Esau. Similarly, “these are [ve’eleh] the names of the children of Israel” (Exodus 1:1), adds to the previous matter. Who were they? Those who were written beforehand: The children of Reuben and the children of Simeon. (This is a reference to the listing of the descendants of Jacob who came down to Egypt (see Genesis 46:8–27). ) Similarly, “this is [ve’eleh] the legacy of Aaron” (Numbers 3:1) adds to the previous matter. Who were they? Those who were written beforehand: “These are the counted, that Moses and Aaron…counted” (Numbers 1:44). Just like those beforehand were righteous, so, too, these were righteous. (Although the verses regarding Aaron proceed to list Nadav and Avihu, who were killed due to the offering of a strange fire before God (see Numbers 3:2–4), on the whole they were still considered righteous. ) Here, too, “these are [ve’eleh] the ordinances” adds to the previous matter, that which was written beforehand: “There He instituted for it statutes and ordinances” (Exodus 15:25). Another matter, “these are [ve’eleh] the ordinances.” What is written before this portion? “They shall judge the people at all times” (Exodus 18:22). And it says here: “These are the ordinances,” and the [Ten] Commandments are in the middle. This is analogous to a noblewoman who was walking, an armed guard on this side and an armed guard on that side, and she was in the middle. So, too, the [giving of the] Torah had justice before it and justice after it and it was in the middle. Likewise it says: “I walk on the path of righteousness” (Proverbs 8:20). The Torah says: In which path do I walk? I will walk in the path of those who perform righteousness. “In the midst of the paths of justice” (Proverbs 8:20), the Torah in the middle and justice before it and after it; before it, as it is stated: “There He instituted for it statutes and ordinances,” justice after it, as it is stated: “These are the ordinances.”

Sifrei Devarim 334:3

"He and Hoshea the son of Nun": Is it not written (Numbers 13:16) "And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun 'Yehoshua'"? Why, then, is it written here "he and Hoshea the son of Nun"? To teach us the righteousness of Yehoshua. I might think that his head "swelled" with his new-found authority; it is, therefore, written "he and Hoshea the son of Nun" — in his righteousness (i.e., his humility). Even though he was appointed to be the leader of the congregation, he remained "Hoshea" in his righteousness. Similarly, (Shemoth 1:5) "And Yosef was in Egypt." Do we not know that Yosef was in Egypt? — The intent is to apprise us of Yosef's righteousness. (Bereshith 37:2) "Yosef … grazed the sheep with his brothers," and even though he became a king in Egypt, he remained in his (original) righteousness. Similarly, (I Samuel 17:14) "and David was the smallest (i.e., the youngest)." Do we not know that David was the youngest? — The intent is to apprise us of David's righteousness. (I Samuel 16:11) (David was) "tending the sheep" of his father, and even though he became the king of Israel, he remained "David" in his smallness.

Musar

The text from the Musar discusses various instances of lashon hara in the Torah, such as the serpent speaking ill of God, Joseph bringing evil reports to his father, and Miriam and Aaron speaking against Moses. It also emphasizes the importance of refraining from evil speech, reproof, and not bearing false reports. Additionally, the text highlights the humility of Joseph and the spiritual significance of certain characters in the Torah who did not receive a portion of land in Israel.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:7

(Ibid. 37:2): "And Joseph brought evil report of them (the sons of Leah) to their father": He told him that they called their brothers [the sons of the concubines] "servants," and that they were suspect of illicit relations, and of eiver min hachai [(eating a limb torn from a living animal)]. The verse tells us that he told no one else but their father, and this, only in order that he reprove them — in spite of which he should not have done so, for he should first have reproved them himself; for the din of reproof applies even from a disciple to his teacher, and he should not have revealed it to his father. [(And perhaps he did reprove them first and they admitted to him that they should not have called them servants. For, in truth, before Jacob had married them, he had freed them and taken them as wives, as the verse states in respect to them (Ibid.): "the wives of his father." Or perhaps they had contested the suspicion itself saying that it was not true, i.e., that they had not called them servants. As to his suspecting them of illicit relations, this was an error on Joseph's part, for by means of the Sefer Yetzirah they had created a golem in the form of a woman.)]

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 3:2

First of all, the episode of the serpent, who spoke lashon hara of the Holy One Blessed be He and thereby brought death to the world. And (Bereshith 29:20): "If G-d will be with me and guard me," concerning which Chazal have said: "if He will guard me against lashon hara." And the episode of Joseph (Ibid. 37:2): "And Joseph brought their evil talk to their father," this being the catalyst of the descent of the Jews to Egypt. And (Shemoth 2:14): "In truth, the thing has become known" (see Rashi there and what we shall write below). There, too, (4:1) Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, says: "But they will not believe me," and the Blessed L-rd counters (Ibid. 2): "What is this in your hand?" … (3) …and it became a serpent." Also there (6): "And, behold, his hand was leprous as snow." And (Ibid. 17:2): "And the people quarreled with Moses… (7) …over the quarrel of the children of Israel, etc." followed by (8): "And Amalek came and warred with Israel, etc." And (Ibid. 23:1): "You shall not bear a false report, which applies to both the speaker and the receiver [of lashon hara] (as we find in Makkoth 23a), followed by (2): "Do not be after many to do evil." And, in reference to the me'il [the outer robe of the ephod] (Ibid. 28:32): "A border shall there be to its mouth roundabout," and the entire section. And (35): "And its sound will be heard when he comes to the sanctuary, etc." And the entire section of Tazria and Metzora: the plague-spots of houses, the plague-spots of clothing, the plague-spots of men, (Vayikra 13:46): "Solitary shall he sit"— even outside of the camp of Israel. And his atonement— "chirping" birds. And (Ibid. 19:16): "Do not go talebearing among your people," (Ibid. 17): "Reprove, shall you reprove your neighbor, but you shall not bear sin because of him." And (Ibid. 25:17): "You shall not wrong, one man, his fellow," which relates to verbal wronging, which is also in the category of evil speech. And (Bamidbar 5:1): "And they shall send out of the camp every leper"— even if he were as great in Torah as Doeg. And (Ibid. 12:1): "And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, etc." And the entire section of Shelach Lecha, which speaks about the spies. And (Ibid. 21:5): "And the people spoke against G-d and against Moses." And (Devarim 23:10): "When you go out as a camp against your foes, guard yourself against every evil thing [davar ra]," concerning which Chazal have said: "davar ra" may be read as "dibbur ra" [evil speech]. And in Tetze, the "giving out of an evil name [motzi shem ra]," and (Ibid. 24:9): "Remember what the L-rd your G-d did to Miriam, etc." And (Ibid. 27:24): "Cursed be he who smites his friend in secret," which refers to lashon hara. And it is known that all of the "cursings" were preceded by blessings; and they opened with blessing, saying: "Blessed is he who does not smite"— whence we derive that one who is heedful in this is blessed.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Derekh Chayim, Vayeshev 2

והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה . We can learn from here how humble Joseph was. Although he was a son of one of Jacob's proper wives, Leah and Rachel, and was very dear to his father, more than all his other brothers, he was content to defer even to his half-brothers, the sons of the maids, as if these wives were נשי יעקב, full-fledged wives of Jacob.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 146

There is a deep significance in the fact that the two words כף and פך consist of the same letters. The only difference between them is that the letter כ in the word כף is כפופה, bent over, closed, whereas the same latter in the word פך is open. The former shape is an inferior one, as it alludes to a closed palm, someone who is tight-fisted. The letter פ alludes to the mouth above. When the letter ך is open, it reminds us of open-handed charity, i.e. פתח את ידך, "open your hand." Having opened one's hand, it is important to keep one's mouth closed as indicated by the shape of the letter פ, when it is כפופה, closed. There is no greater virtue than silence (Avot 1,17). Thus the combination of an open ך, and a closed פ, is an excellent one. Both Joseph and the brothers committed an error. Joseph talked too much by bringing evil gossip about his brothers to his father (37,2). The brothers erred by being greedy for money and stooped low enough to sell their brother Joseph for twenty pieces of silver.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 20

Considering all the foregoing, the verse: אלה תולדות יעקב-יוסף, that the true descendants of Jacob are Joseph, makes perfect sense. Just as the holy body of Jacob was transported to the holy soil of the land of Israel and buried there, so the holy remains of his son Joseph also were eventually interred there. Both their respective bodies had become thoroughly refined, cleansed from impurities, prior to that. Even though their respective bodies did not recapture the state of innocence of Adam before his sin, and could not therefore be clothed in the כתנות של אור, the garments woven out of light, yet their bodies recaptured a large measure of the purity that had been lost in גן עדן.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 3

Just as it is said of the Ineffable Name "G–d is One and His Name is One," so Jacob and the twelve tribes are the parallel of the 12 permutations with which the Ineffable four-lettered Name of G–d can be written. The relationship between Jacob and the twelve tribes and Joseph and the twelve tribes respectively is analogous to the relationship between ה' אחד, on the one hand, and ושמו אחד, on the other. The Zohar has explained this on Parshat Vayetzei. We explained there the relationship between Jacob and Joseph, and the meaning of the emanation תפארת. On Genesis 37, 2, the Zohar goes on to explain that anyone who looked at the face of Joseph remarked on his uncanny resemblance to Jacob. The Torah purposely did not describe Reuben or any other brother as the תולדות of Jacob.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 6

Something similar is true of Joseph. Although Joseph himself is a branch of Jacob, he did father two of the regular tribes, i.e. Ephrayim and Menasseh, whom Jacob compared in status to Reuben and Shimon (Genesis 48, 5). When we look once more at the word אחד, we will find that Joseph was unique in having a close connection with both the letter ח i.e. the brothers of Jacob's major wives, seeing he himself was one of those. He was also closely attached to the sons of Jacob's concubines, since the Torah describes Joseph as being raised primarily among the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah (37, 2). Considering the expression והוא נער, also stressed in that verse, we find in it an allusion to something I have previously mentioned, namely that יעקב contains an allusion to the letter ו in the four-lettered Ineffable Name. The name יוסף must then be viewed as a miniature edition of that same letter in G–d's name. The scriptural allusion to this concept is found in Isaiah 10, 19 ונער יכתבם, "and a lad will write them down." [This is probably an error, and should have been a quote from Isaiah 11, 6 ונער קטן נוהג בם. Ed.]

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayetzei, Torah Ohr 56

There are five בתי אבות, family-sources, which have to be viewed as "above" the concept of land distribution. They are the three patriarchs, to whom the land was promised, but who never took possession of it even though they pined for it and were buried in it. Then there is Joseph, who is described as the direct continuation of Jacob in Genesis 37,2: אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף. [there was no other reason for the Torah to tell us this fact which we all knew. Ed.] Joseph expressed an ardent desire to be buried in the land of Israel, and made his brothers swear an oath that they would take his bones with them at the time of the redemption from Egypt (Genesis 50,24). There is also Levi, whose descendants did not share in the land, for the Torah describes G–d Himself as their inheritance (Deut. 18,1). We must realize that these five people (or groups of people) were on a spiritual level where they did not need their share of land on earth in order to have their share of the land of Israel in the Celestial Domain. That region is the root of the terrestrial ארץ ישראל. The letter ה in the words במקום ה-זה, alludes to these five categories of people who spiritually outranked the other twelve, i.e. 12 =זה. There is also a special significance in the number five when we consider the five manifestations of G–d's Presence that were missing during the time of the second Temple. This means that there was a residual presence of חרב, i.e. חורבן, destruction, during the entire period of the second Temple. Our sages expressed this in terms of the missing letter ה, in the word ואכבד in Chagai 1,8, where the word should have been the same as in Exodus 14,4, ואכבדה בפרעה (cf. Rashi on that verse in חגי). In the future (third Temple) these five manifestations of G–d's שכינה will be restored. Not only will they be restored, but such a future will herald new spiritual heights when the original light that permeated the universe immediately after the Creation will also be restored. It is the time described in Isaiah 25,9 as: זה ה' קוינו לו, "This is the Lord whom we have hoped for." At that time the promise in Leviticus 26,12: והתהלכתי בתוככם, "I will be walking among you," will also be fulfilled.

Quoting Commentary

Ephraim was mentioned before Menasheh due to being the firstborn in Jacob's blessing, with more descendants, but Menasheh was mentioned first in the second census due to having more descendants and taking their inheritance first. Joseph brought an evil report about his brothers leading to the spies bringing an evil report about the Land, emphasizing the dangers of gossip. Rashbam discusses the importance of midrash over the plain sense in interpreting the eternal word of God. Joseph's initial flaws led to forgiveness and redemption, showing the transformative power of character development. Torah's relevance in modern times is highlighted through the episode of the Golden Calf and the command of Shabbat.

Chizkuni, Genesis 30:4:1

את בלהה שפחתה לאשה, “her servantmaid Bilhah as wife.” This was similar to what Leah had received from her father when she had married. She also gave that servant maid to her husband Yaakov, as reported in 30,9. We know that Joseph in his early years kept company with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah who are described there as his father’s “wives.” (Genesis 37,2) This teaches that these women were not concubines, but regular wives with all the financial security that such a status guarantees the wife. None of the 12 “tribes” were born to women who were merely concubines. The only time when the expression “concubine” is used about them is when they are mentioned in comparison to Rachel and Leah, when the indiscretion of Reuven is alluded to by the Torah in both Genesis 35,22, and 49,4. Gad and Asher had already been born when that indiscretion took place.

Chizkuni, Genesis 6:9:2

תולדות נח, the word תולדות, refers to happenings and their causes. For instance: Proverbs 27,1 כי לא תדע מה ילד היום, “for you do not know what the day will bring.” Rashi offers the same interpretation concerning the line: אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף, “these are the descendants of Yaakov, Joseph.” (Genesis 37,2). The Torah now readies itself to record the history of mankind as if it had commenced with Noach, and it attributes events that will be described as the direct or indirect result of Noach’s influence on them. It sums up the difference by describing Noach as a righteous man, when compared with his ancestors. It attributes the demise of his ancestors as basically due to their wickedness, [even though a few individuals in each generation had not been wicked. Ed.]

Covenant and Conversation; Exodus; The Book of Redemption, Ki Tisa, Shabbat and the Golden Calf; Reflections on the Great Crash of 2008 22

It goes without saying that this is not what the Golden Calf episode, or the command of Shabbat, were originally about. Yet there is a serious point at stake. The Torah continues to be relevant and incisive in our time – and this is part of what Torah min hashamayim, “Torah from heaven,” (The phrase comes from Mishna, Sanhedrin 10:1. ) actually means. If Torah is, as we believe, the word of God, then we cannot interpret it as we would a human document. Just as God is eternal, so is His word. Hence the primacy in Judaism of midrash (the applied sense) as against peshat (the “plain” sense). (See on this the important methodological note by Rashbam in his commentary to Genesis 37:2. The sages, he says, were preoccupied by midrash; he dedicates his commentary to “the deep plain sense of Scripture” (omek peshuto shel mikra). There is a large literature on the subject, but see especially Raphael Loewe, “The ‘Plain’ Meaning of Scripture in Early Jewish Exegesis,” Papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies, vol. 1 (London:, 1964); David Weiss Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).)

Covenant and Conversation; Leviticus; The Book of Holiness, Metzora, Language and Relationship 15

We see this clearly in the Torah, most obviously in the case of Joseph and his brothers. We read at the beginning of the story that Joseph “brought an evil report” about some of his brothers to his father (Gen. 37:2). This and other factors led to a complete breakdown of communication between them: “When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him” (literally: “they could not speak him to peace,” 37:4). Eventually, they plotted to kill him and sold him as a slave. Where relationships are damaged by evil speech, communication breaks down, and violence is often waiting in the wings.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 47:28:2

'ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים וגו, “Why did the Torah mention the number of years that Yaakov lived in Egypt? We could have figured this out from the data the Torah already provided us with about how old Joseph was when he left the house of father, (Genesis 37,2) how old he was when he was appointed as viceroy by Pharaoh, and from the age of Yaakov (130) at the time of his death which is listed in the same verse. The point the Torah wished us to appreciate is that just as for the first seventeen years of his life Yaakov, his father, had provided for him, during the last seventeen years of his life, his son Joseph provided for his father.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 6:9:1

THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS. Toledot (generations) means the events that transpired during his lifetime, as in what a day may bring forth (yeled) (Prov. 27:1). These are the generations of Jacob (Gen. 37:2) is similar.

Judaism's Life Changing Ideas; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayeshev; Improbable Endings and the Defeat of Despair 12

Initially Joseph had flaws in his character. He was vain about his appearance; (Genesis Rabba 84:7; see Rashi on Gen. 37:2.) he brought his father evil reports about his brothers; (Gen. 37:2, and see Genesis Rabba 84:7.) his narcissism led directly to the advances of Potiphar’s wife. (Tanḥuma, Vayeshev 8.) But the story of which he was a part was not a Greek tragedy. By its end – the death of Joseph in the final chapter of Genesis – he had become a different human being entirely, one who forgave his brothers the crime they committed against him, the man who saved an entire region from famine and starvation, the one Jewish tradition calls “the tzaddik.” (Yoma 35b.)

Lessons in Leadership; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Tazria; The Price of Free Speech 7

How dangerous lashon hara can be is illustrated by the story of Joseph and his brothers. The Torah says that Joseph “brought an evil report” to his father about some of his brothers (Gen. 37:2). This was not the only provocation that led his brothers to plot to kill him and eventually sell him as a slave. There were several other factors. But his derogatory gossip did not endear him to his siblings. No less disastrous was the “evil report” (diba; the Torah uses the same word as it does in the case of Joseph) brought back by the spies about the land of Canaan and its inhabitants (Num. 13:32). Even after Moses’ prayers to God for forgiveness, the report delayed entry to the land by almost forty years and condemned a whole generation to die in the wilderness.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 30:3:3

If you were to point out that we find Bilhah described as a bondwoman even after she had slept with Jacob (30,7) and already bore him a second son, this simply means that she used to be Rachel's bondwoman. The Torah there was also interested in pointing out that the matriarchs attributed such righteousness to their husbands and it is certain that the Torah did not need to be afraid that someone would misunderstand having previously outlined what Rachel had in mind (compare what we have written in Genesis 37,2).

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 13:11:1

למטה יוסף למטה מנשה, “from the tribe of Joseph, i.e. from the tribe of Menashe.” Above (v. 8) the Torah mentioned the tribe of Ephrayim, seeing he was the more important one. The reason that Joseph’s name was mentioned here, as he too was guilty of slander, when he told his father about the activities of his brothers (Genesis 37:2), and therefore the Torah mentioned him with Menashe, as Gadi ben Sodi (the spy representing Menashe) had been one of those guilty of spreading slander, whereas (Joshua, the spy representing) Ephrayim was innocent. The reason Joshua and Calev are not mentioned successively, so that Calev be “surrounded” by the names of spies, since he spoke as if he was with them (when his heart was not with them). It is not the case for Joshua, therefore he was mentioned separately, as he was not implicated with the rest.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 47:28:2

In this verse Solomon wishes to extol the virtue of charity in the wake of which much reward may be expected; in fact, the performance of that good deed may add years to one’s life (compare Psalms 19,12). The practice of charity is a panacea for both body and soul. It is capable of overcoming what is in store for people based on the mazzal they have been born under. We have proof of this in Samuel I 26,10 where David speaks of: “or his time will come and he will die.” What he meant was that the person’s day of death will approach sooner than had been originally scheduled. Death may sometimes occur sooner than originally scheduled, such as in the case of David of whom we read in Kings I 2,1 “David’s days approached to die.” On the other hand, there are instances when years are added to the life of a person who had been born under horoscopic influences which presaged a much shorter life for him. The best known example of this was the King Chiskiyah who, though he had been told by the prophet Isaiah to make his last will and testament, was granted an additional 15 years in response to his prayer (Isaiah 38,4-8). Conversely, we find that the life span of a person may be shortened from what had originally been decreed for him as we find in the case of King Yehoram son of Achazyah who was punished for his idolatry. We find in Kings II 1,16 that Elijah told him: “because you sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zevuv the god of Ekron — as if there were no G’d in Israel whose word you could seek — assuredly you shall not rise from the bed which you are lying on but you shall die.” This is what prompted Solomon to say that charity is such a powerful virtue that it can overcome even decrees of death. Its power is equal to that of “being fruitful and multiplying.” The word חיים in the sequence בארח צדקה חיים means that an additional life span may be granted in recognition of the charity one practices. The word מות, “death,” in the second half of our verse refers to shortening someone’s life expectancy as retribution for some sin committed. We are told in Baba Batra 11 that a certain righteous individual Binyamin, who was in charge of the distribution of public charity once had a certain woman approach him during a year of famine. The woman said to him: “please support me!” He answered her that there were no funds left in the kuppah. Thereupon she said to him: “if you do not provide me with food, a woman and her seven children will surely die.” He then gave her of his own money. Some time later, this very Binyamin fell sick and was on the point of death. At that point the angels said to G’d: “did You not say that anyone who keeps alive even a single Jew is considered as if he had kept a whole world alive? Did not this Binyamin save the lives of a woman and her seven children? Why does he have to die so young?” Thereupon the decree ordering his death was torn up and he had 22 years added to his life span. The words ודרך נתיבה אל מות mean that because a person is performing constant acts of charity he may be certain that he does not die prematurely. Translated literally: “there is no death on its path.” This idea is expressed also by Proverbs 10,2 צדקה תציל ממות, “charity saves from death.” This means that the person who practices charity does not die before his appointed time thanks to his acts of charity. Seeing that on occasion acts of charity are the reason why someone’s life span is extended beyond what was originally decreed, it is only logical that such acts protect the person performing them against dying prematurely. The subject matter of charity, how to practice it, and in what amount to practice it is quite complicated; the fundamental ingredient of doing charity is that one gives to someone else something which belongs to one. There are many ways of doing this. A minimal performance of the commandment would be giving a small alms to a Gentile. The next higher level of charity would be giving a similar amount to a Jewish person from another town who is in need. A still higher level of charity is giving this amount to a needy Jew from your own city. This is based on Exodus 22,24 “the poor person who lives amongst you.” A poor person residing in your house takes precedence in his claim on your charity over someone who lives out of town. A poor person who is also a next of kin takes precedence over another poor person of your hometown. The relevant verse in Isaiah 58,7 states: “do not ignore your own kin.” A still higher level of charity is to provide one’s children with a livelihood. Our sages (Ketuvot 50) applied to this Psalms 106,3 “Happy are those who do right at all times.” They argued that it is not possible to do right at all times as most people do not become called upon to perform acts of charity all the time. The only way they can fulfill what the psalmist talks about is by providing for their children while they are minors. The next higher level of performing charity is looking after one’s aged parents financially. By doing this one also fulfills the commandment to honour father and mother. This is the finest way of doing charity. When one does this one may be in line for living to a ripe old age oneself. This is why the Torah wrote in connection with this commandment (Exodus 20,12) “in order that you may experience long life on the earth that the Lord your G’d is assigning to you.” This is precisely what Solomon termed בארך צדקה חיים, that the path to life is righteousness. G’d repays measure for measure. If children keep their parents alive longer by ensuring that they can enjoy their old age, G’d in turn will recompense the children in a similar manner. We see a perfect example of this principle in the relationship between Yaakov and Joseph. Yaakov had provided for Joseph during the first 17 years of his life; in our Parshah we are told that Joseph repaid his father by providing for him during the last 17 years of his life. This is why the Torah (Genesis 47,28) was at pains to write: “Yaakov lived in Egypt for 17 years.” [Had the Torah not wanted to make this point it could simply have written that Yaakov lived for a total of 147 years. We know that he was 130 years old when he was presented to Pharaoh. Ed.]

Rabbeinu Bahya, Devarim 25:18:4

According to Midrash Tanchuma Ki Teytze 10 the words: “and he did not fear G’d,” mean that the people of Amalek (descendants of Esau) had a tradition that they could be defeated only by descendants of Rachel seeing that we have a verse in Jeremiah 49,20 אם לא יסחבום צעירי הצאן, “(hear then the plan G’d has devised against Edom) surely the shepherd boys shall drag them away.” These latter words are understood to refer to the youngest of the tribes of Israel, the ones which have been described as נער, (compare Genesis 37,2 where Joseph is described in these terms). We find that also Edom is described as junior in Ovadiah 2, קטן, “junior,” and it is appropriate that a junior such as Edom be defeated by another junior. The reason is that Joseph who attained prominence and remained loyal to G’d although in the environment of two sinners (Pharaoh and Potiphar) without learning from their deeds, is so superior to Esau who grew up between two righteous people (Yitzchak and Avraham) and still did not learn from the good deeds of those righteous people. The Torah testifies that Joseph said: “I fear the Lord,” (Genesis 44,18) as opposed to Amalek. No wonder that the one was doomed to fall by the hand of the other. [If Moses chose the נער Joshua to battle Amalek this was because he was a descendant of Ephrayim, a son of Joseph. Ed.]

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 21:1:6

A Midrashic approach(Shemot Rabbah 2): “wherever a paragraph is introduced with the word אלה, this signifies that there is no conceptual linkage to what was written now to what had preceded it immediately before. On the contrary, what follows is a contrast to what preceded it. Examples are Genesis 2,4: “these are the descendants of heaven and earth.” Up until then the Torah had described new creatures; from this point on it describes derivatives of existing creatures. It is as if G’d had said: “the former ones I did derive satisfaction from, the ones following them I did not derive satisfaction from.” “These are the descendants of Noach (Genesis 6,9).” By writing the introduction אלה, the Torah hints that the descendants of prior generations such as those of the generation of Enosh and the people who had to be killed during the deluge did not have much in common with the descendants of Noach. We find something similar in Genesis 37,2: ”these are the descendants of Yaakov.” Here too the Torah wants to draw a dividing line between the descendants of Esau and those of Yaakov. On the other hand, wherever a paragraph commences with the word ואלה, this indicates that what follows is sort of a continuation of what had been related previously. When the Book of Exodus commences with the words ואלה שמות בני ישראל, the Torah endeavours to pick up the thread about what we had learned about Yaakov’s sons in the Book of Genesis, a story which had been interrupted by Israel’s death and burial. The Torah wishes to describe the children of Yaakov as sharing in the virtues which distinguished their illustrious father. Here too, the words ואלה המשפטים, indicate that just as the commandments engraved on the Tablets were received at Mount Sinai, what will be related from here on in was also received from G’d by Moses at Mount Sinai. The Torah comprises laws at its beginning, in the middle, and at the end (Shemot Rabbah 30,3). In Exodus 15,25 we were told that G’d gave laws to the Jewish people at Marah; moreover in 18,2 the Torah stated that judges were to be ready to dispense justice at all times convenient to the litigants. Now, after the giving of the Ten Commandments the Torah continues to present the Jewish people with a list of laws. The words ואלה המשפטים and what follows provide the framework for the Ten Commandments which were both preceded by pieces of legislation and followed by more pieces of legislation. This is what Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 8,20: “I walk the path of righteousness, in the path of justice.” Another approach (Shemot Rabbah 30,9): when David said in Psalms 147,19: “He issued His words to Yaakov, His statutes and social laws to Israel,” you have to carve up this phrase as follows: the words: “He tells His words to Yaakov” refer to the Ten Commandments; the words: “His statutes and social laws to Israel,” refer to our portion here, the one which commences with the words ואלה המשפטים; the words לא עשה כן לכל גוי ומשפטים, mean that “He did not do so” (give social laws to all other nations). However, He did give to Adam, and thereby to all of mankind, six statutes. When Noach appeared, He added a seventh commandment, אבר מן החי. [seeing that after the deluge mankind had been permitted to eat meat and to kill animals in order to provide themselves with meat, this prohibition of eating flesh taken from living tissue, from a live animal had to be given at that time. Ed.] When Avraham appeared on the stage of history an eighth commandment, circumcision of the males at eight days of age, was added to the existing range of commandments. With the advent of Yaakov, and after his successful encounter with the guardian angel of Esau, a ninth commandment, that of not eating the femoral sinew was introduced. When Israel stood at Mount Sinai they were given the Ten Commandments which symbolized the remainder of the Torah. This is the meaning of the words כף אחת עשרה זהב מלאה קטרת, (Numbers 7,14). The allegorical meaning of that phrase is: “the Torah which was given to the Jewish people from the hand of G’d to the hand of Moses is אחת, “one,” consisting of עשרה, “Ten Commandments” which in effect are מלאה קטרת, “filled with incense” a word totaling 613 (when exchanging the letter ר for the letter ד when using the system of א'ת, ב''ש etc. (compare our comments on Exodus 20,16 on the section dealing with the letter קוף being a natural alternative for the letter ד) When the Israelites stood at Mount Sinai and said: “all that the Lord has said we shall do and we shall hear,” He said to them: “here the whole Torah has been given to you.” This is what David said in Psalms 147,19 that “G’d had not given all these righteous laws to any other nation.” Rabbi Eliezer said: “when there is justice down here on earth, there is no justice in the heaven above (i.e. there is no need to apply the attribute of Justice in the celestial regions). When there is no justice on earth, then G’d has to invoke the attribute of Justice in the celestial regions” [to compensate for the absence of justice on earth. Ed.] G’d said: “if I had been required to invoke the attribute of Justice for even a single hour, the universe would not have been able to continue to exist.” This is what Isaiah had in mind when he said (Isaiah 27,4) “if I were to have to march into battle, I would have to burn all of it.“ (the vineyard which serves as Isaiah’s simile). Isaiah explains in the following verse: “But if he holds fast to My refuge, He makes Me his friend, He makes Me His friend.” The prophet means that if man, i.e. Israel, will cleave to Torah law then all will be well. This is also what the sages (Tanchuma) had in mind when they said that Israel would not have lost its independence had they not failed to observe the laws of the Torah and the maintenance of a fair judicial system. They were punished by what is described in Job 4,20 as “shattered between daybreak and evening perishing forever unnoticed.” This is what would happen if the ordinances G’d placed before the Israelites in our portion would be ignored by them.

Radak on Genesis 6:9:1

אלה תולדות נח, נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו, the meaning of the word תולדות is similar to “history of,” i.e. this it what happened to Noach, etc. It concerns both the deluge and what came after. We encounter the same pattern when the Torah introduced a paragraph with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף in Genesis 37,2 where this is an introduction to history related to Yaakov’s family. In Proverbs 27,1 we have a verse concluding with the words “the day will give birth to.” The root ילד is the root of the word תולדה and תולדות, i.e. it refers to future developments. Developments are matters that are the result of days following one another.

Ramban on Numbers 13:32:1

AND THEY BROUGHT FORTH ‘DIBATH’ (AN EVIL REPORT OF) THE LAND WHICH THEY HAD SPIED OUT UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The meaning of this is that the spies left Moses and Aaron and [went around] saying in the [people’s] tents that it is a Land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof. (Verse 32.) For at first when they spoke to the people in front of Moses and Aaron [saying] that the Land … floweth with milk and honey but that the people are fierce, (Verses 27-28.) and Caleb said, for we are well able to overcome it, (Verse 30.) the people hesitated [between these two opinions], and there were some of them who [still] trusted in their power and strength, and some of them [who trusted] in the help of the Eternal against the mighty. (Judges 5:23.) Then the spies spread the evil report in front of the people themselves, as it is written, the Land through which we have passed to spy it out, is a Land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof, etc., (Verse 32.) until they caused the whole congregation (Further, 14:2.) to complain, this being the sense of the verse stating, and they returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up an evil report against the Land. (Ibid., Verse 36.) This happened because when the spies saw the [Amorite] people whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks, (Amos 2:9.) the fear of them was fallen upon them (Esther 8:17.) and they made the hearts of their brothers melt. (Deuteronomy 1:28.) And when they saw that the Israelites were still considering going up [to the Land], and that Joshua and Caleb were encouraging them to do so, they invented a false report in order to frustrate their [intention of] going up by all possible means. Know that he who “bringeth forth ‘dibah’” is a fool (Proverbs 10:8.) who speaks falsely, but he who tells a truthful [bad report] is called “one who ‘brings’ dibah,” as it is said, and Joseph brought ‘dibatham ra’ah’ (evil report of them) unto their father. (Genesis 37:2. This shows that when Scripture uses the expression “he ‘brings’ dibah” it means that he tells the truth as he sees, and when it uses the expression “bringeth forth” [which is in Hebrew a different verb], it means a false report. See also Ramban ibid., Vol. I, p. 449.) It was for this [false report] that they were punished by death through a plague, as it is said, And those men that ‘brought forth’ an evil report of the Land, died by the plague before the Eternal. (Further, 14:37. Thus, in speaking of the spies having brought forth an evil report, Scripture by using the word ra’ah (evil) wishes to emphasize that not only was their report false but that it was also of an exceedingly evil nature.)

Ramban on Numbers 1:32:1

OF THE CHILDREN OF JOSEPH, NAMELY, OF THE CHILDREN OF EPHRAIM. Scripture mentioned Ephraim before Menasheh, and stated Joseph’s relationship to him [which it does not do in the case of Menasheh], (Verse 34.) and similarly later [Scripture gave Ephraim precedence] at the [division of the tribes according to their] standards, by making him master of the standard, [whilst Menasheh is mentioned merely as one of the two tribes gathered around him], because in accordance with Jacob’s blessing (Genesis 48:20.) he was to be [given the honor accorded to] the firstborn, and his brother [Menasheh] was to be second to him. Moreover, the sons of Ephraim were more numerous than those of Menasheh (Ephraim totalled 40,500 (Verse 33), whilst Menasheh numbered 32,200 (Verse 35).) [and hence Ephraim was mentioned first]. But at the second census in the plains of Moab (Further, 26:3.) Scripture mentioned Menasheh first, because at that time his sons were more numerous [than those of Ephraim], (The children of Menasheh were then 52,700 (ibid., Verse 34), whilst Ephraim had only 32,500 (ibid., Verse 37).) and [also because] they took their inheritance first. (Half of the tribe of Menasheh joined the tribes of Gad and Reuben in settling during the lifetime of Moses on the east side of the Jordan (ibid., 32:33).) Similarly when mentioning the princes of the Land [who were to take possession of the Land for their respective tribes] Scripture mentioned Menasheh first, and also Joseph’s relationship to him. (Ibid., 34:23: Of the children of Joseph; of the tribe of the children of Menasheh. In the following verse Scripture mentions the prince of the children of Ephraim.) In [the story of] the spies, however, Scripture mentioned Ephraim first, and Joseph’s relationship it stated only in referring to the tribe of Menasheh. (Ibid., 13:8, 11.) It appears to me by way of homiletic exposition that it is on account of the evil report that Joseph brought [to his father] concerning his brothers (Genesis 37: 2.) that Scripture, [in the story of the spies], associates with him the spy who [was among those who] spread the evil report [about the Land, namely the spy from the tribe of Menasheh, whereas the spy from the tribe of Ephraim was Joshua the son of Nun, who was not among those who spread the evil report]. Or it may be that Scripture [in relating the story of the spies] gave honor to both [tribes who were descended from Joseph], and Ephraim had sufficient honor in its prince [Joshua the son of Nun who ministered to Moses, therefore Scripture mentioned the honor of descent from Joseph only in the case of Menasheh].

Rashi on Genesis 49:5:1

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9).

Rashi on II Chronicles 34:3:1

when he was still a youth, he started to seek The meaning is that although he was still a youth, he started to seek after the God of David his father. This is similar to (Gen. 37:2): “and as a youth, with the sons of Bilhah, etc., Joseph brought evil reports of them,” and this is not surprising, but if he were thirty years old, he would not have done it. It is, however, surprising, that he (Josiah) was a youth, and nevertheless, he started to seek, etc.

Rashi on Psalms 31:14:1

the gossip of many Heb. דבת, the counsel of many. דבת is an expression of (Song 7:10): “making the lips of the sleeping speak (דבב).” Likewise, every דבת in Scripture, parledic in Old French, gossip (so Gen. 37:2, Num. 14:36, Ezek. 36:3).

Redeeming Relevance; Genesis 6:46

The text (Bereshit 37:2) gives us an additional hint to Yosef ’s early political behavior by mentioning a seemingly unimportant fact – that he would spend his time with the children of Bilhah. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch provides us with a highly plausible explanation for this behavior. Could it not be that Yosef preferred to be with the children of maidservants, because they viewed themselves as his social inferiors? When he was with them, there was no contest for leadership and he could pursue his calling – without engendering the bitterness of Leah’s children, who might have viewed their young brother’s ambitions with suspicion.

Studies in Spirituality; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayishlah; Feeling the Fear 6

There are many interpretations. One, however, is particularly fascinating in terms of both style and substance. It comes from Rashi’s grandson, Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam, France, c. 1085–1158). Rashbam had a strikingly original approach to biblical commentary. (He expounds on this in his commentary on Genesis 37:2.)

Tribal Lands, Chapter 15; Binyamin 4

Twelve years had passed since Joseph’s birth, (Seder Olam 2.) and since Jacob emerged shalem, (Genesis 33:18.) complete, from the dangers of Laban and Esau. His house was built; he was named Israel by God. (Genesis 35:10.) The birth of Joseph marked a critical juncture for Jacob. Joseph was his ben zekunim, (Genesis 37:3.) the beloved child of his old age, (R. Saadiya Gaon, Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:3.) who seemed to round out the patriarch’s household. (“These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph was seventeen years old… ” Genesis 37:2.) And yet, Jacob was not done, and his house was not truly complete, for Rachel had not yet given everything that she could to Beit Yisrael. Upon the birth of Joseph, she recognized instantly that this must not be her final act – that “God should grant me another son” (yosif Hashem li ben aĥer), and even named Joseph in that hope. Only with Benjamin, who resembled her more purely than did Joseph, was the family of Israel to be whole.

Tur HaArokh, Numbers 13:32:1

ויוציאו דבת הארץ....אל בני ישראל, “They slandered the land of Israel ..in their report to the Jewish people.” The principal effrontery of the spies was the fact that they reported to and appealed to the people directly, instead of making their report to the commander-in-chief, Moses, who was the one who had selected them for their mission by going around to the tents of the people and telling them that the land of Canaan was devouring its inhabitants, whereas originally in the presence of Moses and Aaron they had praised the land, describing how it was flowing with milk and honey. This was a treacherous and underhanded manner of discharging their task. Originally, they had only described the people in that land as strong, which by itself was not too serious a departure from what they had been asked to report about. When Calev had assured the people of his conviction that they would be able to successfully conquer that land the people had still tended to believe him. There were at that time, still quite a number of the people who possessed either self confidence or trust in G’d’s ability and willingness to help them conquer that land. When the spies had become aware of this, they embarked on an intensive campaign to undermine the confidence of those people by spreading the stories of the many people they had observed dropping dead. This was another example of misinterpretation. G’d had allowed even giants to collapse, in order to demonstrate how tenuous was even those supermen’s hold on life, whereas the spies, bent of interpreting everything in the most negative manner, concluded that the climate of the land causes the collapse of its inhabitants. In order to counter the impression Joshua and Calev had made on the people, the spies now resorted to fabrications, deliberate exaggerations, etc. The expression להוציא דבה means more than to highlight the negative aspects of something, it means to spread tales of a negative character that are entirely fictitious, represent as facts figments of the imagination of the tale-bearer. The party spreading such untruths hopes to make them believable because he had initially told his listeners a considerable number of true facts. This is also why the Torah reports Joseph as bringing דבתם רעה, “evil reports,” about his brothers to his father. He had reported a number of facts faithfully, so that his fabrications would also be believed by his father, Genesis 37,2, It was this latter aspect of the spies’ activities that caused G’d to punish them by making these ten men die on the spot through the plague. (14,37)

Second Temple

Joseph is consistently referred to as young or youngest in the Bible, such as when he is keeping the flock with his brothers and when his father prays for him. Moses refers to the process of generation from non-existence to existence and the change from higher genus to lower species when discussing the generations of Jacob and Joseph in the Bible.

On the Prayers and Curses Uttered by Noah when he Became Sober 3:4

It is in accordance with this that Joseph is always called the young and youngest. For when he is keeping the flock with his bastard brothers, he is spoken of as young (Gen. 37:2), and when his father prays for him he says, “my youngest son, though grown, return to me” (Gen. 49:22).

On the Unchangeableness of God 25:4

[119] Now one form of generation is the process by which things are drawn and journey so to speak from non-existence to existence, and this process is that which is always necessarily followed by plants and animals. But there is also another which consists in the change from the higher genus to the lower species, and this it is which Moses had in mind when he says, “But these are the generations of Jacob. Joseph was seventeen years old, keeping sheep with his brethren, being still young, with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zelpah, his father’s wives” (Gen. 37:2).

Talmud

Joseph was meant to have twelve tribes descend from him, but his semen was emitted from between his fingernails, so the offspring descended from his brother Benjamin instead. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains that phrases like "And he dwelt" indicate impending calamity, as seen in various biblical examples. Rabbi Yonatan states that Rachel was meant to have the firstborn child, but Leah prayed for mercy and earned the status for her firstborn, but God returned it to Rachel due to her modesty. Rabbi Levi teaches that Joseph's dream was fulfilled after twenty-two years. Job and other biblical figures emerged already circumcised, symbolizing their purity and righteousness.

Avot DeRabbi Natan 2:5

What was the fence that Job made around his words? It says (Job 1:5), “A pure and righteous man, who fears God and turns away from evil.” This teaches us that Job distanced himself from anything that would bring him to sin, from any ugliness, and from anything even resembling ugliness. If that is so, then why do we have to also learn that he was “a pure and righteous man”? But instead, this is here to teach us that Job emerged [from the womb] already circumcised. Adam also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 1:24), “And God created the person in His image.” Seth also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 5:2), “He had a child in his likeness and image.” Noah also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 6:9), “A just and pure man in his generation.” Shem also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 14:18), “Malkitzedek, king of Shalem.” (Malkitzedek is understood in rabbinic tradition to be Shem. The Hebrew word shalem means “complete.”) Jacob also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 25:27), “Jacob was a pure man, who sat in tents.” Joseph also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 37:2), “This is the progeny of Jacob: Joseph.” But shouldn’t it say [instead]: This is the progeny of Jacob: Reuben? What do we learn from [the fact that it says] Joseph? [We learn] that just as Jacob emerged already circumcised, (so, too,) Joseph emerged already circumcised. Moses also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Exodus 2:2), “She saw that he was good.” And what did his mother see in him that was lovelier and more praiseworthy than any other person? That he emerged circumcised. Bil’am the wicked also came out circumcised, as it says (Numbers 24:4), “The word of him who hears God’s speech.” (Samuel also emerged circumcised, as it says [I Samuel 2:26], “Young Samuel continued to grow and was good.”) David also emerged circumcised – as it says (Psalms 16:1), “A mikhtam (A ketem (which has the same Hebrew letters as mikhtam) can mean a type of spot or marking.) of David. (Protect me, for I seek refuge in You).” Jeremiah also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Jeremiah 1:5), “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you; and before you came out of the womb I consecrated you.” Zerubbabel also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Haggai 2:23), “On that day (I will take,) [declares the Eternal of Hosts, I will take] Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, declares the Eternal.” And it says (Job 31:1), “I have made a covenant with my eyes, so how can I gaze at a maiden [i.e., an unmarried woman]?” This teaches that Job was strict with himself and would not even look at a maiden. And if with a maiden – whom he could marry if he wished (to his son, to his daughter, or to [another] family member) – he was strict with himself and would not look at her, then all the more so [would he never look at] a married woman! And why was he so strict with himself not to look even at a maiden? Because Job said to himself: Perhaps I will look today, and tomorrow another man will come along and marry her, and then I will have looked at a married woman.

Bava Batra 123a:13

Rather, doesn’t your teacher Rabbi Yonatan say like this: It was appropriate for the child receiving the status of firstborn to emerge from Rachel, as it is written: “These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2), indicating that Joseph was Jacob’s primary progeny. But Leah advanced ahead of Rachel with appeals for mercy, i.e., with prayer, and thereby earned the status as firstborn for her firstborn. But because of the modesty that Rachel possessed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, returned the status as firstborn to her. This is why Jacob gave the status as firstborn to Joseph.

Berakhot 55b:2

From the same source, Rabbi Levi said: One should always anticipate fulfillment of a good dream up to twenty-two years after the dream. From where do we derive this? From Joseph, as it is written in the story of Joseph’s dream: “These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren” (Genesis 37:2); and it is written: “And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh King of Egypt” (Genesis 41:46). From seventeen to thirty how many years are they? Thirteen; and add seven years of plenty and two of famine; the total is twenty-two and only then was the dream fulfilled when his brothers came and bowed down to him.

Sanhedrin 106a:15

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everywhere that it is stated: And he dwelt, it is nothing other than an expression of pain, of an impending calamity, as it is stated: “And Israel dwelt in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab” (Numbers 25:1). It is stated: “And Jacob dwelt in the land where his father had sojourned in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 37:1), and it is stated thereafter: “And Joseph brought evil report of them to his father” (Genesis 37:2), which led to the sale of Joseph. And it is stated: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt in the land of Goshen” (Genesis 47:27), and it is stated thereafter: “And the time drew near that Israel was to die” (Genesis 47:29). It is stated: “And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree” (I Kings 5:5), and it is stated thereafter: “And the Lord raised up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the king’s seed in Edom” (I Kings 11:14).

Sotah 36b:16

It is taught in a baraita: Joseph was deserving of having twelve tribes descend from him, the same as twelve tribes descended from his father Jacob, as it is stated: “These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2). This implies that everything that happened to Jacob was destined to happen to Joseph. However, he did not merit this because his semen was emitted from between his fingernails. And even so, the offspring that were meant to descend from him descended from his brother Benjamin, who had ten sons. And they were all named after Joseph, as it is stated: “And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard” (Genesis 46:21).

Targum

At the age of seventeen, Joseph tended sheep with his brothers, who were the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. Joseph reported their bad behavior to his father, including eating torn flesh from wild animals.

Onkelos Genesis 37:2

This is the history of Yaakov; Yoseif at the age of seventeen years, would tend the sheep with his brothers, and the lad was [he had been raised] with the sons of Bilhah, and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. Yoseif brought back bad reports about them to their father.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:2

These are the generations of Jakob. Joseph was a son of seventeen years. He had come forth from the school, and was a youth brought up with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpha his fathers wives. And Joseph brought their evil report; for he had seen them eat the flesh that had been torn by wild beasts, the ears and the tails; and he came and told it to his father.

וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אָהַ֤ב אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִכׇּל־בָּנָ֔יו כִּֽי־בֶן־זְקֻנִ֥ים ה֖וּא ל֑וֹ וְעָ֥שָׂה ל֖וֹ כְּתֹ֥נֶת פַּסִּֽים׃ 3 J E Now Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons—he was his “child of old age”; (he was his “child of old age” NJPS “he was the child of his old age.” The expression ben zequnim is used here as a category label; it seems to denote a special, favored status. Cf. 44.20.) and he had made him an ornamented tunic. (ornamented tunic Or “a coat of many colors”; meaning of Heb. uncertain.)
Yosef HaTzaddik is known for bringing people closer to Hashem and showing compassion, receiving the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy from Yaakov. Yosef's wisdom and knowledge possibly came from Shem and Eber, and his coat of many colors symbolized his future leadership but also led to jealousy among his brothers. The Midrash draws parallels between Joseph and Zion, emphasizing divine plans and consequences. Jacob's love for Joseph led to his brothers' jealousy and ultimately their exile in Egypt. The Talmud warns against favoritism among children, citing Joseph's colored coat as an example. The High Priest's garments symbolize royalty and honor, reflecting his lofty assignment. Joseph's journey to Egypt was influenced by his complex beliefs and the robe of statecraft, leading to deceptive practices. Tamar wore an ornamented tunic as a maiden princess, similar to the colorful cloak given to Joseph by Yaakov.

Chasidut

Yosef HaTzaddik is identified with bringing people closer to Hashem and eliminating disgrace, constantly adding new souls and students to serve Him. Yisrael loved Yosef because of his compassion and desire to bring everyone near, reflecting the trait of zakein denoting great compassion. Yosef received the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy from Yaakov, showing compassion for all and bringing them closer to Hashem.

Likutei Halakhot, Orach Chaim, Laws of Morning Conduct 4:17:1

YOSEF, THE TZADDIK OF COMPASSION In this section Reb Noson brings further proof that Yosef HaTzaddik is identified with bringing everyone nearer to HaShem and illuminating them with perceptions of Godliness. This is why he is called Yosef, as alluded to in “God asaf my shame.” Yosef gathers in and eliminates all disgrace and embarrassment from the Jewish people, since he brings them to teshuvah and so closer to HaShem. This is the meaning of “May HaShem yosef for me another son,” on account of which he is called Yosef. This means that the tzaddik always works le-hosif, to add, and to draw close new souls each time. () 130 The word asaf is formed of the three root letters (יוסף) meaning “gather.” The name Yosef ,(אסף) ASF are formed of the (להוסיף) and the word le-hosif meaning ,(יסף) etymologically similar root letters YSF “add.” The tzaddik, personified by Yosef HaTzaddik, serves HaShem by gathering in those who have grown distant from Him and thus adding to the souls who serve Him. He constantly requests this of HaShem, as alluded to in “May HaShem add for me another son,” in the sense that each time HaShem should add for him a new student—since a student is called a son, because “whoever teaches Torah to his friend’s son is considered as if he fathered him.” (Sanhedrin 19b.) He constantly searches and seeks to add new people and bring them near, as in “May HaShem yosef for me another son.”

Likutei Halakhot, Orach Chaim, Laws of Morning Conduct 4:17:2

Therefore the verse states, “Now, Yisrael loved Yosef more than all his sons, for he was the son of his zekunim.” (This reflects Chazal’s teaching that “zakein” denotes someone with wisdom (Kiddushin 32b).) Yisrael loved him greatly because of this—because Yosef desired to show compassion for everyone and to design ways to bring everyone near. This is the meaning of “for [Yosef] was the son of his zekunim.” Zakein, elder, denotes the trait of very great compassion, as in the midrashic depiction of HaShem at Sinai as “a zakein full of compassion.” (Mekhilta, Parashat Beshalach 4.) Kabbalistic teaching states that the Thirteen Rectifications of the Zakan, the Supernal Beard, similarly signify very great compassion. (As mentioned above, Ohr HaPanim is the Light that shines from the Countenance of the Divine persona of Arikh Anpin (see note 13 above). The Arizal teaches that the channels through which this Light descends are the hairs of Arikh Anpin’s Countenance, otherwise known as the Thirteen Rectifications of the Beard (Sefer HaLikutim, Toldot). The Zohar (III, 131a) associates these Thirteen Rectifications with the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy through which we evoke Heaven’s compassion, as brought in Shemot 34:6-7 (see also Eitz Chaim 13:9 and LM I, 27:3, note 12). This connection is intimated ,זקָָן) by the resemblance between the words ZaKaN elder). In the kabbalistic ,זקֵָן) beard) and ZaKeiN lexicon, Arikh Anpin is the “Elder,” whose defining quality is great compassion.) Thus Yosef received from Yaakov all the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, the concept of zakein, through which the great tzaddik shows compassion for everyone and brings them all closer to HaShem.

Commentary

Jacob loved Joseph more than his other sons because he was born in his old age, possibly representing a rectification of past mistakes. Joseph was seen as wise and knowledgeable, possibly due to the teachings of Shem and Eber. The coat of many colors symbolized Joseph's future leadership, but also led to jealousy among his brothers. The garment may have been a compensation for Joseph being a half-orphan. Joseph's facial features resembled Jacob and Rachel, leading to Jacob's favoritism. The love for Joseph caused tension among his brothers, ultimately leading to Joseph's sale and subsequent misfortunes.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:3:1

כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he had been born to him in his old age. If you were to argue that Binyamin had been born when he was still older, Binyamin caused his father to be reminded of the fact that his very existence brought about his beloved wife Rachel’s death, something which prevented him from loving him as much.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:3:2

פסים, a name that was to be given to this garment retroactively after Joseph had been sold. [Each letter of the word refers to a different master to whom Joseph had been sold, commencing with מ for the Midianites and ending with פ for Potiphar.] A different explanation sees in the word פסים as a “compensation,” for being a half orphan, not having a mother anymore. Yaakov tried to compensate him by having a costly garment made for him.

Chomat Anakh on Torah, Genesis 37:3:1

Jacob loved Joseph more than all his sons because he was the son of his old age. It is possible that Jacob (peace be upon him) sought to rectify through Joseph what Adam did, as our Sages (may their memory be blessed) interpreted, and after all the trouble, Leah misled him, and he thought she was Rachel. When it was morning, and behold, it was Leah, just as it says in the verse: "And it came to pass in the morning, behold, it was Leah." This caused great distress to Jacob because after completing the rectification, a prohibition of illicit relations came upon him. Perhaps he lost all that he had rectified.Therefore, with Rachel, who had a problem, as mentioned by Rabbi Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe Zatzal, "God made that she gave birth to Joseph," who is a soul of Adam's World to come, to inform Jacob (peace be upon him) that he did not commit a prohibition. Everything he did was a complete rectification. This fruit born in Joseph represents the soul of Adam's World to come to complete the rectification. Joseph embodies the aspect of Foundation (Yesod).This is the reason Jacob (peace be upon him) loved Joseph, as it is a great testimony regarding Joseph, as God already desired his actions. This is indicated by "And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons," with the numerical value of "son of his old age" being equivalent to "Adam with everything." He made for him a coat of many colors, which is the light of the clothing of Adam. As Rabbi Karban Shabbat explains, the numerical value of "son of his old age" is the letters Aleph, Mem, Nun, Yud, which hint at the unique designation, Kav and Vav. It also hints that the numerical value is 90, as Joseph was born when Jacob was 91, according to the hint mentioned as our Sages explained. It is written, "And Jacob settled," and afterwards, it says, "And Israel loved Joseph." It is possible that Joseph was in the place of David, who is the chariot. When he touched the hollow of his thigh, he was called Israel, as a hint that David was the chariot. When he comes in his place, Joseph, and for this reason, "And Israel loved Joseph." Alternatively, Joseph was in the place of David, and the hint is that David was the chariot, and when he comes in his place, Joseph, and that is why it says, "And Israel loved Joseph." Alternatively, as our Sages said, Joseph is called El, and if so, it is permitted to have two sisters. According to this, "And Israel loved Joseph." Otherwise, as Rabbi Shaul says, "And Israel loved Joseph," means that he called him El, and if so, it is permissible to have two sisters. According to this, "And Israel loved Joseph," as Rachel, who is hinted at by Israel, is permitted, and therefore, he loved Joseph more than all his sons.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:3:1

כתונת פסים, “an embroidered garment;” extending down to the palms of his hands.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:3:1

BECAUSE HE WAS THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE. This is to be taken literally since Joseph was born to Jacob when the latter was ninety-one years old. (Joseph was 30 when Pharaoh appointed him vizier over Egypt. Jacob came to Egypt nine years later, after the seven years of plenty and two of famine (Gen. 45:11). At that time Jacob was 130 years old (Ibid., 47:9) and Joseph 39. Thus Jacob was 91 years older than Joseph (Cherez). I.E. notes that ben zekunim is to be taken literally, viz., son of old age, because the Midrash and Onkelos interpret it to mean a wise son. Cf. Bereshit Rabbah 84:8 and Rashi.) Also, Benjamin, his brother, is referred to by Scripture as a child of his (That is, Jacob’s.) old age (Gen. 44:20). After Joseph and Benjamin no other children were born to Jacob. (Hence these two are referred to as children of his old age (Krinsky).)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:3:2

A COAT OF MANY COLORS. Ketonet passim means an embroidered coat. (Vat. Ebr. 38 reads: a coat made of embroidered parts. Some texts omit embroidered coat. According to I.E. passim means parts. The coat was made up of embroidered parts (strips) each of which was of a different color (Filwarg). For an alternate interpretation see Cherez.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:3:3

[MANY COLORS.] The word passim (many colors) is similar to the Aramaic word pas (part) in part of (pas) a hand (Dan. 5:5).

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 37:1

Or “a coat of many colors”; meaning of Heb. uncertain.

Malbim on Genesis 37:3:1

A long colorful cloak. The other brothers were dressed like shepherds, but because Yoseif was his father’s attendant he was required to dress in a dignified manner.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:3:1

וישראל אהב את יוסף, Israel loved Joseph, etc. The Torah reported this here in order to provide the rationale for the brothers' hatred of their younger, i.e. their "little" brother Joseph. The reason the verse begins with the conjunctive letter ו in front of ישראל is to inform us that if the tale-bearing would have been the only problem, the brothers could have coped with that; they would have argued with Joseph and convinced him that his suspicions were unfounded. It was the additional element of their father displaying distinct favoritism which poisoned the atmosphere between Joseph and his brothers. Not only did Jacob love Joseph better than all his other sons combined, but he even made a public display of this. Once this hatred of Joseph had become a factor in their mutual relations nothing could correct the situation. There was no longer any point in the brothers speaking peacefully, i.e. trying to make peace with the tale-bearer, seeing he was so clearly their father's favorite.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:3:1

וישראל אהב את יוסף, “and Israel loved Joseph, etc.” You will observe that the Torah uses the names Yaakov and Israel interchangeably. In the first verse it calls him Yaakov; in the verse at the end of this passage where Yaakov rends his garments having concluded that Joseph had become the victim of a ferocious beast, it again calls him Yaakov, whereas in our verse here he is called Israel. This proves that the name Israel which G’d had bestowed upon him was not meant to supplant the name he had been given at birth but was to serve as an alternate name for him.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:3:2

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “he made for him a striped coat.” This was a superior garment.. It may have resembled the כתונת תשבץ worn by the High Priest (Exodus 28,4). The brothers were envious of Joseph on account of this garment. This envy aroused by Yaakov making this garment for Joseph caused our sages (Shabbat 10) to go on record that a father should be careful not to discriminate between his children. This coat was the first of the various causes which produced the tragedy described by the Torah and whose ramifications ultimately resulted in the enslavement of the bodies of the Jewish people in Egypt. It had still later ramifications in the time of the Romans after the destruction of the second Temple when ten of the most illustrious scholars of that time died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Romans whose Emperor justified himself quoting the penalty of kidnapping provided in the Torah. He argued that the brothers had never been punished for selling their brother. The body is perceived as the outer garment of the soul. The kind of garment one wears is somehow related to the body underneath it just as the body is related to the soul within it. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,6 the expression פסים (plural) is used because these stripes were as wide as two פסות ידיו, two handbreadths. Another interpretation of the word פסים: the word is derived from פייס, lot; the brothers drew lots amongst themselves to decide which of the four methods of death the Torah provides to administer to Joseph. This is based on the wording of ויתנכלו להמיתו, “they planned (how) to kill him” (verse 37,18). Alternately, they drew lots who was to bring the news about the torn coat to their father Yaakov. The lot fell on Yehudah and this is why Yehudah said to Yaakov הכר נא ”please identify if this is the coat of your son.” The expression הכר נא is found again with Tamar, Yehudah’s daughter-in-law, who said to Yehudah concerning the pawn he had given her הכר נא למי החותמת וגו', “please identify to whom this signet ring belongs, etc.” (38,25) When Yehudah said to Yaakov: “identify if this is the coat of your son,” Yaakov’s life ended suddenly, and the lives of Yehudah’s sons Er and Onan came to an end at that same moment. [I believe that this Midrash considers the “revival” of Yaakov as having taken place when he heard that Joseph was alive, 45,24, and that the lives of Er and Onan were vicariously revived in the twin sons which Tamar bore for Yehudah 38,28. Ed.] This is the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 32,18 ומשלם עון אבות אל חיק בניהם אחריהם, “but You visit the guilt of the fathers to their children after them.” Still another possible meaning of the word פסים. The word is reminiscent of the four kinds of troubles which befell Joseph as a result of this coat. The letters in the word are an acrostic for the words פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים.. All the above owned Joseph at one time or another from the moment the brothers sold him. A more mystical meaning of the word פסים: Yaakov revealed the mystical connections between the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet to Joseph. In other words, Yaakov “enrobed” his son Joseph with the wisdom contained in the twenty-two letters of the alphabet which he himself had learned at the time he had studied in the academies of Shem and Ever.

Radak on Genesis 37:3:1

כי בן זקונים, what was so special about Joseph’s age, seeing all the eleven brothers had been born in the space of 7 years? How much older was Yaakov at the time Joseph was born than, say, at the time Yehudah was born? We conclude therefore, that the meaning of the word זקונים has nothing to do with physical age, but that Joseph appeared to him as especially intelligent, wise, wise well beyond his years. The words of wisdom spoken by Joseph would normally be expected only from the mouth of men who had acquired such wisdom through having lived for many years. This is also the way Onkelos understood the term when he translates it as בר חכים, “a wise son.” Seeing that he considered him so wise he dressed him in especially attractive garments. In this way he gave tangible expression to his special love for him.

Radak on Genesis 37:3:2

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, the word פס is related to the same word in Daniel 5,5 פס ידא, palm of a hand. The cloth was made of differently coloured surfaces similar to garments made of soft wool which are made in a number of differently coloured stripes or sections. The garment looked very impressive, arousing the hatred of the brothers in addition to the fact that they hated him for spreading tales about them to their father. Our sages in Shabbat 10 seize upon this detail to teach us that a father must ever be careful not to arouse inter-fraternal jealousies, seeing that the fortunes of the Jewish people have been so negatively affected on account of five silver coins worth of angora wool which Yaakov spent more on Joseph’s attire than he did on the garments worn by his other sons. The enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt was brought about as a direct consequence of this jealousy.

Ramban on Genesis 37:3:1

BECAUSE HE WAS THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE. That is, he was born to him during his old age. Onkelos translated: “he was a wise son to him,” for all that he had learned from Shem and Eber (The traditional masters who taught Torah to Jacob during the fourteen years he hid from Esau (Megillah 17 a). This source, however, mentions only Eber. See Bereshith Rabbah 84:8, where Shem is also mentioned.) he transmitted to him. Another interpretation is that the facial features of Joseph were similar to those of Jacob. This is Rashi’s language. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra also explains it in this way: “Because he was the son of old age — for he begot him in his old age when he was ninety-one (For when Jacob stood before Pharaoh at the end of two of the lean years he was one hundred and thirty years old (47:9). Now when Joseph stood before Pharaoh he was thirty years old. Therefore after the seven years of plenty, and the two lean years he was thirty-nine. Subtract his age from Jacob’s age and there remain ninety-one years. This was Jacob’s age when Joseph was born. (Ohel Yoseph.)) years old. They likewise called his brother Benjamin a little child of his old age. “ (Further, 44:20.) But in my opinion this is not correct for the verse states that Jacob loved Joseph more than all his children because he was the son of his old age, whereas all his children were born to him during his old age! Issachar and Zebulun were not more than a year or two (See Seder Olam Rabbah, 2.) older than Joseph. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that it was the custom of the elders to take one of their younger sons to be with them to attend them. He would constantly lean on his arm, never being separated from him, and he would be called ben z’kunav because he attended him in his old age. Now Jacob took Joseph for this purpose, and he was with him constantly. He therefore did not accompany the flock when they went to pasture in distant places. And Onkelos who translated, “he was a wise son,” intended to say that in his father’s eyes, Joseph was a knowledgeable and wise son, and his understanding was as that of elders. (See the interpretation of Ramban on Leviticus 19:32.) However in the case of Benjamin, who is called yeled z’kunim (a little child of his old age), Onkelos translated: bar savtin (Rather than bar chakim, as in the case of Joseph.) (a son of old age). [The explanation of Onkelos in the case of Joseph becomes clear] because the verse here does not state, “Joseph hayah (was) a son of old age;” instead, it says, hu lo (he was unto him), meaning that in his eyes he appeared to be [a ben z’kunim, and consequently it must mean bar chakim, a wise son]. (For if the sense of the verse is to be understood literally as meaning that “he was a son of his old age,” why specify “to Jacob?” Hence Onkelos correctly translated it as bar chakim, which means that Joseph was a wise son in his father’s estimate.) This is the intent of the Sages when they said: (In the Rashi quoted above. The original source is Bereshith Rabbah 84:8.) “Whatever Jacob had learned from Shem and Eber (The traditional masters who taught Torah to Jacob during the fourteen years he hid from Esau (Megillah 17 a). This source, however, mentions only Eber. See Bereshith Rabbah 84:8, where Shem is also mentioned.) he transmitted to him,” meaning that he passed on to him wisdoms and the secrets of the Torah, and that the father found the son to be intelligent and profound in these areas as if he were an elder and a man of many years.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:3:1

וישראל אהב, all of the aforementioned details caused the brothers to become jealous of Joseph.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:3:2

בן זקונים, he was the most recently born of 11 children. There had been a considerable interval before Binyamin, the last of Yaakov’s children was born. Yaakov’s inordinate love for Joseph developed long before Binyamin was born.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:3:3

כתונת פסים, a cloak, (compare Samuel II 13,18 Tamar’s cloak).

Rashi on Genesis 37:3:1

בן זקנים THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE — because he was a wise son to him” — all that he had learnt from Shem and Eber he taught him (Genesis Rabbah 84:8). Another explanation of בן זקנים— his facial features were similar to his (Jacob’s) (Genesis Rabbah 84:8).

Rashi on Genesis 37:3:2

פסים is a term for raiment of fine wool (Shabbat 10b). Similar is (Ester 1:6) כרפס “Fine linen and blue”. The same garment כתנת הפסים is mentioned (2 Samuel 13:18) in the story of Amnon and Tamar and we may therefore gather that it was made of very fine material. There is a Midrashic statement that in the word פסים we may find an allusion to all his misfortunes: he was sold to Potiphar (פוטיפר), to the merchants (סוחרים), to the Ishmaelites (ישמעאלים), and to the Midianites (מדינים) (Genesis Rabbah 84:8).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:3:1

Trotz der vorerwähnten Schwächen steckte ein ganz herrlicher Mensch in Josef. Nicht Jakob, „Jisrael“ sah in ihm den vorzüglichsten seiner Söhne, בן זקונים הוא לו, er sah sich in ihm fortlebend, in ihm den Fortträger aller seiner geistigen Errungenschaften (siehe Kap. 21, 7). — פסים von פסס: aufhören, enden, scheint die Verbrämung der Säume eines Gewandes zu bedeuten, die allen Gewändern gegeben werden, welche die Persönlichkeit mehr hervortreten lassen sollen. Heißt doch vielleicht עדה, die allgemeine Bezeichnung von Schmücken, ebenso wie פסס, zugleich aufhören, wovon: עד, bis. Jedenfalls war es eine Auszeichnung, die ihn als einen zu einer besonderen Bestimmung Auserwählten erscheinen ließ. — Daß alles dies nicht vernünftig war, Jakob seine Reden nicht hätte aufnehmen sollen, wie überhaupt ein "Lieblingskind" in der Geschichte unserer Väter und eines jeden Hauses nur verderbliche Folgen hat, das ist durch die herben Folgen, die alles dies in der Geschichte nach sich zog, bitter genug hervorgehoben. Es sind dies Schwächen, die sich so leicht im Leben der Menschen wiederholen, aber immerhin Schwächen.

Sforno on Genesis 37:3:1

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, as a visible sign that Joseph was intended by him to become the leader of all the brothers both at home and in the field. The use of such distinctive clothing to symbolise someone’s elevated stature is found also in Isaiah 22,21 והלבשתיו כתנתך, “I will dress him (Chilkiyah) in your tunic,” where it signals that authority is transferred to the one wearing the appropriate garments. (uniform). The Talmud Baba Kama 11 also confirms that authority is signalled by the attire worn by people possessing it. [there the brothers who had paid extra for their leader to represent them and to appear well dressed are quite content seeing that their representative while attired in costly garments will indirectly confer benefits upon them through their brother being listened to in the councils of the city. Ed.]

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:3:1

Because he was born to him in his old age... You might ask: Was not Binyamin born in an older age than Yoseif? The answer is: all of Yaakov’s sons were born one right after another, as they were all born within six years — except for Binyamin, whose birth was separated [from Yoseif’s birth] by a long period of time. People had thought that Yaakov would not beget another son from Rochel, so they called Yoseif “son of old age.” And out of habit they continued to do so even after Binyamin was born.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:3:2

Onkelos translates it: “He was a wise son to him.” [Rashi cites Onkelos] because there is a question on the first explanation: What difference does it make [to us] whether Yoseif was born to Yaakov in his old age or his youth? Thus Rashi says, “Onkelos translates it...” But a question still remains: It should have said בן זקנותו. Why does it say בן זקונים? Perforce, it comes to say: “His facial features (זיו איקונים)...” (Maharshal)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:3:3

A Midrashic explanation is for his misfortunes ... [Rashi cites this] because there is a question on the first explanation: For what purpose does Scripture say that Yaakov made him a כתונת פסים? Perhaps to teach, [as it says in Shabbos 10b,] that a person should not treat one son differently than the others, since Yoseif’s brothers were jealous of him because his coat was worth two sela’im more. But this is not the simple meaning of the verse, as it is not written, “His brothers saw that he made him a כתונת פסים.” Rather, they were jealous of him due to his dreams and words (v. 8). Therefore Rashi cites the Midrashic explanation. (Maharshal)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:3:4

That he was sold to Potiphar, traders... I.e., פסים is the abbreviation for פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים. According to this explanation, the [prefix] ו is lacking from the word סוחרים in (37:28): וַיַּrַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים. It should be understood as וסוחרים (and merchants), [for otherwise it would mean, “Midianite merchants,” and one group would be missing]. Although Scripture omits Yoseif’s sale to the merchants, it also omits his sale to the Midianites, [which surely took place, as they sold him to Potiphar — see v. 36. This understanding of סוחרים fits the verse well,] because otherwise, why is the word סוחרים even needed?

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:3

Israel, Jacob, loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age [ ben zekunim ]. Although Benjamin was even younger than Joseph, and also a son of Jacob’s beloved wife Rachel, his personality was less prominent. Jacob favored Joseph due to his outstanding personality, which becomes apparent in the continuation of the narrative. In fact, Onkelos translates ben zekunim as a wise son. Additionally, Joseph resembled Jacob’s beloved wife Rachel, who had recently died. The verse describes Joseph as being “of fine form, and of fair appearance,” just like his mother (29:17, 39:6). Indeed, Joseph is the only male to be described in such terms by the Torah. Perhaps Joseph’s facial features reminded Jacob of Rachel. It is also easy to imagine that Joseph was preferred over Jacob’s older children because of their problematic behavior: Reuven defiled the family, and Simeon and Levi’s actions in Shekhem were met with Jacob’s disapproval. He, Jacob, made him a fine tunic, a special garment that was distinct from the clothing of the other brothers.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:3:1

כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he was born to him when he was advanced in years;” according to Rashi. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s interpretation of the term בן זקונים, reminding us that all of Yaakov’s children were born to him when he was advanced in years, seeing that he only married when he was already 84 years old. Issachar and Zevulun were no more than a year or two older than Joseph. Moreover, Binyamin was much younger (seven years), than Joseph, and the term בן זקונים should have been applied to him, instead. Nachmanides therefore concludes that the Torah refers to an ancient custom of fathers who were already aged selecting one of their sons to attend to their needs on a regular basis. That son then becomes known as בן זקונים. Seeing that Joseph had been selected to perform these filial duties, he no longer went with his brothers to tend the flocks when they went far away from Chevron. We may also understand Onkelos in this sense, when he translates בן זקונים as ארי בר חכים, as extraordinarily intelligent. It is interesting that the Torah applies the term בן זקונים for Joseph only in his relationship to his father, i.e. בן זקונים הוא לו, for him,” not when compared to the world around him.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:3:2

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “and he made for him a striped coat of many colours.” This verse teaches us how important it is for a parent not to have favourites among his children, [not to display such favoritism. Ed.] The extra cost of Joseph’s tunic, a measly 2 shekel, triggered a history of tragic jealousy, strife, near fratricide, etc. It even ultimately was directly responsible for Jews going to Egypt for a second time in history to seek relief from a famine in the land of Canaan.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 10

“Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons” [37:3]. Toldot Yizhak writes. The custom in the houses of the nobility is that they love those who spread gossip. Therefore, the verse says that concerning Jacob that even though Joseph gossiped, yet he did not love Joseph because of the gossip, but because “he was the child of his old age” [37:3]. He was learned in the Torah and that is why he loved him. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:2–3.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 12-13

“He made him an ornamented tunic” [37:3]. He made him a silk shirt, and all of his troubles came from this shirt. Our sages learn from here that one should not give one child better clothes than the others, so that they should not come into conflict, as happened with Joseph. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:3.) The word “pasim” alludes to his troubles. The “peh” is Potiphar to whom Joseph was sold. The “samech” is merchants. The “yud” is Ishmaelites. The “mem” is Midianites. Joseph was sold to all of them. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:3.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 7-9

“Israel loved Joseph” [37:3]. Jacob loved Joseph very much, more than the other brothers. Hizkuni writes here. All of the brothers hated Joseph. First, the children of Leah hated Joseph because Jacob loved him more than the other children. The children of Bilhah and Zilpah hated Joseph because he spoke ill about the children of Leah. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:2.) Rashi and Bahya write. “This is the line of Jacob” [37:2]. Why does the verse hang the line of Jacob on Joseph? The explanation is that everything that Jacob served and worked in the house of Laban was because of Rachel and Joseph was the son of Rachel. Joseph looked like Jacob. Also, all the attributes of the brothers were in Joseph. The birthright of Reuben was given to Joseph. The kingship of Judah was also in Joseph, since Joseph was a king in Egypt. The prophecy of Levi was also in Joseph. He prophesied to Pharaoh about how a hunger would come to Egypt. Joseph also had the wisdom of Issachar, as it is written concerning Joseph, “there is none is discerning and wise as you” [Genesis, 41:39]. This means, there is nobody wiser than you. Also, everything that happened to Jacob also happened to Joseph. Just like the brothers wanted to kill Joseph, so too, Esau wanted to kill Jacob. Just like the mother of Jacob was barren so too the mother of Joseph. Just like Jacob was born circumcised so too was Joseph. Just like the mother of Jacob had a difficult delivery so too did the mother of Joseph. Just like the mother of Jacob had only two children so too that of Joseph. Just like angels came to Jacob so too to Joseph. Just like good attributes came to Jacob through a dream, so too to Joseph. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:2; Bahya, Genesis, 37:2.) Ramban asks a question about Rashi. If Joseph had spoken against the children of Leah about how badly and lowly they held the children of the maidservants and had denigrated them, why did the children of the maidservants agree to kill him and to sell him? Dan Naphtali, Gad and Asher were the four children of the maidservants. Reuben, the oldest one, also did not agree to sell Joseph. Thus, there were five and Joseph himself was the sixth. They could have overcome the other brothers not to sell Joseph. The explanation is that Joseph had spoken ill of the children of the maidservants. Therefore, they also hated him. The children of Leah hated Joseph because Jacob loved Joseph more than all the other brothers. (Ramban, Genesis, 37:1.) So also write Bahya and Hizkuni. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:2; Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:2.)

Midrash

The Midrash discusses the parallels between Joseph and Zion, highlighting similarities in their experiences. Joseph's brothers' jealousy mirrors Zion being hated, while Joseph's coat of many colors represents debates and struggles. The text emphasizes that Joseph's descent into Egypt was part of a divine plan, and his story foreshadowed the fate of Zion. The Midrash also draws connections between Joseph and Judah, highlighting how their actions led to consequences and divine intervention.

Aggadat Bereshit 61:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:8

“Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age; he crafted him a fine [passim] tunic” (Genesis 37:3). “His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him” (Genesis 37:4). “Israel loved Joseph” – Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya: Rabbi Yehuda says: Because the contours of [Joseph’s] face resembled his. Rabbi Neḥemya said: All the halakhot that Shem and Ever had transmitted to Jacob, he transmitted to him. “He crafted him a fine tunic” – Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: A person must refrain from treating one of his children differently, as due to the fine tunic that Jacob crafted for Joseph, “and they hated him…” “Fine [passim]” – as it would reach the palm of his hand [pas yado]. (This was a sign of status, as it indicated that the wearer did not need to labor with his hands.) Alternatively, passim – as it was extremely thin and light and could be hidden in the palm of his hand. “Fine [passim]” – they conducted a lottery [shehefisu] in its regard to determine who would take it to his father, and it fell on Judah. “Fine [passim]” – after the troubles that befell him: Peh – Potifar; samekh – merchants [soḥarim]; yod – Ishmaelites [Yishmaelim]; mem – Midianites [Midyanim]. (See Genesis 37:28. ) “Fine [passim]” – Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: “Come and see the works of God” (Psalms 66:5), and it is written thereafter: “He turned the sea into dry land” (Psalms 66:6). Why was it that “they hated him”? It was so that the sea would be split before them; passim – strips in the sea [pas yam]. (God arranged that the brothers would hate Joseph, leading to his becoming a slave in Egypt, so that Joseph could withstand the temptation of Potifar’s wife. Consequently, he would accrue great merit, and it was as a result of that merit that the sea was split for the Israelites (Rashash). )

Bereshit Rabbah 86:1

“Joseph was taken down to Egypt and Potiphar, the official of Pharaoh, the chief executioner, an Egyptian man, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him down there” (Genesis 39:1). “Joseph was taken down to Egypt.” It is written: “With ropes of man I drew them, [with bonds of love; I was for them like those who lift the yoke above their jaws, and I leaned to them to provide food]” (Hosea 11:4) – these are Israel, [as it is stated]: “Draw me; after you I will run” (Song of Songs 1:4). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – as it is written: “I loved you, said the Lord” (Malachi 1:2). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea 11:4) – as I elevated their enemies over them. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that they expressed with their jaws, as they said: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:8). (This was stated by the Israelites as they committed the sin of the Golden Calf. ) But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food” (Hosea 11:4) – I provide them with many foods to eat; “There will be abundance of grain in the land” (Psalms 72:16). Another matter, “with ropes of man I drew them [emshakhem]” (Hosea 11:4) – this is Joseph, [as it is stated]: “They pulled [vayimshekhu] and lifted Joseph from the pit” (Genesis 37:28). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – “Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea11:4) – as I elevated his enemies over him. Who was that? It was Potiphar’s wife. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that he expressed with his jaws – “Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food (Hosea 11:4) – an abundance of food. (Eventually, after his actions caused him to be brought down to Egypt, Joseph ended up providing food for his entire family, as well as for the entire population of Egypt and other lands. )

Midrash Mishlei 1:9

[9] "If they say, 'Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause'" - These are the brothers of Joseph, who were lurking and saying, 'When will the end come, and we will kill him?' And when he came to them, they began to say to one another, 'This is the hour; this is the season,' and the Divine Presence (Shechinah) was jesting and saying, 'Woe to them for the blood of this righteous one.' Therefore, it is said, "We will lurk secretly for the innocent without cause." And of them all, none wanted to save him except Reuben, as it is said, "Reuben heard, and he saved him from their hand." He said to them, 'Come, and I will give you advice,' They said to him, 'What advice are you giving us?' He said to them, 'Let us throw him into the pit while he is alive, and our hand will not be upon him,' From where [do we learn this]? As it is stated: (Proverbs 1:12): "We will swallow them up alive as the grave, and whole, as those that go down into the pit" - that he went down to the pit in his innocence, and he did not know what they were going to do to him. Rabbi Levi ben Zavdai said: "Who lowered [Joseph] into the pit from among all his brothers? You must say it was Simeon and Levi, as it is said (Genesis 49:6), 'Into their council let my soul not enter.' But Reuben intended to save him and return him to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:22), 'That he might save him from their hand, to restore him to his father.' (Genesis 37:29): 'And Reuben returned to the pit' - where was he? Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah [disagreed]: Rabbi Judah said, 'The burden of the household was thrust upon him, and as soon as he was free from his burden, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him. This is the meaning of "And Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he tore his clothes."' Rabbi Nehemiah said, 'He was occupied in his sackcloth and fasting over the incident that occurred, and he did not turn [from it], and as soon as he was free from his sackcloth and fasting, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him, as it says "And Reuben returned to the pit, etc." ' Not only that, but once they sold him, the Divine Presence (Shechinah) mocked them and said to them (Isaiah 55:8), 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, etc.,' not with the thought that you think, 'nor your ways my ways,' and not in the way that you say, for if there were not a decree from before Me, your counsel would be nothing. (Proverbs 1:13): 'All precious substance shall we find, our houses shall be filled with spoil' - this is the sale of Joseph, who was a precious son to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:3), 'For he was the son of his old age,' he was found to sustain them, as it is written (Genesis 45:5), 'For God sent me before you to preserve life.' 'Our houses shall be filled with spoil' - that they filled their houses with silver and gold from Joseph's treasures. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: The ten martyrs were drawn [to their deaths] only by the sin of selling Joseph. Rabbi Avin said: You must say that ten were exacted from every generation, and still, that sin persists. (Proverbs 1:14): 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - when Joseph sat down, he took the key and was calling out: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Dan and Naphtali - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Gad and Asher - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; and he went back and hit with the key and said: Benjamin is an orphan, and I am an orphan, it is fitting for an orphan to sit with an orphan, 'One purse shall be ours' - for they all ate at one table at the banquet. How did he do it? He gave each one one portion, and to Benjamin five portions, how? He took his portion, and Benjamin's portion, and Ephraim's portion, and Manasseh's portion, and the portion of Asenath, Joseph's wife, and gave it to Benjamin, as it is said (Genesis 43:34): 'And he took and sent portions to them from before him, but Benjamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs, and they drank and were merry with him.' Rabbi Shmuelai said in the name of Rabbi Isaac from Magdala: From the day that Joseph separated from his brothers he did not taste the taste of wine until that day, as it is written (Genesis 49:26), 'And the crown of the head of his brothers' Nazirite.' Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: They also did not taste the taste of wine, as it is said, 'And they drank and were merry with him.' Another explanation, 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - this is the Torah, which was the lot of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and given to Israel; 'One purse shall be ours' - at the time when they stood at Mount Sinai and said (Exodus 24:7), 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do and we will hear.'"

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 19:3

Another interpretation (of Cant. 8:6): FOR LOVE IS AS STRONG AS DEATH. Love is what Jacob had for Joseph, as stated (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH. (Cant. 8:6, cont.:) JEALOUSY IS AS SEVERE AS SHEOL. Thus his (Joseph's) brothers were jealous of him. So what is LOVE doing beside JEALOUSY (in the same verse)? And what caused Joseph to come into the hands of jealousy? < It was > because of the love with which his father loved him to excess.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 20:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT. There were three natures within him. < He was > a Torah scholar, a prophet, and one who nourished his brothers. < He was > a Torah scholar, for it is so written (in Gen. 37:3): BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE (ZEN). (ZQN here is interpreted in the Talmud as an abbreviation (notarikon) for Zeh Sheqanah Hokhmah, which means, “This is the one who has acquired wisdom.” See Qid. 32b. See also Targum Onqelos, Gen. 37:3: BECAUSE HE WAS A WISE SON TO HIM.) It is also written (in Deut. 32:7): ASK YOUR FATHER, AND HE WILL INFORM YOU; [YOUR ELDERS (rt.: ZQN), AND THEY WILL TELL YOU]. And where is it shown that he was prophet? Where it is stated (in Gen. 37:2): SINCE HE WAS A YOUTH WITH THE CHILDREN OF BILHAH…. It is also written (in Exod. 33:11): HIS ATTENDANT, JOSHUA BIN NUN, A YOUTH. Again it is written (in I Sam. 2:21): AND THE YOUTH SAMUEL GREW UP. (Since prophets like Joshua and Samuel are called youths, the designation must mean that Joseph also was a prophet.) And where is it shown that he fed his brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 50:21): SO NOW, FEAR NOT; I WILL NOURISH YOU….

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 5:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. < The interpretation is > that Jacob's face was like Joseph's. (As Rashi informs us (ad loc.), the midrash needs to explain why Jacob’s generations are being ascribed to Joseph. Cf. Gen. R. 84:6, which argues that one should expect any discussion of Jacob’s children to begin with Reuben.) Where is it shown? Where it says so (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH [MORE THAN ALL HIS SONS BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE. But look, Benjamin was younger than < Joseph >; yet it says: < Joseph was > THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE. It is simply that he had features (Gk.: eikonion.) which resembled him. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH]. Just as Jacob raised up tribes; so did Joseph raise up tribes. It is so stated (in Gen. 48:5): EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH SHALL BE MINE LIKE REUBEN AND SIMEON. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 11:1

And they brought the tabernacle unto Moses (Exod. 39:32). It is written elsewhere in reference to the verse: He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He setteth them forever, and they are exalted (Job 36:7). What does this verse signify? That the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deny the righteous man the realization of his plans. Therefore He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous. You may know this to be so from Abraham, who begot Isaac, who resembled him closely, as it is said: These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham begot Isaac (Gen. 25:19). And Jacob begot Joseph, who resembled him, as is said: These are the generation of Jacob: Joseph (ibid. 37:2). Reuben, Simeon, et al., are not mentioned here but only Joseph. It says also: Because he was the son of his old age (ibid., v. 3). (Word-play on zikunim (“old age”) and kunim (“features”).) Hence, He draweth not His eyes from the righteous.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2:1

Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age (Gen. 37:3). The “son of his features” (ikunim, playing on zikunim, “old age”), for he resembled his father very closely. R. Ishmael said: He was called the son of his old age because Joseph sustained his father and his brethren (ibid. 47:12). That is, he fulfilled a son’s obligation to his aged father. Because Joseph foresaw in his dream that he was destined to rule, and related this fact to his father, his brothers were incensed at him.

Midrash Tehillim 24:7

Another interpretation: Who will ascend? This refers to our father Jacob, as it is said (Genesis 35:1), "Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there." Who will stand? This refers to Jacob, as it is said (Genesis 28:11), "And he encountered the place." Clean of hands. This refers to Jacob, as it is said (Genesis 31:38), "I worked for you for fourteen years." And with a pure heart. This refers to Jacob, as it is said (Genesis 37:3), "For he was the son of his old age." "Who did not lift up my soul in vain." This refers to Laban. And he did not swear to deceive, as it is said (Genesis 31:53), "And Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac." He will receive a blessing from the Lord, as it is said (Genesis 35:9-10), "And God appeared to Jacob and blessed him."

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 38:9

Rabbi Ishmael said: Every son of the old age || is beloved of his father, as it is said, "Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age" (Gen. 37:3). Was he then the son of his old age? Was not Benjamin the son of his old age? But owing to the fact that (Jacob) saw by his prophetic power that (Joseph) would rule in the future, therefore he loved him more than all his sons. And they envied him with a great envy, as it is said, "And his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren; and they hated him" (ibid. 4). Further, because he saw in his dream that in the future he would rule, and he told his father, and they envied him yet more and more, as it is said, "And they hated him yet the more" (ibid. 8). Moreover, he saw the sons of his father's concubines eating the flesh of the roes and the flesh of the sheep whilst they were alive, and he brought a reproach against them before Jacob their father, so that they could not see his face any more (in peace), as it is said, "And they could not speak peaceably unto him" (ibid. 4). Jacob said to Joseph: Joseph, my son ! Verily I have (waited) many days without hearing of the welfare of thy brethren, and of the welfare of the flock, as it is said, "Go now, see whether it be well with thy brethren, and well with the flock" (ibid. 14). And the lad was wandering in the field, and the angel Gabriel met him, as it is said, "And a certain man found him, and, behold, he was wandering in the field" (ibid. 15). (The word) "man" (here in this context) is Gabriel only, as it is said, "The man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision" (Dan. 9:21).

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 4:4:4

Another matter: “Behind your braid your hair is like a flock of goats that streams down [shegaleshu] from Mount Gilad” (Song of Songs 4:1) – the mountain from whose midst you took away [shegelashtem], I rendered a memorial for the nations of the world. Which is this? This is the Temple, as it is stated: “You are awesome, God, from Your Temple” (Psalms 68:36). From where does awe emerge? Is it not from the Temple? This is what it says: “You shall observe My Sabbaths and you shall revere My Sanctuary” (Leviticus 26:2) – as it is sanctified in its destruction just as it was sanctified while it was built. The matters can be inferred a fortiori: If to His Temple the Holy One blessed be He did not show favor, when He will come to exact punishment upon its destroyers all the more so. What is it that you took away from its midst? “Your teeth are like a flock of ordered ewes” (Song of Songs 4:2) – defined matters, these are the vestments of the High Priesthood, as we learned there: (Yoma 71b) The High Priest serves in eight vestments and the common [priest] in four: tunic, trousers, mitre, and sash. The High Priest adds beyond these the breastplate, ephod, robe, and the sacred frontplate. The tunic would atone for murderers, just as it states: “They dipped the tunic in blood” (Genesis 37:31); some say for those who don garments of diverse kinds, just as it states: “He made for him a fine tunic” (Genesis 37:3). (This verse refers to the tunic that Jacob made for Joseph. According to one opinion, it contained wool and linen (see Bereshit Rabba 84:8). At the very least, its stripes could be reminiscent of different types of materials. The midrash takes this as an allusion to the fact that the tunic of the High Priest atones for the transgression of diverse kinds.) The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, just as it states: “Make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the haughty, just as you say: “You shall place the mitre on his head” (Exodus 29:6). For what did the sash atone? For those with criminal thoughts. (Apparently text should be added here such that this sentence reads: For thieves, and some say for criminal thoughts (see Vayikra Rabba 10:6).) The reason for the one who says for the thieves, it is because it was hollow, corresponding to thieves who perform their actions clandestinely. (There was space inside the sash, like a secret hiding place.) According to the one who says it was for criminal thoughts, Rabbi Levi said: It was thirty-two cubits long, and he would twist it to this side and that. (He would wrap it all the way around himself multiple times, representing the twisted thoughts of those with criminal and dishonest intent.) The breastplate would atone for those who distort justice, just as it says: “You shall place in the breastplate of judgment” (Exodus 28:30). The ephod would atone for idol worshippers, just as it says: “No ephod and no terafim” (Hosea 3:4). (Terafim are household idols.) The robe would atone for evil speech. Rabbi Simon [said] in the name of Rabbi Yonatan of Beit Guvrin: There are two items for which there was no atonement (No offering designated to atone for it.) but the Torah designated atonement for them, and these are: Evil speech and one who murders unwittingly. There was no atonement for evil speech, but the Torah designated atonement for it: the bell of the robe, as it is stated: “It shall be upon Aaron to serve, and its sound shall be heard…” (Exodus 28:35). Let the sound come and atone for the sound of evil speech. There was no atonement for one who murders unwittingly, but the Torah designated atonement for it, this is the death of the High Priest, as it stated: “He shall dwell in it until the death of the High Priest” (Numbers 35:25). The frontplate would atone for the impudent, and there is one who says for the blasphemers. The one who says for the impudent, just as it says: “On Aaron’s forehead [metzaḥ]” (Exodus 28:38), and below it says: “Yet you had the impudence [metzaḥ] of a harlot…” (Jeremiah 3:3). According to the one who says for the blasphemers, “it shall be on his forehead always” (Exodus 28:38), and below it says: “the stone penetrated his forehead” (I Samuel 17:49). (The stone shot by David penetrated the forehead of Goliath, who had blasphemed God.) It is written: “He fell on his face to the ground” (I Samuel 17:49). Why is it that “he fell on his face”? (The force of the stone to his forehead should have caused him to fall backward.) Rather, initially you learn: “His height was six cubits and one span” (I Samuel 17:4) – so that this righteous one will not be inconvenienced to walk his entire height, therefore, it is written: “He fell on his face to the ground.” (Divine providence had Goliath fall forward so that David would not have to walk too far in order to cut off his head.) Rabbi Huna said: It is because Dagon his god was engraved on his heart, to fulfill what is stated: “I will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols” (Leviticus 26:30). Another matter: “He fell on his face to the ground” (I Samuel 17:49) – Rabbi said: So that the disgusting mouth that cursed and blasphemed would be hidden [in the ground], like that which is stated: “Hide them in the dust together” (Job 40:13). Alternatively, “he fell on his face to the ground” – so that this righteous one would not have a troubled mind. (He would be certain that Goliath no longer posed a danger even though he was not yet dead.) Alternatively, “he fell on his face” – so that this righteous one would come and step on [the back of] his neck, to fulfill what is stated: “You will trample their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:29). “That have come up from bathing” (Song of Songs 4:2) – they atone for Israel. “That are all paired” (Song of Songs 4:2) – these are the two braided chains of gold that emerge from the midst of the breastplate and appeared from its midst like two tassels. “And there is none missing among them” (Song of Songs 4:2) – that not one of them was tattered. “Your lips are like a scarlet thread” (Song of Songs 4:3) – this is the sacred crown. (This is a reference to the blue threads that passed over the head of the High Priest and fastened the frontlet to his forehead.) “Your speech is lovely” (Song of Songs 4:3) – this is the frontplate. Rabbi Yonatan was ascending to pray in Jerusalem. When he reached a certain Pelatinus, (This is a reference to Mount Gerizim, which the Cuthites and Samaritans considered sacred.) a certain Cuthite encountered him. He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Where are you going?’ [Rabbi Yonatan]said to him: ‘To pray in Jerusalem.’ He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Would it not be preferable for you to ascend and pray on this blessed mountain and not pray in those ruins [in Jerusalem]?’ [Rabbi Yonatan] said to him: ‘Why is this mountain blessed?’ He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Because it was not flooded with the Flood waters.’ That is what people say: The Land of Israel was not flooded with the Flood waters. An answer slipped the mind of Rabbi Yonatan at that moment and he did not respond to him. His donkey driver said to him: ‘Rabbi, allow me, and I will respond to him.’ He said to him: ‘Respond to him.’ He said to that Cuthite: ‘This mountain, what do you consider it? If it is one of the high mountains, is it not written: “All the high mountains were covered” (Genesis 7:19)? If it is one of the low mountains, it is written: “Fifteen cubits upward the waters intensified, and the mountains were covered” (Genesis 7:20). The verse did not address the low mountains. If regarding the high mountains it is written: “All the mountains were covered,” all the more so regarding the low ones.’ At that moment the Cuthite fell silent and was unable to find a response. At that moment, Rabbi Yonatan dismounted and drove his donkey driver three mil, and he read in his regard three verses: “You will be the most blessed of all the peoples; there will be no male or female infertile among you or among your animals” (Deuteronomy 7:14), even among those of you who work with animals; and this: “Any weapon crafted against you will not succeed…” (Isaiah 54:17); and this: “your temple is like a pomegranate slice [rakatekh]” (Song of Songs 4:3) – even the empty [reikan] among Israel is packed with answers like a pomegranate. “Behind your braid [letzamatekh]” – and it goes without saying regarding the modest and the fervent [metzumatin] among you.

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 8:6:4

“For love is as intense as death” – the love that the Holy One blessed be He has for you is as intense as death. That is what is written: “I have loved you, said the Lord…” (Malachi 1:2). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – when they infuriate the Holy One blessed be He with their idol worship, as it is stated: “They would infuriate Him with strange gods” (Deuteronomy 32:16). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Isaac had for Esau; that is what is written: “Isaac loved Esau” (Genesis 25:28). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy Esau had for Jacob, as it is stated: “Esau hated Jacob [because of the blessing with which his father blessed him]” (Genesis 27:41). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Jacob had for Joseph, as it is stated: “Israel loved Joseph more than his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that his brothers had for him, as it is stated: “His brothers were jealous of him” (Genesis 37:11). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Jonathan had for David, as it is stated: “Jonathan loved him as himself” (I Samuel 18:1). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that Saul had for David, as it is stated: “Saul eyed David with suspicion” (I Samuel 18:9). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that a man has for his wife, as it is stated: “Enjoy life with a woman whom you love” (Ecclesiastes 9:9). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that he has regarding her when he says to her: Do not speak with so-and-so, and she goes and speaks with him, and immediately, “a spirit of jealousy passes over him and he is jealous of his wife” (Numbers 5:14). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that the generation of persecution had for the Holy One blessed be He, as it is stated: “For we are killed all day long for You” (Psalms 44:23). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – as the Holy One blessed be He is destined to have great zealotry on behalf of Zion. That is what is written: “So said the Lord [of hosts]: I became zealous for Zion with great zealotry” (Zechariah 8:2). “Its sparks are the sparks of fire, a great conflagration” – Rabbi Berekhya said: Like the supernal fire; the fire does not quench water and the water does not extinguish fire.

Vayikra Rabbah 10:6

“And the vestments,” Rabbi Simon says: Just as the offerings atone, so do the vestments atone, as it is taught: The High Priest serves in eight vestments, and the common priest in four: In a tunic, trousers, a mitre, and a belt. The High Priest adds upon his: A breastplate, an ephod, a robe, and a frontlet. (Mishna Yoma 7:5. ) The tunic is to atone for those wearing diverse kinds, (This refers to the prohibition of wearing a garment made from wool and linen. ) just as it says: “He made for him a fine tunic” (Genesis 37:3). (Some say that Joseph’s tunic was linen adorned with wool. The priest’s tunic is just linen to atone for those who adorn their linen with wool.) The trousers are to atone for forbidden sexual relations, just as it says: “Make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre is to atone for haughtiness, just as it says: “You shall place the mitre on his head” (Exodus 29:6). The belt, there is one who says [it atones] for the crookedness of the heart, and there is one who says [it atones] for the thieves. Rabbi Levi said: The belt was thirty-two cubits and he would wind it crookedly before him and behind him, according to the one who said for the crookedness [akmanin] of the heart. (The thirty-two cubits are because the numerical value of the word lev, heart, is thirty-two. ) According to the one who said for the thieves, it is because it was hollow, corresponding to thieves who perform their deeds clandestinely. The breastplate atones for those who subvert justice, just as it says: “The breastplate of justice” (Exodus 28:30). The ephod is to atone for idolaters, as it is stated: “No ephod or household idols” (Hosea 3:4). The robe, Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Natan: There are two matters for which there is no atonement, but the Torah provided atonement for them, (There is no sacrificial offering that provides atonement, but the Torah provides another means of atonement (Maharzu, based on Arakhin 16a). ) and these are: Evil speech and an unwitting murderer. Evil speech has no atonement but the Torah provided atonement for it. With what will it be atoned? With the bells on the robe. That is what is written: “A golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate” (Exodus 28:34). “It shall be on Aaron to serve and its sound shall be heard” (Exodus 28:35). [God] said: Let the sound come and atone for the sound. The unwitting murderer has no atonement but the Torah provided atonement for him. With what will he be atoned? With the death of the High Priest. That is what is written: “After the death of the High Priest, [the murderer shall return to the land of his ancestral holding]” (Numbers 35:28). The frontlet, there is one who says [it provides atonement] for the impudent and there is one who says [it provides atonement] for the blasphemers. The one who says for the impudent, it is from the daughters of Zion. Here it is written: “It shall be on the forehead [metzaḥ] of Aaron” (Exodus 28:38), and there it is written: “But you had the impudence [metzaḥ] of a harlot” (Jeremiah 3:3). The one who said for the blasphemers, it is from Goliath. (The verse says of Goliath: “He has blasphemed the armies of the living God” (I Samuel 17:26).) Here it is written: “It shall be on his forehead always” (Exodus 28:38), and there it is written: “It struck the Philistine on his forehead” (I Samuel 17:49).

Musar

Jacob loved Joseph more because he did not accept lashon hara about him, as seen in Bereshith 37:3. Chazal in Midrash Rabbah explain that Joseph's brothers were punished measure for measure for their actions towards him, leading to their exile in Egypt. The Talmud in Shabbat 10b warns against treating children differently, as seen in the story of Joseph and his colored coat leading to jealousy and exile.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:8

And Chazal say concerning this in the Midrash (Midrash Rabbah): "(Mishlei 16:11): 'A scale and just balances are the L-rd's' — for all of them he was punished measure for measure. For 'they call their brothers servants' — Jacob was sold as a servant. For 'they are suspect of illicit relations' — all of Egypt suspected him with the wife of Potiphar. For 'they are suspect of eiver min hachai' because he did not see them perform shechitah — this was a mistake, and Scripture thus apprises us (Bereshith 37:3): 'And they slaughtered a kid of goats' (after having sold him) and did not eat it live."

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:9

(Bereshith 37:3): "And Israel loved Joseph more than all of his sons, for he was the son of his old age.": Scripture hereby apprises us that Jacob did not accept the lashon hara that Joseph brought to him, and loved him only because he was the son of his old age.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Derekh Chayim, Vayeshev 7

ויעש לו כתונת פסים . The Talmud in Shabbat 10b tells us that one must not treat any of one's children differently, since, on account of the extra two silver-coins-worth of money spent on Joseph's colored coat his brothers became jealous of him and this in turn led to the exile in Egypt.

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that the holy garments for Aaron the High Priest are meant for splendor and beauty, symbolizing royalty, with various colors and designs. The garments correspond to royal attire, with the mitre and plate resembling a king's crown. The garments are made of gold, blue-purple, and red-purple, symbolizing royalty. The intent behind making the garments was for the wearers to be honored and glorified. The High Priest's garments were meant to reflect his lofty assignment and be comparable to royal attire.

Depths of Yonah 4:4:12

One answer is that Yosef was a highly intelligent person, as Onkelos and Rashi (to Bereishit 37:3) point out. He therefore realized that it was unusual for an Ishmaelite caravan to be carrying sweet-smelling spices. Add in the fact that caravans tend to be terribly malodorous because they are filled with sweaty men and animals traveling through a scorching desert, and having a good smell in such circumstances becomes not just rare but almost unheard of.

Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 22:14:3

VIRGINITY. The word betulim (virginity) is a plural. It never comes in the singular. The same applies to bacharut (youth), zekunim (old age), alumim (youth).

Ibn Ezra on Leviticus 21:13:1

IN HER VIRGINITY. There are nouns in Hebrew that never come in the singular. Compare, ne’urim (youth), zekunim (old age), alumim (youth), and betulim (virginity). There are other words which never come in the plural, i.e., taf (children), shekhem (shoulder), zahav (gold), and barzel (iron).

Judaism's Life Changing Ideas; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayeshev; Improbable Endings and the Defeat of Despair 5

Nowhere is this set out more clearly than in the story of Joseph in this parasha. It begins on a high note: “Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age, and he made a richly embroidered robe” (Gen. 37:3). But with dramatic speed, that love and that gift turn out to be Joseph’s undoing. His brothers began hating him. When he told them his dream, they hated him even more. His second dream offended even his father. Later, when he went to see his brothers tending their flocks, they first plotted to kill him, and eventually sold him as a slave.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 47:28:9

Perhaps the Torah actually wanted to pinpoint 47 years of Jacob's life as the ones during which he experienced what we are in the habit of calling happiness. This is based on the interpretation of the verse in Genesis 37,3 that וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו. According to the Zohar both Jacob's love for Rachel his true mate and Joseph is lumped together in this verse as indicated by the extra word את. As long as Joseph had not been born Jacob dressed in sackcloth [a figure of speech denoting he had not yet begun to experience what he perceived to be his true destiny. Ed.] When computing the number of years Jacob was married to Rachel and the 17 years prior to Joseph's disappearance, one must consider that some of these years overlapped as Rachel was alive until the birth of Benjamin 6 years after the birth of Joseph. Jacob was married to Rachel for 13 years during his stay at Laban. He experienced 11 years in the company of Joseph before the latter was sold making a total of 24 years. When you add to this the 17 years he lived in Egypt you get a total of 41 years of happiness in Jacob's adult life. When you add the first 6 years of Jacob's childhood, years that are not yet clouded by the various problems we experience in life, we have a total of 47 years of Jacob's life during which he could be considered as having lived a "normal" life. The Torah may have wanted to draw our attention to this fact and therefore it mentions these 47 years before mentioning the numerically bigger number, i.e. the 100 years.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 28:2:1

לכבוד ולתפארת, “for glory and splendor.” According to the plain meaning of these words the meaning is that the wearers of these garments will be honored and glorified by them. Seeing that in the eyes of even the distinguished individuals among the people the High Priest is considered like an angel of the Lord as far as his performing the sacrificial service is concerned, the Torah now commanded that his external appearance be comparable to that image which these people have of him by dressing him in garments reflecting his lofty assignment. The garments he was to wear were typical of Royal garments as we know from a number of verses in which these garments are associated with Royalty. Compare Samuel II 13,18: “she (David’s daughter the princess Tamar) was wearing an ornamented tunic מעיל, for maiden princesses were customarily dressed in such garments.” The word כתונת תשבץ is reminiscent of the garment Yaakov had made for his favorite son Joseph which the Torah described as a כתונת פסים, The מצנפת is also known to us as a headgear worn by rulers such as in the Arab countries even in our own days.

Ramban on Exodus 28:2:1

AND THOU SHALT MAKE HOLY GARMENTS FOR AARON THY BROTHER FOR SPLENDOR AND BEAUTY — this means that he be distinguished and glorified with garments of distinction and beauty, just as Scripture says, as a bridegroom putteth on a priestly diadem. (Isaiah 61:10.) For these garments [of the High Priest] correspond in their forms to garments of royalty, which monarchs wore at the time when the Torah was given. Thus we find with reference to the tunic, and he made him a tunic of ‘pasim’ (Genesis 37:3.) — meaning, a cloth woven of variegated colors, this being the tunic of chequer work [mentioned here], just as [Ibn Ezra] explained, which clothed him as a son of ancient kings. (Isaiah 19:11.) The same applies to the robe and the tunic, as it is written, Now she [Tamar] had a garment of many colors upon her; for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled, (II Samuel 13:18.) which means that a garment of many colors was seen clearly upon her, for such was the custom that the virgin daughters of the king wore robes with which they wrapped themselves; thus the coat of many colors was upon her as an upper garment. It is for this reason that it says there, and she rent her garment of many colors that was on her. (Ibid., Verse 19.) The mitre [mentioned here] is to this day known among kings and distinguished lords. Therefore Scripture says with reference to the fall of the kingdom [of Judah], The mitre shall be removed, and the crown taken off. (Ezekiel 21:31.) Similarly it is written, and a royal diadem. (Isaiah 62:3.) Scripture also calls them the ornamented high caps, (Further, 39:28.) and it is further written, They shall have linen ornamented [caps] upon their heads, (Ezekiel 44:18.) which are for the beauty and glory of those that are adorned with them. The ephod and the breastplate are also royal garments, just as it is written, and thou shalt have a chain of gold about thy neck. (Daniel 5:16.) The plate [around the forehead, which the High Priest wore], is like a king’s crown. Thus it is written, ‘yatzitz nizro’ (his crown will shine). (Psalms 132:18. — Ramban thus associates the word tzitz (plate) with the expression yatzitz nizro (his crown will shine), thus suggesting that the tzitz of the High Priest is a sort of royal crown.) Furthermore, [the High Priest’s garments] are made of gold, blue-purple, and red-purple (Further, Verse 5.) [which are all symbolic of royalty]. Thus it is written, All glorious is the king’s daughter within the palace; her raiment is of chequer work inwrought with gold, (Psalms 45:14.) and it is further written, thou shalt be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about thy neck. (Daniel 5:16.) As for the blue-purple, even to this day no man will lift up his hand (Genesis 41:44.) to wear it except a king of nations, (See Isaiah 14:9.) and it is written, And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a ‘tachrich’ (robe) of fine linen and purple (Esther 8:15.) — the tachrich being a robe in which the wearer wraps himself. By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala,] majesty is to kavod (glory) and to tiphereth (splendor), (Cabalistic terms for certain Emanations.) the verse thus stating that they should make holy garments for Aaron to minister in them to the Glory of G-d Who dwells in their midst, and to the Splendor of their strength, as it is written, For Thou art the Glory of their strength, (Psalms 89:18.) and it is further stated, Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised Thee, (Isaiah 64:10.) meaning [“the house of] our Holy One” which is the Glory, and “of our Splendor” which is the Splendor of Israel. And it is further stated, Strength and beauty are in His Sanctuary, (Psalms 96:6.) and similarly, To beautify the place of My Sanctuary, and I will make the place of My feet glorious (Isaiah 60:13.) — meaning, that the place of the Sanctuary will be glorified by the Splendor, and the place of His feet, which is the place of the Sanctuary, will be honored by the presence of the Glory of G-d. And in Israel will He glorify Himself (Ibid., 44:23.) also means that in Israel He will show and designate His Splendor. Likewise He says further with respect to the garments of all of Aaron’s sons, that they are for splendor and for beauty. (Further, Verse 40.) Of the sacrifices He also says, they will come up with ‘ratzon’ (‘will’ — acceptance) on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house. (Isaiah 60:7.) Thus the altar is His Will and the house of His Glory is the Splendor. The [priestly] garments had to be made with the intention to be used for that purpose. It is possible that in making them, intent of heart [for what they symbolize] was also needed on the part of their makers. It is for this reason that He said, And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise-hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom (Verse 3.) — who will understand what they will do. And the Rabbis have already said [of Alexander the Great, that when asked by his generals why he descended from his chariot to bow before the High Priest Simon the Just, he answered]: (Yoma 69a. The story told there is that when Alexander the Great conquered the Land of Israel the Samaritans petitioned him to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. Thereupon a procession of notables went out from Jerusalem headed by Simon the Just, the High Priest, who was attired in the high priestly garments. They walked a whole night with torches in their hand until dawn. In the morning as soon as Alexander saw Simon the Just, he descended from his chariot and bowed down to him. When the Samaritans said to him, “Such a great king as thou art dost thou bow thyself to that Jew?” He replied, “His image etc.”) “His image glistened before me whenever I had a victory.”

Rashi on Hosea 7:10:1

And the pride of Israel was humbled before Him Heb. וְעָנָה. And the glory of Israel was humbled and they saw; an expression of humility, and this is not a future tense but a past tense. Comp. (Isa. 6: 3) “And one called (וְקָרָא) to the other.” I heard that one called to the other. Also (Gen. 37:3) “and he made (וְעָשָׂה) for him a woolen shirt.” This too is a past tense. They have already been diminished and humbled, and, despite this, they did not return to the Lord.

Studies in Spirituality; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayeshev; How to Change the World 6

As the story of Jacob’s children unfolds, there is a rapid rise of tension among his children that threatens to spill over into violence. Joseph, eleventh of the twelve, is Jacob’s favourite son. He was, says the Torah, the child of Jacob’s old age. More significantly, he was the first child of Jacob’s beloved wife Rachel. Jacob “loved him more” than his other sons (Gen. 37:3), and they knew it and resented it. They were jealous of their father’s love. They were provoked by Joseph’s dreams of greatness. The sight of the multi-coloured robe Jacob had given him as a token of his love provoked them to anger.

The Early Prophets, by Everett Fox, Samuel, Part VI; The Great Rebellion, Amnon and Tamar 5

The sequence of events leading to the murder of Amnon is telling. In a move that suggests elements of the opening of the Yosef story in Genesis, a father sends his son into a situation of certain conflict (note too Amnon’s “Have everyone go out from me” in v.9, recalling the moment before Yosef reveals himself to his brothers in Gen. 45:1, and the mention of Tamar’s “ornamented tunic,” a phrase used to describe Yosef’s famous article of clothing in Gen. 37:3). The fact that the king at first believes the rumor that all of his sons have been murdered (vv.30-31) is perhaps indicative of a suddenly fragile state of mind. The first part of God’s recent statement of punishment for David’s crimes, “So-now— / the sword shall not depart from your house for the ages” (12:10), has received its first fulfillment.

Tribal Lands, Chapter 12; Yosef 25

In his focus on ĥen, on relationship and connection, Joseph played a unique role within Am Yisrael. He was the liminal figure, connecting the age of the Patriarchs to the birth of Israel as a nation. Joseph was the only one of the sons of Jacob who was also considered an av, or patriarch-prototype. This leitmotif was repeated throughout Joseph’s story. Jacob blessed him as the even Yisrael (rock of Israel), and Onkelos parsed the phrase to imply qualities of both “av” and “ben.” Although he was followed years later by a younger brother, Benjamin, Joseph was considered Jacob’s ben zekunim – not “son of old age,” but “repository of accumulated wisdom,” (BR 84:8; Onkelos, Genesis 37:3.) Jacob’s extension to the next generation. Joseph was called “avrekh” by the Egyptians, understood by Rashi to be a composite word meaning “av” (father) in wisdom, despite being “rakh” (young). (Rashi, Genesis 41:43.) Joseph indeed referred to himself as a “father” to Pharaoh (Genesis 45:8.) – this in contrast to the numerous references to his na’arut (youth). Joseph, the child of ĥen, was the connecting point: he was both an av and a ben, spanning both eras, closing the book of Fathers (Genesis) and opening the book of the Sons (Exodus). Joseph alone was entrusted with passing on the secret formula “pakod yifkod etkhem,” the signal for movement away from the past and toward the future redemption. (ShR 3:11; Ramban, Exodus 3:18.)

Tribal Lands, Chapter 15; Binyamin 4

Twelve years had passed since Joseph’s birth, (Seder Olam 2.) and since Jacob emerged shalem, (Genesis 33:18.) complete, from the dangers of Laban and Esau. His house was built; he was named Israel by God. (Genesis 35:10.) The birth of Joseph marked a critical juncture for Jacob. Joseph was his ben zekunim, (Genesis 37:3.) the beloved child of his old age, (R. Saadiya Gaon, Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:3.) who seemed to round out the patriarch’s household. (“These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph was seventeen years old… ” Genesis 37:2.) And yet, Jacob was not done, and his house was not truly complete, for Rachel had not yet given everything that she could to Beit Yisrael. Upon the birth of Joseph, she recognized instantly that this must not be her final act – that “God should grant me another son” (yosif Hashem li ben aĥer), and even named Joseph in that hope. Only with Benjamin, who resembled her more purely than did Joseph, was the family of Israel to be whole.

Second Temple

Joseph is sent to learn from lenient instructors because he cannot handle his father's knowledge, which is too severe for him. His previous beliefs are complex and confusing, symbolized by the coat of many colors. Joseph's robe of statecraft is described as a mixture of truth and falsehood, giving rise to various deceptive practices in Egypt.

On Dreams, Book I 38:2

[220] For we are told that he had a coat of varied colours (Gen. 37:3). He did not besprinkle himself with lustral rites, from which he would have learned that he was an amalgam of ashes and water, and was incapable of touching the all-white and gleaming vestment, which is virtue, but arrayed himself in the woven robe of statecraft, a robe richly variegated, containing but a most meagre admixture of truth, but many large portions of false, probable, plausible, conjectural matter, out of which sprang up all the sophists of Egypt, augurs, ventriloquists, soothsayers, proficients in decoying, charming, and bewitching, whose insidious artifices it is no easy task to escape.

That the Worse is wont to Attack the Better 3:1

[6] It is evident from these words that they are in the plain, caring for the irrational powers within them. And, because he is unable to bear the too great severity of his father’s knowledge, Joseph is sent to them, that in the hands of more lenient instructors he may learn what he ought to do and what will be beneficial; for the creed he has hitherto followed is one woven of incongruous elements, multifarious and complex in the highest degree. This is why the lawgiver says that a coat of many colours was made for him (Gen. 37:3), indicating by this that he is the promulgator of a doctrine full of mazes and hard to disentangle.

Talmud

Rav Hama bar Gurya said that a person should not show favoritism to one son over the others, citing the example of Jacob giving Joseph a special coat which caused jealousy among his brothers and led to their descent to Egypt.

Shabbat 10b:7

And Rava bar Meḥasseya said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: A person should never distinguish one of his sons from among the other sons by giving him preferential treatment. As, due to the weight of two sela of fine wool [meilat] that Jacob gave to Joseph, beyond what he gave the rest of his sons, in making him the striped coat, his brothers became jealous of him and the matter unfolded and our forefathers descended to Egypt.

Tanakh

Tamar was wearing an ornamented tunic, as was customary for maiden princesses, when she was taken outside and the door was barred after her (II Samuel 13:18).

II Samuel 13:18

She was wearing an ornamented tunic, (See Gen. 37.3 and note.) for maiden princesses were customarily dressed (Meaning of Heb. uncertain. Emendation yields “(thus) in olden times,” me‘olam.) in such garments.-c—His attendant took her outside and barred the door after her.

Targum

Yisrael loved Yoseif more than his other sons because he resembled him, and he made him a long, colorful cloak. The cloak was a figured robe.

Onkelos Genesis 37:3

Yisrael loved Yoseif more than any of his sons, for he was a [wise] son of his old age to him, and he made him a long, colorful cloak.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 37:3

A figured robe.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:3

And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because the likeness of Joseph resembled his own, and he made him a figured robe.

וַיִּרְא֣וּ אֶחָ֗יו כִּֽי־אֹת֞וֹ אָהַ֤ב אֲבִיהֶם֙ מִכׇּל־אֶחָ֔יו וַֽיִּשְׂנְא֖וּ אֹת֑וֹ וְלֹ֥א יָכְל֖וּ דַּבְּר֥וֹ לְשָׁלֹֽם׃ 4 E And when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of his brothers, they hated him so that they could not speak a friendly word to him.
The text explores the lack of peaceful communication among Joseph and his brothers due to their jealousy stemming from Jacob's favoritism towards Joseph, leading to strife within the family. Various commentaries emphasize the importance of open communication and honesty in expressing feelings, contrasting negative behavior like Naval's ill-will towards others. The Midrash draws parallels between Joseph's experiences and divine decrees, highlighting themes of brotherly love and the fulfillment of divine plans. Ibn Ezra, Sforno, Radak, Rabbeinu Bahya, and Rashi offer insights into the brothers' inability to speak peacefully with Joseph, emphasizing their righteousness and the consequences of their negative feelings. Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz suggests that communication and reconciliation could have prevented the conflict arising from Jacob's favoritism.

Chasidut

The peace of fasting lacks speech, but the delight of Shabbat eating allows for peaceful speech. Yosef's brothers initially couldn't speak to him peacefully due to their inability to follow his leadership, but after recognizing his light and accepting his leadership, they aligned with him. Yosef's descent to Egypt was caused by his brothers' inability to appreciate his role as a Tzadik until he reached a level of presenting only good deeds. Yehuda rises to Yosef's level as symbolized by their interaction, demonstrating how those below empower those above in achieving their purpose.

Likutei Moharan 57:8:1

8. Know, too, that there is a difference between the peace of fasting of the weekdays, and the peace of the delight of Shabbat. That is, the peace of fasting lacks the aspect of speech, [in] the aspect of “they could not speak a word of peace [to him]” (Genesis 37:4). But by means of the delight of Shabbat eating, speech is executed in peace, in the aspect of “For the sake of my kin and my companions, I will now speak peace” (Psalms 122:8). This is the aspect of “or speaking of [weekday] matters” (Isaiah 58:13), which is said with regard to Shabbat, because the mouth is made whole through the great light [that shines] at the time of Shabbat eating.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 7:6

The pasuk does not mention that the brothers' hatred for Yosef was due to the bad reports he brought to their father. It only states, “And they saw that Yosef was loved by their father, and they could not speak to him in peace” (Bereishis 37:4). It seems the Torah mentions the bad reports as the cause for Yosef's descent to Egypt. Had Yosef stayed and continued reporting negatively, the brothers would have been completely pushed away. The explanation is that a true Tzadik presents the good deeds of Bnei Yisrael to Hashem. Yosef had not yet reached this level of perfection until after his trial with Potiphar’s wife, when he was then called Yosef the Tzadik and only presented their good deeds. Therefore, once the brothers came to Egypt, they lived in harmony with their father. The sin of selling Yosef is attributed to the brothers because if they had been more righteous, Yosef’s reports wouldn't have affected them. Consequently, there would have been no need for Yosef to go down to Egypt. Thus, they were the cause of the descent to Egypt.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayigash 12:3

When Yehuda confronts Yosef, he states, "בי אדוני" ("Please, my master"), which can also mean "in me." The Midrash likens Yehuda to the plower and Yosef to the reaper. While the reaper holds a higher status as the one who completes the process, Yehuda ultimately rises to Yosef's level. This is illustrated by the verse in Zechariah 6:12: "from beneath him, it will grow," suggesting that those below empower those above, with Yehuda symbolizing the lower level. This concept extends to the universe, where the forefathers are above the 12 tribes, who are above the rest of the world. Yosef embodies all the forefathers, while Yehuda represents their descendants. The "קול" (voice) signifies Yaakov, Yosef is the "הבל" (breath necessary for sound), and Yehuda is the "דיבור" (words, or actual leadership). Before these elements were refined, they couldn't achieve their purpose. The verse "before Yosef was sold" (Genesis 37:4) implies they couldn't speak peacefully, indicating they hadn't reached completion. Now, Yehuda's "בי אדוני" signifies that mastery lies within him, in the power of his diligent work at the lower levels.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayigash 9:7

“You shall tell my father all my glory in Mitzrayim and all that you have seen” (Bereishit 45:13). Initially, the brothers were afraid of Yosef (Bereishit 45:3), but now they saw his light and his encompassing trait called “כל,” symbolizing connection. They realized that Yosef was indeed a tzadik. Previously, they could not speak to him peacefully (Bereishit 37:4) because they could not follow his leadership. Now, when Yosef said, “For you see that it is my mouth that speaks to you,” they accepted his leadership, recognizing the path he opened as essential for preparing for the ultimate redemption. They now understood and appreciated Yosef's role, acknowledging that the exile had begun. Thus, the pasuk states, “and afterwards his brothers spoke to him,” indicating their acceptance and alignment with his leadership.

Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains that the phrase "speak unto him" should be interpreted as "speak with him" or "speak to him." Sforno and Radak highlight that Joseph's brothers were unable to speak peaceably with him, focusing only on business matters and disputes. Rabbeinu Bahya praises the brothers for openly expressing their hostility towards Joseph instead of flattering him. Rashi emphasizes that the brothers' inability to speak peaceably with Joseph was actually a sign of their righteousness. Jacob's preference for Joseph caused his brothers to hate him, as they could not speak peacefully with him due to their negative feelings.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:4:1

SPEAK UNTO HIM. Dabbero is to be rendered speak unto him. (Dabbero is the verb dabber (speak) plus the pronoun oto (him). However, they cannot be combined since one cannot say speak him. Hence I.E.’s comment that dabbero should be interpreted dabber lo (speak to him) (Filwarg). Cherez suggests that what I.E. means is that dabbero is not a combination of dabber oto but dabber immo (speak with him). See notes to Gen. 34:14.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:4:2

[PEACEABLY.] Even peaceably. (They did not speak to him concerning things about which they agreed (Weiser) or they did not even say how are you, to him (Filwarg).)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:4:1

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, “and they could not speak about him peacefully.” This was actually a positive aspect of their characters. Instead of hiding their hostility and flattering Joseph, they were straightforward in revealing their feelings toward him (Bereshit Rabbah. 84,9). We find this characteristic praised by Solomon in Proverbs 29,5 where he said: גבר מחליק על רעהו רשת פורש על פעמיו, “a man who flatters his neighbour actually spreads a net for his feet.” The prophet actually compliments Avshalom when he said (Samuel II 13,22) ולא דבר אבשלום עם אמנון למרע ועד טוב כי שנא אבשלום את אמנון. “and Avshalom did not speak to Amnon either friendly or unfriendly words for Avshalom hated Amnon (who had raped his sister).”

Radak on Genesis 37:4:1

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, any conversation with Joseph did not revolve around peacefully discussed matters of common interest, but concerned only matters of dispute between them.

Rashi on Genesis 37:4:1

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום AND THEY COULD NOT SPEAK PEACEABLY TO HIM — from what is stated to their discredit we may infer something to their credit: they did not speak one thing with their mouth having another thing quite different in their hearts (Genesis Rabbah 84:9).

Rashi on Genesis 37:4:2

דברו means TO SPEAK TO HIM.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:4:1

Die Konstruktion hebt das אותו hervor. Gerade ihn, der eben nicht zu ihnen gehörte, in keiner freundlichen Beziehung zu ihnen stand, ihnen manchen Vorwurf zuzog usw. gerade ihn, sahen sie, zog der Vater vor. — הב(ה) ,אהב mit individualisierendem א: sich dem andern ganz hingeben und den andern in seine nächste Nähe wünschen. Demgegenüber סנה) שנא): Dorn sein, von sich weisen, möglichst fern halten. Die Extreme erzeugten sich gegenseitig. Die Liebe des Vaters erzeugte den Hass der Brüder. — ׳ולא יכלו וגו, sie konnten mit ihm nicht zum Frieden sprechen, d. h. in einer Weise, die den Frieden erzeugt, oder: sie konnten sein "zum Frieden sprechen" nicht ertragen, konnten es nicht ertragen, wenn er freundlich mit ihnen sprach. Befreundete nehmen sich nichts, Gespannte alles übel und missdeuten das Freundliche am meisten.

Sforno on Genesis 37:4:1

ויראו אחיו כי אותו אהב אביהם, here Yaakov had committed an error, allowing the love in his heart for Joseph to be now become visible through preferential treatment of him.

Sforno on Genesis 37:4:2

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, even though the brothers had to speak to Joseph pertaining to their business dealings both concerning household problems and problems with the herds and flocks, something imposed upon them by their father’s command to see in him their manager, they did not speak to him concerning any private matters, brotherly concerns.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:4

His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers. Jacob’s preference for Joseph was conspicuous, whether through the way he related to Joseph or from the special tunic that he made for him. And they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him. They were incapable of maintaining any sort of peaceful dialogue with Joseph. They avoided all conversation with him and distanced themselves from him as much as possible.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:4:1

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, “and they were unable to converse with him or about him, peacefully.” You will note that the Torah did not write that the brothers did not speak to him, but whenever they spoke, even to strangers, and Joseph became part of their conversation, they referred to him negatively.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 11

“His brothers saw that their father loved him” [37:4]. Joseph’s brothers hated him because Jacob loved him. Toldot Yizhak asks a question. Is it just that they should hate him because Jacob loved him? Why is Joseph guilty that he was loved? The explanation is that the brothers said: if our father would not believe the evil things that Joseph says about us, then it would not bother us. One could consider him a fool. However, our father still loves Joseph, even after his evil talk. He must hate us because of the evil talk. Therefore, the verse says that the brothers saw that Jacob loved Joseph and that is why they hated him. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:4.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 14

“They could not speak a friendly word to him” [37:4]. The brothers could not speak with Joseph. Rashi writes. The verse tells us that the brothers were righteous. As soon as they became angry with Joseph, they could no longer speak with him. There are many evil people who hate someone very much in their heart and speak with him with their mouth. However, Joseph’s brothers did not do this. They were the same in their heart and with their mouth. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:4.)

Jewish Thought

The text discusses how Dinah was isolated without a husband or children while her family went to Egypt, and her brothers did not speak to her in peace. This is seen in the story of Dinah going out to see the daughters of the land.

Dirshuni II, Matriarchs and Patriarchs, XI 4

A man and his household, his partner, and his children, went down to Egypt. And only Dinah was isolated, without a husband and without children. And her brothers could not speak to her in peace [alluding to Genesis 37:4]. They did not speak with her in her youth. Hence, And Dinah went out to see the daughters of the land (Genesis 34:1).

Midrash

The Midrash Tehillim 28:4 commentary highlights the importance of caring for the oppressed and behaving humbly, contrasting it with taking care of the wicked. The Midrash Shemot Rabbah 5:1 compares the relationships of various biblical brothers to highlight the positive relationship between Moses and Aaron. The Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 4:4 discusses Joseph's experiences and how they parallel Zion's, emphasizing the fulfillment of divine decrees. The Midrash Tanchuma Shemot 27:1 explores the theme of brotherly love between Moses and Aaron. The Midrash Tanchuma Buber Vayeshev 7:1 further elaborates on the parallels between Joseph and Zion. The Midrash Tanchuma Buber Vayigash 11:1 continues to draw parallels between Joseph and Zion. The Midrash Tanchuma Buber Shemot 24:1 discusses the relationship between Moses and Aaron. The Midrash Tehillim 28:5 commentary emphasizes the importance of understanding the actions of the Lord. Finally, the Bereshit Rabbah 84:8 and 84:9 commentaries discuss Joseph's relationship with his brothers and the praise that can be derived from their actions.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:8

“Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age; he crafted him a fine [passim] tunic” (Genesis 37:3). “His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him” (Genesis 37:4). “Israel loved Joseph” – Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya: Rabbi Yehuda says: Because the contours of [Joseph’s] face resembled his. Rabbi Neḥemya said: All the halakhot that Shem and Ever had transmitted to Jacob, he transmitted to him. “He crafted him a fine tunic” – Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: A person must refrain from treating one of his children differently, as due to the fine tunic that Jacob crafted for Joseph, “and they hated him…” “Fine [passim]” – as it would reach the palm of his hand [pas yado]. (This was a sign of status, as it indicated that the wearer did not need to labor with his hands.) Alternatively, passim – as it was extremely thin and light and could be hidden in the palm of his hand. “Fine [passim]” – they conducted a lottery [shehefisu] in its regard to determine who would take it to his father, and it fell on Judah. “Fine [passim]” – after the troubles that befell him: Peh – Potifar; samekh – merchants [soḥarim]; yod – Ishmaelites [Yishmaelim]; mem – Midianites [Midyanim]. (See Genesis 37:28. ) “Fine [passim]” – Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: “Come and see the works of God” (Psalms 66:5), and it is written thereafter: “He turned the sea into dry land” (Psalms 66:6). Why was it that “they hated him”? It was so that the sea would be split before them; passim – strips in the sea [pas yam]. (God arranged that the brothers would hate Joseph, leading to his becoming a slave in Egypt, so that Joseph could withstand the temptation of Potifar’s wife. Consequently, he would accrue great merit, and it was as a result of that merit that the sea was split for the Israelites (Rashash). )

Bereshit Rabbah 84:9

“His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers” – Rabbi Ahava bar Ze’eira said: From the defamation of the tribes you learn their praise. Elsewhere: “Avshalom did not speak to Amnon, either good or bad” (II Samuel 13:22) – what was in his heart remained in his heart; however, here: “And could not speak peaceably to him” – what was in their heart was in their mouth.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Shemot 24:1

Another interpretation (of Exod. 4:27): GO INTO THE DESERT TO MEET MOSES. This text is related (to Cant. 8:1): IF ONLY YOU COULD BE TO ME LIKE A BROTHER. Israel is saying to the Holy One: IF ONLY YOU COULD BE TO ME LIKE A BROTHER. Like which brother? (Tanh., Exod. 1:27; Exod. R. 5:1; PRK 16:5; PR 29/30A:6; 29/30B:1.) You find that from the beginning of the creation of the world until now brothers have hated each other. Cain hated Abel and killed him, as stated (in Gen. 4:8): CAIN AROSE AGAINST HIS BROTHER ABEL AND MURDERED HIM. Ishmael hated Isaac (rt.: TsHQ), as stated (in Gen. 21:9): WHEN SARAH SAW THE SON WHOM HAGAR THE EGYPTIAN HAD BORNE TO ABRAHAM PLAYING (rt.: TsHQ). Now PLAYING can only mean that he desired to kill him, as stated (in II Sam. 2:14): PLEASE LET THE YOUNG MEN ARISE AND PLAY BEFORE US. (The result of their “playing” was that they all killed each other. See above, Gen. 6:5; below, Numb. 6:8; 10:9.) Esau also hated Jacob, as stated (in Gen. 27:41): AND ESAU SAID IN HIS HEART: . Moreover, the tribes hated Joseph, as stated (in Gen. 37:4): THEY HATED HIM. So like which brother? Israel said: Like Moses and Aaron, as stated (in Ps. 133:1): SEE HOW GOOD AND HOW PLEASANT IT IS , since they loved each other and cherished each other. Thus when Moses received the kingship and Aaron < received > the high priesthood, they were not jealous of each other. Rather they were happy in each other's greatness. (See below, Lev. 3:5.) You know yourself it to be so. You find that, when the Holy One said to Moses (in Exod. 3:10): SO COME NOW, I WILL SEND YOU UNTO PHARAOH…, Moses said to him (in Exod. 4:13): PLEASE MAKE < SOMEONE ELSE YOUR AGENT>. Do you imagine that Moses may have delayed in order not to go? He only acted out of respect for Aaron. Moses said: Before I arose, Aaron had been prophesying to them for eighty years. He of whom it is stated (in Ezek. 20:5): I MADE MYSELF KNOWN TO THEM IN THE LAND OF EGYPT. And where is it shown that Aaron prophesied to them? Where it is stated (in I Sam. 2:27–28): NOW A MAN OF GOD CAME UNTO ELI AND SAID UNTO HIM: THUS SAYS THE LORD: I SURELY REVEALED MYSELF {TO} [UNTO] YOUR FATHER'S HOUSE IN EGYPT, WHEN THEY BELONGED TO PHARAOH'S HOUSE; AND I CHOSE HIM FROM ALL THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL TO BE MY PRIEST. (The midrash seems to ignore the fact that what the Holy One says here is introduced by an interrogative particle.) He said to him: All these years Aaron has prophesied to them. So am I now to go to them in my brother's domain so that he will be upset? For that reason Moses did not desire to go. The Holy One said to him: Your brother Aaron will not be upset over this matter. Rather he will be happy. You yourself know that he is going out for a meeting (Gk.: apante, apantesis.) with you. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:14): SEE, HE IS SETTING OUT TO MEET YOU; AND WHEN HE SEES YOU, HE WILL BE HAPPY IN HIS HEART: not in his mouth alone but in his heart, his heart more than his mouth. WHEN HE SEES YOU, HE WILL BE HAPPY IN HIS HEART. R. Simeon ben Johay said: The heart that was happy at his brother's greatness shall put on Urim and Thummim, as stated (in Exod. 28:30): AND INSIDE THE BREAST PLATE OF JUDGMENT YOU SHALL PUT THE URIM AND THUMMIM SO THAT THEY SHALL BE UPON AARON'S HEART. Ergo (In Exod. 4:14): AND ALSO SEE, HE IS SETTING OUT TO MEET YOU; AND WHEN HE SEES YOU, HE WILL BE HAPPY IN HIS HEART. When had said this to him, took it upon himself to go. Immediately the Holy One revealed himself to Aaron. He said to him: Go out to meet your brother Moses so that he may know that you are happy over the matter. It is therefore stated (in Exod. 4:27): GO INTO THE DESERT TO MEET MOSES. Ergo (in Cant. 8:1): IF ONLY YOU COULD BE TO ME LIKE A BROTHER, like Moses and Aaron who loved each other. (Ibid., cont.:) IF I MET YOU OUTSIDE, I WOULD KISS YOU. (Exod. 4:27:) SO HE WENT TO MEET HIM ON THE MOUNTAIN OF GOD AND KISSED HIM.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 7:1

(Gen. 37:4:) BUT WHEN HIS BROTHERS SAW THAT THEIR FATHER LOVED HIM MORE THAN ANY OF HIS BROTHERS, < THEY HATED HIM SO THAT THEY COULD NOT SPEAK PEACEABLY (shalom) TO HIM >. When he came to ask how they were (shalom), they would not answer him. Why? Because it was his custom to ask how they were. You have the < kind of > person who, before coming to power, [asks people how they are. But, after coming to power], his spirit hardens over him, and he is no longer careful to ask the people of the city how they are. Joseph, however, was not like that. Although he had come to power (in Egypt), it was < still > his custom to ask his brothers how they were. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 43:27): AND HE ASKED THEM HOW THEY WERE. The Holy One said to him: Joseph, you began asking how your brothers were in this world; and they hated you. In the world to come, however, I am pardoning you, removing hate from between you, making you dwell in safety, and making peace between you. So also has David said (in Ps. 133:1): SEE HOW GOOD AND HOW PLEASANT IT IS FOR BROTHERS TO DWELL TOGETHER.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 27:1

Another comment upon the verse And the Lord said to Aaron: “Go into the wilderness to meet Moses” (Exod. 4:27). Scripture says elsewhere in reference to this verse: O that thou wert as my brother (Song 8:1). The Israelites said to the Holy One, blessed be He:, O that thou wert as my brother, yet you find that all brothers hated each other. Cain hated Abel, as it is said: And Cain rose up against Abel his brother (Gen. 4:8). Ishmael hated Isaac, as is said: And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne unto Abraham, making sport (Gen. 21:9). Making sport implies, in this instance, that he wanted to kill him, as it is said: Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and make sport before us (II Sam. 2:14). Esau hated Jacob, as is said: And Esau said in his heart, etc. (Gen. 27:41). And the tribes hated Joseph, as it is said: And they hated him (Gen. 37:4). But in this instance the Israelites asked of the Holy One, blessed be He: Do you mean like Moses and Aaron, of whom it is said: Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Ps. 133:1)? They loved and cherished each other. At the time that Moses took the kingship and Aaron the priesthood, they bore no resentment toward each other. In fact, they rejoiced in each other’s exalted role.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 4:4

Similarly, Scripture states with reference to Joseph: And when his brethren saw that his father loved him … they hated him (Gen. 37:4). It was because of the cloak of many colors he had made for him out of (royal) purple wool. Four misfortunes are mentioned as befalling him. They are indicated by the letters of the word passim (“cloak”). The peh alludes to his sale to Potiphar; the samekh to his sale to the merchants (sohrim); the yod to his sale to the Ishmaelites (yishma’elim); and the mem to his sale to the Midianites. Because of the cloak of many colors, all the tribes were compelled to descend to Egypt. R. Yudan declared: The Holy One, blessed be He, desired to fulfill the decree Ye shall surely know that thy seed shall be a stranger (Gen. 15:13), but He resorted to subterfuge in every instance to accomplish it. He made Jacob love Joseph, so that his brothers hated him, and as a result they sold him to the Ishmaelites, who brought him to Egypt. When Jacob heard that Joseph was alive in Egypt, he descended there with his descendants. Later they were enslaved there. Though it says: And Joseph was brought down to Egypt, the word should not be read as hurad (“brought down”) but as horid (“he caused”) his father and the tribes to descend to Egypt.

Midrash Tehillim 28:4

Another thing, I call to You, O Lord, to you I raise my voice. As the scripture says (Proverbs 16:19), "Better to be lowly in spirit along with the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud." Blessed is the person who takes care of the oppressed and behaves humbly. Woe to the person who takes care of the wicked, for they take what is theirs and depart from the world, as it says (Psalms 37:10), "A little while, and the wicked will be no more." The Lord said that in one hour, the wicked eat what is theirs in this world and then descend to hell, along with their helpers and anyone who participates with them. Thus it is written (Jeremiah 49:10), "For I have sworn by Myself, saith the Lord, that Bozrah shall become a desolation, a reproach, a waste, and a curse; and all the cities thereof shall be perpetual wastes." David said, "I will not eat at their table, nor will I sit with them."

Midrash Tehillim 28:5

Another message to David, I call to You, O Lord, my rock, do not be deaf to me. Do not drag me away with the wicked. Rabbi Abba bar Zerayya said from the gardens of the tribes, You know their praise. It is written (Genesis 37:4), "And they hated him and could not speak peaceably unto him." What was in their heart was on their lips. But further on (2 Samuel 13:22), "But Absalom spake unto Amnon neither good nor bad." What was in their heart was not on their lips. For they do not understand the actions of the Lord. Hezekiah said, "These are the times." Rabbi Yehoshua said, "These are the stories." And the Rabbis said, "This is the recitation of the Shema that we read, 'who creates light and makes darkness, who forms mountains and creates the wind, who brings forth bread from the earth.' Just as God created the two great lights (Genesis 1:16), He will destroy them in this world and will not rebuild them in the world to come."...

Shemot Rabbah 5:1

“The Lord said to Aaron: Go toward Moses to the wilderness. He went, and he met him at the mountain of God and he kissed him” (Exodus 4:27). “The Lord said to Aaron: Go toward Moses to the wilderness” – that is what is written: “If only you were as my brother [who nursed from the breasts of my mother; I would find you outside, I would kiss you]” (Song of Songs 8:1). Regarding which brother is the verse speaking? If you say it is regarding Cain, but is it not written: “Cain rose against his brother Abel and killed him”? If you say it is like Ishmael to Isaac, did we not learn: Ishmael hates Isaac? If you say it is like Esau to Jacob, is it not written: “Esau hated Jacob” (Genesis 27:41)? If you say it is like Joseph’s brothers, but is it not written: “They hated him” (Genesis 37:4), and it is written: “His brothers envied him” (Genesis 37:11). Rather, it is like Joseph to Benjamin, “who nursed from the breasts of my mother” (Song of Songs 8:1), (Joseph and Benjamin were from the same mother, Rachel, whereas their other brothers were not sons of Rachel. ) [and] like Moses to Aaron, as it is stated: “He went, and he met him at the mountain of God and he kissed him.” Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: All kisses are indecent except for three: The kiss of greatness, the kiss of separation, and the kiss of reunion. The kiss of greatness, as it is stated: “Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him” (I Samuel 10:1); the kiss of separation: “Orpa kissed her mother-in-law” (Ruth 1:14); the kiss of reunion, as it is stated: “He went, and he met him at the mountain of God and he kissed him.” Some say: Even a kiss of closeness is not disgraceful, as it is stated: “Jacob kissed Rachel” (Genesis 29:11), who was his relative. Rabbi Pinḥas said: There was an incident involving a brother and a sister, one of whom was in Gush Ḥalav and one of whom was in Beit Maron. The house in Gush Ḥalav caught fire. His sister came from Beit Maron and fell upon him and was hugging him and kissing him. She said: ‘I am not accustomed to come to you [and to kiss you], but I was afraid, as you are my brother and were in distress, and you emerged from it.’ “I would find you outside, I would kiss you” (Song of Songs 8:1) – where outside? It is in the wilderness, where the brothers, Moses and Aaron, kissed each other.

Musar

Rashi comments on the brothers' honesty in expressing their dislike for Joseph, contrasting them with Naval who openly showed ill-will towards others. The Torah emphasizes the importance of openly rebuking others out of love, as seen in the actions of Joseph's brothers who chose to speak their minds rather than hide their feelings. Naval's behavior, on the other hand, was condemned for expressing negativity without cause.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Sefer Vayikra, Torah Ohr, Kedoshim 45

The Torah next exhorts us not to bottle up our hatred against a fellow jew in our heart (19,17), but to tell him openly if we wish to criticize his conduct, i.e. הוכח תוכיח. Proverbs 27,5 provides the rationale, namely that a rebuke reveals loving concern for the person so rebuked. This is a virtue as explained by Rashi on Genesis 37,4 that Joseph's brothers, rather than concealing their dislike of Joseph and flattering him, spoke out about it. One must not contrast this with the statement of our sages who condemned Naval for saying what was in his heart. They even changed the reading of the name of his ancestor from נבל to כלבו so as to emphasize that every evil thing in his heart he expressed with his lips (Samuel 25, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 2,3). His was a special case; he should not have spoken at all instead of using his power of speech only to denigrate others. Joseph's brothers, on the other hand, had to maintain relations with him. Rather than pretend to like him they chose to say what was on their minds.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Derekh Chayim, Vayeshev 8

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום . Rashi comments that we can learn the praiseworthy character traits of the brothers from the very criticism the Torah directs at them. The brothers were no hypocrites, fawning on Joseph to his face and cursing him behind his back. They were candid and frank. We have a parallel to this frankness in Samuel I 25,3, where Naval is described. Our sages say that he was just as evil as is implied by his very name [hardly a name given to him by his father at birth. Ed.], i.e. he did not bother to conceal his עין הרע, ill-will. The difference between Naval and the brothers was that whereas Naval was offensive to everybody, the brothers refrained from speaking to Joseph altogether. They did not want to be guilty of hypocrisy by speaking to him peacefully, hiding what was in their hearts; they also did not want to be guilty of hateful behavior towards him.

Quoting Commentary

The text discusses how Jacob's favoritism towards Joseph led to hatred from his brothers, using language that contrasts love and hate. This dynamic is seen in various instances in the Torah, causing strife within families and leading to devastating consequences. Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz suggests that communication and reconciliation could have prevented this conflict.

Covenant and Conversation; Leviticus; The Book of Holiness, Kedoshim, The Logic of Love 23

Now Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, because he had been born to him in his old age, and he made a richly ornamented robe for him. When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him [velo yakhlu dabro leshalom, literally, “they could not speak with him to peace”]. (Gen. 37:3–4)

Covenant and Conversation; Leviticus; The Book of Holiness, Kedoshim, The Logic of Love 24

On this, Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz (c. 1690–1764) comments: “Had they been able to sit together as a group, they would have spoken to one another and remonstrated with each other, and would eventually have made their peace with one another.” (Tiferet Yehonatan, Commentary to Genesis 37:4.)

I Believe; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Ki Tetzeh; Does Love Conquer All? 13

When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of his brothers, they hated him and could not speak a peaceful word to him. (Gen. 37:4)

I Believe; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Ki Tetzeh; Does Love Conquer All? 7

The law as such is straightforward. What makes it remarkable is that it reads as if it were directed against a specific biblical figure, namely Jacob. One connection is linguistic. The key terms in our law are an opposition between ahuva, “loved,” and senua, “hated/unloved.” This opposition occurs ten times in the Torah. Three have to do with the relationship between us and God: “Those who hate Me and those who love Me.” That leaves seven other cases. Four are in the paragraph above. The other three are all about Jacob: two of them about his love for Rachel in preference to Leah (Gen. 29:30–31, 32–33), the third about his love for Joseph in preference to the other sons (Gen. 37:4). Both caused great grief within the family and had devastating consequences in the long run.

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 53:10:1

דַּכְּאוׂ To bruise him. It is in form similar to דַּבְּרוׂ, to speak with him (Gen. 37:4). It is Piel.

Kli Yakar on Leviticus 11:4:1

For he chews his cud. Why does the Torah always begin with their sign of purity first? The explanation is because their pure sign adds extra impurity to their impurity, as we find that Chazal compared Esov to a pig that sticks out its hoofs when it lies down to make it appear as if it is kosher, but its innards are full of deceit. This represents anyone whose inside is not like his outside, in the manner of the hypocrites … Therefore, the pig’s split hoof is a sign of impurity because the split hoof can deceive people and make it appear as if it is kosher.

Rashi on Exodus 15:9:2

תמלאמו means SHALL BE FILLED WITH THEM (not it shall fill them). נפשי MY SOUL — my spirit, my desire. Do not be puzzled at a word, that expresses an idea usually expressed by two, viz., תמלאמו for תִּמָּלֵא מֵהֶם, for there are many examples of this way of speaking; e. g., (Judges 1:15) “the south country נְתַתָּנִי”, which is the same as נָתַתָּ לִי, “thou hast given to me”; (Genesis 37:4) “And they were not able דַּבְּרוֹ peaceably”, which is the same as דַּבֵּר עִמּוֹ “to speak with him”; (Jeremiah 10:20) “My children יְצָאוּנִי which is the same as יָצְאוּ מִמֶּנִי “have gone away from me”; (Job. 31:37) “the number of my steps אַגִידֶנּוּ which is the same as אַגִּיד לוֹ “I would declare unto him”. Similarly here: תמלאמו means תִּמָּלֵא נַפְשִׁי מֵהֶם “my soul shall be filled with them”.

Rashi on Isaiah 16:9:2

I will be sated over you with my tears Heb. אַרְיָוֶךְ, I will be sated over you. There are some words that serve as two words. Comp. (Jer. 10:20) “My children went out of me (יְצֵאוּנִי)”; (Jos. 15:19) “A dry land you have given to me (נְתַתָּנִי)”; (Gen. 37:4) “To speak to him (דַּבְּרוֹ) peacefully.”

Rashi on Jeremiah 20:10:4

and let us tell about him and let us testify against him. And Menahem (Machbereth p. 53) explained ונגידֶנוּ like (Deut. 14:1) “You shall not cut yourselves (לא תתגודדוּ).” He also joined (Job 17:5) “For the sake of flattering, he destroys (יגיד) his friends.” This is an expression of destruction. Comp. (Dan. 4:11) “Cut down (גֹדוּ) the trees.” But Dunash (Teshuvoth p. 54) interpreted it as an actual expression of telling, and this is its interpretation: “Tell false things about him and we will tell about him to the king.” And we have like נַגִידֶנוּ, we will tell about him, many words in the Scriptures that cannot be interpreted unless they are divided into two words or three. Comp. (Gen. 37: 4) “And they could not speak with him (דַבְּרוֹ) peacefully.” Also (supra 10:20), “My children have left me (יצאני).”

Rashi on Joshua 15:19:3

You have given me. The word נְתַתָּנִי is the same as נָתַתָּ לִי, as in: (the preposition לִי is missing and seems to be like a direct object. Rashi will offer similar examples of this structure.) They could not speak speak to him peacefully. (See Bereishis 37:4. There too the word דַבְּרוֹ is the same as דַבֵּר אֵלָיו, speak to him.) ‘My children have gone away from me.’ (See Yismiyahu 10:20. There too the word יְצָאְנִי is the same as יָצְאוּ מִמֶנִי.) ‘He cooked for them.’ (See I Melachim 19:21. There too the word בִשְׁלָם is the same as בִשֵׁל לָהֶם.)

Rashi on Psalms 42:5:3

I would walk with them, as (Gen. 37:4): “And they could not speak with him in peace,” [equivalent to] לדבר עמו בשלום.

Tanakh

The law in the Torah uses terms like "loved" and "hated" in relation to Yaakov, specifically in his preference for Rachel over Leah and Joseph over his other sons, causing grief within the family and leading to devastating consequences. In the case of Joseph, his brothers' jealousy and hatred towards him stemmed from their father's obvious favoritism towards him.

Covenant and Conversation Family Edition, Ki Teitzei, I; Does Love Conquer All? 15

THINKING MORE DEEPLY The law is straightforward. What makes it remarkable is that it reads as if it were directed against a specific biblical figure, namely Yaakov. One connection is linguistic. The key terms used in our law are an opposition between ahuva, “loved,” and senua, “hated/unloved.” This opposition occurs ten times in the Torah. Three have to do with the relationship between us and God: “Those who hate Me and those who love Me.” That leaves seven other cases. Four are in the paragraph above. The other three are all about Yaakov: two of them about his love for Raḥel in preference to Leah (Bereshit 29:30–31, 32–33), the third about his love for Yosef in preference to the other sons (Bereshit 37:4). Both caused great grief within the family and had devastating consequences in the long run.

Covenant and Conversation Family Edition, Ki Teitzei, I; Does Love Conquer All? 21

“When his brothers saw that their father loved him [Yosef] more than any of his brothers, they hated him and could not speak a peaceful word to him” (Bereshit 37:4).

Targum

The brothers of Joseph saw that their father loved him more than them, causing them to hate him and refuse to speak to him peacefully (Onkelos Genesis 37:4, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:4).

Onkelos Genesis 37:4

His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him. They could not [were not willing to] speak to him peaceably.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:4

And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, and they cherished enmity against him, and were unwilling to speak peacefully with him.

וַיַּחֲלֹ֤ם יוֹסֵף֙ חֲל֔וֹם וַיַּגֵּ֖ד לְאֶחָ֑יו וַיּוֹסִ֥פוּ ע֖וֹד שְׂנֹ֥א אֹתֽוֹ׃ 5 J Once Joseph had a dream which he told to his brothers; and they hated him even more.
Joseph's decision to share his dream with his brothers led to increased hatred towards him, as they interpreted the dream as a sign of his ambition to rule over them. The Midrash and Targum commentaries draw parallels between the experiences of Joseph and Zion, highlighting similarities in love, hatred, dreams, jealousy, stripping, casting into pits, and being raised up. The dream itself was not revealed in the text, leading some commentators to believe it did not come true, and Joseph's insistence on sharing it may have been a factor in the tragic events that followed.

Commentary

Joseph's decision to share his dream with his brothers led to increased hatred towards him, as they interpreted the dream as a sign of his ambition to rule over them. Joseph may have hoped to convince his brothers of the divine nature of his dreams or to draw them closer to him, but their existing hatred prevented any conciliatory gestures. The dream itself was not revealed in the text, leading some commentators to believe it did not come true, and Joseph's insistence on sharing it may have been a factor in the tragic events that followed.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:5:1

ויחלום יוסף חלום ויגד לאחיו, “Joseph dreamt a dream and he told his brothers its content.” This was a dream that never came true. This is why the Torah does not reveal its content.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:5:1

ויחלום יוסף חלום. Joseph had a dream. Why did Joseph add to his brothers' hatred of him by telling them of his grandiose dreams? Furthermore, knowing as he did that the brothers hated him fiercely, why did he accept his father's mission (verse 14) and venture "into the lion's den?" (According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,11 even Jacob could not understand Joseph's preparedness to accept his mission) Perhaps Joseph went to tell his brothers that they were wrong in ascribing his dreams to his ambitions, but that for some resaon G'd planned to elevate him to a high position and that Jacob's agreeing to send him on this mission was a sign that all of this had been approved by G'd. He may have hoped to assuage their hatred of him by accepting the misssion.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:5:2

On the other hand, he may have warned them that the time would come when they would have need of him, and that they might do better to suppress their hatred of him pending further developments; otherwise they would expose themselves to retaliation on his part when the time came. He was convinced that the brothers would accept what seemed to them a heavenly decree.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:5:3

There is yet another possibility. Joseph actually hoped to draw his brothers' hearts nearer to him. We have a saying Berachot 55 that כל החלומות הולכים אחר הפה, that "all dreams follow the mouth." [What the interpreter sees in the dream determines its true meaning. The reader is referred to an excellent analysis of this statement by Rabbi Yitzchak Arama in chapter 29 of his Akeydat Yitzchak, see my translation page 247, second edition. Ed.] The rabbis also say that one should enquire from someone who is well disposed towards him when searching for the meaning of one's dream (Rosh on that paragraph). Joseph hoped that by telling the brothers of his dreams they would themselves find an acceptable and plausible explanation which would put their minds at ease. At least they would realise that Joseph had no ambition to become king over them. Why else would he be silly enough to provoke their hatred by telling them about his dreams? All of this might have worked if the existing hatred had not already closed the brothers' minds to any conciliatory gestures.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:5:4

ויחלום יוסף Joseph dreamed. The Torah reports that Joseph only dreamed so that we should not think that he hallucinated making himself believe he had dreamed when in fact he entertained thoughts of lording it over his brothers. The reason that in verse 9 the Torah repeats again that Joseph dreamed is also to emphasise that it was a nocturnal vision, that he had not made up the story he told his brothers.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:5:5

ויגד לאחיו. He told his brothers. It was a good dream. The brothers were tough as nails and did not even want to know what he had dreamed; this is why he had to say: "please listen to the dream I have dreamed." I am sure that the Torah does not here refer to a dream the content of which has not been mentioned, nor to a dream which did not come true. If the latter, why mention the existence of such a dream? If to tell us that the brothers hated him even more, this too has already been adequately explained. We must therefore assume that these words refer to the dream Joseph revealed only after having insisted that the brothers listen to his dream.

Radak on Genesis 37:5:1

ויחלום....ויאמר, he dreamed, and wanted to make them feel bad seeing that they had displayed jealousy of his father’s love for him, and had allowed that jealousy to deteriorate into hatred of him. Seeing that eventually, Joseph’s rise to power was due to his handling of the harvest in Egypt, the details of the dream were: והנה קמה אלומתי, the symbol of my success, i.e. my sheaf of grain remained erect, whereas your sheaves bowed down to me. It was a fact that in due course the grain harvest was the cause of the brothers prostrating themselves before Joseph.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:5:1

Er hatte einen Traum und erzählte davon seinen Brüdern. Kaum aber hatte er vertraulich davon angefangen, wollten sie sofort nichts davon hören. Er aber dringt bittend in sie V. 6: den Traum müsst ihr doch hören! — Etymologie von חלם siehe (Kap.20, 3). Ob Träume Bedeutung haben, lassen auch die Weisen als eine offene Frage. Siehe Berachot 55a. Daß aber die Vorsehung diesen halbwachen Zustand benutzt, um Gedanken in die Brust des Menschen zu werfen und ganze Reihen von Begebenheiten damit einzufädeln, daß Gott auch den Glauben der Menschen an Träume in dieser Richtung benutzt, das sehen wir wiederholt aus Jakobs und Josefs Geschichte.

Sforno on Genesis 37:5:1

ויגד לאחיו, this too was an ill advised move. Had he been more mature he would have kept the contents of such a dream to himself.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:5

Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers, and they hated him even more. Their hatred of Joseph increased because he related to them the details of his dream.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:5:1

מלוך תמלוך?, “are you planning to rule over us?” According to Ibn Ezra the expression מלוך refers to rule by a king with the consent of his subjects, so that the brothers asked: “do you expect us to crown you as king over us?” The expression משול refers to imposition of authority without or against the wish of those that are subject to such authority. The brothers wanted to know if Joseph perhaps thought that he could impose his will upon them. It is somewhat difficult to understand why the brothers accused Joseph of such plans, based simply on the fact that he had had a dream or two. Are then dreams something over which the dreamer has control? What proof did the brothers have that Joseph’s dreams reflected his innermost hopes? Some commentators attribute Joseph’s aspirations to the fact that it had become plain that their father had preferred him to all of them, something that had gone to his head and given him ideas of grandeur. The proof that Joseph indeed harboured such thoughts, lay in the fact that even his dreams reflected what he had been thinking about by day.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:5:3

ועל דבריו, “and on account of his talk.” Joseph’s real error lay in his telling his brothers of his dreams, as if boasting of the grand future that he considered in store for himself. Had he not been telling his brothers the details of his dreams, i.e. שמעו נא החלום הזה אשר חלמתי, “listen please to this dream that I dreamt, etc.,” the entire tragic sequence of events that follow might have been avoided. He had only dreamt one dream, and already he uses it as something inflammatory, something that is bound to arouse further jealousy among his brothers. Why does the Torah refer to חלומותיו, “his dreams,” (pl;) when only the content of a single dream has been reported? (verse 8) Some commentators believe that he had had a previous dream, a dream which the brothers did not pay much attention to, seeing it was an isolated event. Once he told them the content of his second dream they became alerted to the trend displayed in this dream and revised their opinion about the first dream he had told them about, also.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 15

“Joseph had a dream which he told to his brothers” [37:5]. Hizkuni writes. The first dream did not come true, and therefore, it was not written down. He told the dream to his brothers in the hope that they would not hate him if he would become a ruler, since it is from God that he should be a ruler and not from his father’s love. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:5–6.)

Midrash

The Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1, Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1, Bereshit Rabbah 84:10, and Aggadat Bereshit 68:2 all draw parallels between the experiences of Joseph and Zion, highlighting similarities in love, hatred, dreams, jealousy, stripping, casting into pits, and being raised up. These commentaries also compare Joseph's appearance, favor with God, and redemption to that of Zion, emphasizing the interconnectedness of their stories.

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:10

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Targum

Yoseif had a dream and shared it with his brothers, causing them to hate him even more. (Onkelos Genesis 37:5) They added to their enmity towards him. (Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:5)

Onkelos Genesis 37:5

Yoseif had a dream and he told his brothers, and they hated him even more.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:5

And Joseph dreamed a dream, and declared it to his brethren, and they added yet to keep enmity against him.

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֑ם שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֕א הַחֲל֥וֹם הַזֶּ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָלָֽמְתִּי׃ 6 J He said to them, “Hear this dream which I have dreamed:
Joseph's invitation to his brothers to listen to his dream intensified their hostility towards him, as he insisted they hear him out immediately to prevent any delay in its fulfillment and prove his sincerity. The use of the definitive article "ה" in front of the word "חלום" indicated he had already mentioned having a dream without revealing details, showing his destined greatness was not due to favoritism but a destiny decreed by heaven. The dream of his sheaf standing upright and his brothers' sheaves bowing down foreshadowed their future bowing down to him, with their negative reaction leading to the rise of wicked kings from Joseph's descendants. Nachmanides explains that the brothers' bowing down to the ruler of Egypt fulfilled the first dream, while the second dream of eleven stars bowing down could only come true once Binyamin and Yaakov arrived in Egypt. Onkelos translates Joseph's words as "Listen [now] to this dream that I dreamt," while Targum Jonathan renders it as "And he said to them, Hear now this dream which I have dreamed."

Commentary

Joseph invited his brothers to listen to his dream by saying "please pay attention," intensifying their hostility towards him. He insisted they hear him out immediately to prevent any delay in the dream being fulfilled and to prove his sincerity by offering them a chance to come up with a negative interpretation. The use of the definitive article "ה" in front of the word "חלום" indicated that he had already mentioned having a dream without revealing details. Joseph wanted to show his brothers that his destined greatness was not due to his father's favoritism but seemed to be a destiny decreed by heaven.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:6:1

ויאמר אליהם: שמעו נא, he said to them: “please listen (to my dream).” His reason for telling them of his dream was to explain to them that his being destined for greatness was not due to the way his father preferred him, but seemed to be a destiny decreed by heaven.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:6:1

שמעו נא החלום, please listen to the dream, etc. He had to add the word נא, please, because at first they had refused to listen.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:6:2

Alternatively, in accordance with Berachot 56, dreams should preferably be interpreted on the day following (the same day) the night they have been dreamt. This is the reason that one may fast even on the Sabbath if one has had a bad dream. Joseph therefore insisted that the brothers hear him out at once. Any delay might result in the dream not being fulfilled. He may also have wanted to prove to them that he had not told any of his friends about this dream expecting them to give him a positive interpretation, but had instead come to his brothers first. Had he first told his friends of his dream the brothers would not have believed that he wanted to convince them that he wanted to be on good terms with them. According to Berachot 55 Rabbi Banah once told his dream to 24 different interpreters and received 24 different interpretations, each one of which proved correct. It is possible that this was so because none contradicted any of the other interpretations. When contradictory interpretations are received the more recent interpretation cannot cancel out a previous one. Joseph may have wanted to convince the brothers of his תמימות, his sincerity, by offering them a chance to come up with a negative interpretation of his dream which his friends could not later on nullify. He did this by urging them to listen to his dream immediately.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:6:3

החלום הזה, "this dream." The use of the definitive article ה in front of the word חלום indicates that he had already told them that he had had a dream without revealing any details about it. Now he repeated: "please listen to the dream which I have dreamed."

Sforno on Genesis 37:6:1

שמעו נא החלום הזה, not only did he tell them his dream, as something by the way, but he invited them to listen to him tell it by saying שמעו נא “please pay attention!” This could not fail to intensify the hostility of his brothers, as we see immediately by their reaction: “do you plan to rule over us?!”

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:6

He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed:

Midrash

Joseph's dream of his sheaf standing upright and his brothers' sheaves bowing down to it foreshadows his brothers bowing down to him five times in the future. The brothers' negative reaction to the dream is interpreted as the reason for the future rise of wicked kings from Joseph's descendants, as they did not want him to rule over them.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:10

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

Quoting Commentary

Nachmanides explains that the brothers are described in this way to show that Joseph's first dream was being fulfilled as soon as they paid their respects to the ruler of Egypt, as Binyamin was not included in the dream. The second dream, where eleven stars bow down to Joseph, could only come true once Binyamin and Yaakov also arrived in Egypt with his brothers.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 42:3:3

Nachmanides writes that the brothers are described as such to alert us to the fact that at this point Joseph’s first dream, which involved 10 people binding sheaves was in the process of becoming true. In that dream Binyamin (only 11 years old) was not included as binding sheaves. As soon as the brothers paid their respects to the ruler of Egypt this dream had been fulfilled. (verse 6). The second dream in which eleven stars bowed down to Joseph could not be fulfilled until Binyamin too came to Egypt with his brothers as well as his father Yaakov.

Targum

In Genesis 37:6, Onkelos translates Joseph's words as "Listen [now] to this dream that I dreamt," while Targum Jonathan renders it as "And he said to them, Hear now this dream which I have dreamed."

Onkelos Genesis 37:6

He said to them, Listen [now] to this dream that I dreamt.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:6

And he said to them, Hear now this dream which I have dreamed.

וְ֠הִנֵּ֠ה אֲנַ֜חְנוּ מְאַלְּמִ֤ים אֲלֻמִּים֙ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה וְהִנֵּ֛ה קָ֥מָה אֲלֻמָּתִ֖י וְגַם־נִצָּ֑בָה וְהִנֵּ֤ה תְסֻבֶּ֙ינָה֙ אֲלֻמֹּ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם וַתִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶ֖יןָ לַאֲלֻמָּתִֽי׃ 7 J There we were binding sheaves in the field, when suddenly my sheaf stood up and remained upright; then your sheaves gathered around and bowed low to my sheaf.”
Chasidut discusses Joseph's behavior towards his brothers to avoid hostility after his dream was fulfilled, Likutei Moharan connects Joseph's rise to a Holy Name for appointing a king, Likutei Halakhot links Joseph's ability to perceive Godliness to his dream, and Tanya explains the Shechinah rising when evil forces disperse. The Midrash compares Joseph's experiences to Zion, emphasizing love, hatred, dreams, and actions. The Second Temple commentary analyzes Joseph's dreams about sheaves and celestial bodies, highlighting his character traits. The Targum translation of Genesis 37:7 depicts Joseph's sheaf standing upright while his brothers' sheaves bow to him.

Chasidut

Kedushat Levi discusses Joseph's behavior towards his brothers, justifying his actions to avoid their hostility once his dream was fulfilled. Likutei Moharan mentions the Holy Name used to appoint a king, related to Joseph's rise. Likutei Halakhot connects Yosef's ability to create constrictions for perceiving Godliness to his dream. Tanya explains how the Shechinah rises when the forces of evil are dispersed.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Miketz 4

Genesis 42,5-6. “Joseph’s brothers arrived (in Egypt) ‎and bowed down, and prostrated themselves to him.” ‎‎(The ruler in charge of grain sales) ‎וירא יוסף את אחיו ויכירם ‏ויתנכר אליהם‎, “When Joseph saw his brothers, he recognized ‎them and he acted as if he was a stranger to them.” We need ‎to understand what the Torah intended to teach us by writing ‎that Joseph acted as a stranger to them, when this would have ‎become apparent as soon as we read about their dialogue.‎ I believe the line is introduced by the Torah to teach us that ‎the Torah considers Joseph’s conduct at this time as justified. ‎Joseph’s dream had shown him that his brothers would at one ‎stage prostrate themselves before him. (Genesis 37,7) His brothers ‎had opposed the idea that he would become king, ruling over ‎them. It is the way of the world that if someone has been ‎vanquished in a battle or duel, that if he knows who the victor is, ‎he will aim to take revenge sooner or later. If the vanquished ‎person does not know who has defeated him, his embarrassment ‎and desire for revenge will be far less, as other people presumably ‎are also unaware of his having been the loser in a conflict. In our ‎story, Joseph had become the victor; now that his dream had ‎been fulfilled and his brothers had prostrated themselves before ‎him this was all that concerned him, as he no longer felt that his ‎brothers’ accusations that he was an egomaniac, were true. Had ‎the brothers been able to, they would have made every effort to ‎prevent Joseph’s dream from becoming fulfilled. They would have ‎harboured ill will against him as soon as they had realized that his ‎dream had come true, just as they had imagined him as hoping ‎that it would. Therefore, Joseph contented himself with the ‎knowledge that his dream had indeed been fulfilled, making sure ‎that this would not have been at the expense of his brothers ‎becoming upset about this and probably hostile towards him. He ‎therefore acted in a manner that would convince the brothers ‎that the person before whom they had prostrated themselves had ‎not been their long lost brother. Seeing that the person before ‎whom the brothers prostrated themselves was a duly appointed ‎king, -not even one who had come to the throne by revolution- ‎they did not mind having to prostrate themselves before a king ‎such as he, especially as he volunteered- against payment of ‎course- to save them from total economic ruin. Joseph on his part ‎did all that he could to not let the brothers feel that he had ‎bested them. When the Torah describes the sequence of this ‎encounter with the words: “they prostrated themselves and he ‎recognized them, etc.,” this is to hint that it now dawned on ‎Joseph that just as he had recognized them, they might recognize ‎him; in order to avoid their becoming embarrassed he then ‎devised a scheme to disguise himself in every way possible so that ‎they did not recognize him. The Torah reports this to show that ‎his disguise worked.‎ It is also possible to see in the sequence of these verses an ‎explanation why during all these years (22) Joseph had never sent ‎a message to his father showing that he was alive and even ‎prosperous. He knew that his dreams would become true ‎prophetic visions and that that as a result of this his brothers ‎would become deeply saddened and frustrated. Once his father ‎would have been informed of his being alive and well, this would ‎become known to the brothers even if their father did not tell ‎them outright. Yaakov’s whole bearing would change from that ‎of a father grieving for a lost son, and the brothers would notice ‎this.‎

Likutei Halakhot, Orach Chaim, Laws of Morning Conduct 4:18:1

YOSEF, THE TZADDIK OF VALOR Here, Reb Noson expounds Yosef’s dream as alluding to his unique ability to create the constrictions that enable others to perceive Godliness. Reb Noson also shows how this is alluded to in the verses from the Book of Mishlei in praise of the “woman of valor.” This relates to what Yosef dreamed: “Look, we were binding alumim in the field,” where the explanation of the word alumim is “binds.” This signifies the concept of constrictions, which are synonymous with bindings, because a constriction is a binding. In other words, Yosef dreamed that all of the Shevatim engaged in this; they were “binding alumim” and creating bindings and constrictions in order to draw through them a perception of Godliness.

Likutei Moharan 234:4:1

4. Know, too, there is a Holy Name used when we want to appoint a king. This Holy Name is KMH, an acronym of “Hashkifah Mimaon Kadshekha (Look down from Your holy abode).” And this is the aspect of “He deposes kings u ’meHaKeiM (and establishes) kings” (Daniel 2:21). This is also what was said in connection with Yosef: “when suddenly my sheaf KaMaH (stood up)” (Genesis 37:7).

Tanya, Part I; Likkutei Amarim 17:8

But when his heart breaks within him, and the spirit of uncleanliness and of the sitra achara is broken, and [the forces of evil are] dispersed, then [the Shechinah] rises from its fall and remains upright, as is explained elsewhere.

Commentary

Joseph's dream about sheaves symbolized that the sheaves and produce would bow to him, with his sheaf standing upright, indicating his central role in providing grain during a famine. The repetition of "והנה" in the dream emphasized its clarity and prophetic nature. The dream also alluded to Joseph's future as a ruler in Egypt, with his brothers eventually bowing to him. The sheaves surrounding Joseph's sheaf represented their dependence on him for survival.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:7:1

מאלמים אלימים, “binding sheaves;” this paralleled the manner in which Joseph later on rose to greatness, by piling up corn in anticipation of a famine from which his foresight and providence would save the Egyptian nation and surrounding countries. Compare 41,49: ויצבור יוסף בר, “Joseph heaped up and stored grain;”

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:7:2

ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “and you were all prostrating yourselves before my sheaf;” this was a sign that the world would look expectantly to Joseph’s harvest, seeing that he was the sole distributor of grain in all of Egypt to all the people.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:7:1

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים, “and here we were busy binding sheaves;” when Joseph rose to greatness, the Torah uses a similar expression when describing him as ויצבר יוסף בר, “Joseph bundled together (piled up) corn.” (Genesis 41,49.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:7:1

BINDING. Me’allemim (binding) comes from the same root as alummim (sheaves). The noun sheave is also found in the feminine, (Alummim (sheaves) is masculine.) compare, bearing his sheaves (alummotav) (Ps. 126:6). (Alummotav (his sheaves) is feminine.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:7:2

CAME ROUND ABOUT. Tesubbenah (came round about) comes from a root whose second and third letters are identical. (Its root is samekh, bet, bet.) The bet receives a dagesh to compensate for a missing bet. (Tesubbenah is spelled with one bet. Thus a root letter is missing. The dagesh doubles the letter and thus compensates for the missing letter.)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:7:1

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים, "Here we were tying sheaves, etc." Why is the word והנה repeated three times in this verse? You should appreciate that if a dream is to be perceived as a prophetic vision, it is essential that it be as clear and distinct as bright daylight. The person dreaming it should have the feeling that he actually experiences what he sees in the dream as if it were reality. When these conditions are met, he may consider the dream as a prophetic revelation. Dreams that young people dream are often blurred or contain unlikely and exaggerated occurrences. When Joseph told his dream to the brothers he repeated the word והנה three times to demonstrate that each part of the dream had been crystal clear, and that at the time he had thought that the events shown him in the dream were actually happening. This is why he thought that the dream foretold the future in some way.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:7:2

In the dream G'd showed him the bundles. These bundles represented bundles of מצות which all of the brothers would perform jointly; his own bundle stood more upright than the others as an allusion to his experience with the wife of Potiphar whose advances he had to resist. The fact that his bundle remained standing upright indicated that he would become a ruler in Egypt. All the bundles of the brothers would be relatively downgraded before the merit of Joseph because in the final analysis he provided for all of them and kept them alive during the famine. Joseph hoped that by foretelling them about this their attitude towards him would change for the better.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:7:1

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים וגו, “and here we were binding sheaves, etc.” They realised in their wisdom that the meaning of the dream was that the sheaves bowing to Joseph’s sheaf meant that he viewed himself as enjoying Royal authority. over them. This feeling of theirs was reinforced by his use of the words נצבה, an expression which is associated with Royalty such as in Kings I 22,48 נצב המלך, ”he acted as king.” It was because they were aware of this interpretation of his dream that they said to Joseph sarcastically: “are you planning to rule over us as a king?” What the brothers were not aware of was the fact that Joseph’s eventual appointment as king would be triggered by the subject of corn harvests (i.e. his prediction of abundance of such harvests and subsequent failure of such harvests). Seeing that they hated Joseph already it is quite understandable that they interpreted his nocturnal dreams as boding no good for them instead of seeing the positive element that might be presaged by such dreams. Actually, even their interpretation of Joseph’s dreams was inspired by G’d who caused them to verbalise such thoughts. This is reminiscent of something we read in connection with Gideon (Judges 7,10) to whom G’d had said that in preparation for his battle against the Midianites and in order to reassure him, he should go down amongst the camp of the Midianites and listen to what they had to say. Gideon did so and overheard a Midianite soldier tell his companion that he had dreamt that there was a commotion; a loaf of barley bread was whirling through the Midianite camp. It came to a tent, struck it, and the tent collapsed and turned upside down and collapsed. To this his companion responded: “this can only mean the sword of the Israelite Gideon son of Yoash. G’d is delivering Midian and the entire camp into his hands.” When Gideon heard the dream told and interpreted, he bowed low. (to G’d in gratitude) This was another instance when G’d inspired someone to interpret and verbalise a dream which subsequently came true. This may be the source of the Talmud saying in Berachot 58 that “all dreams are influenced by the interpretation which is being “given by the mouth,” [i.e. which has been verbalised. Ed.] Here too G’d placed the words in the mouths of the brothers so that eventually Joseph’s dreams would become true.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:7:2-3

You will note that the expression והנה occurs three times in this paragraph. This is reminiscent of the three journeys the brothers were to make to Egypt on account of Joseph’s sheaf of corn. Each time the journey meant that they would humble themselves before Joseph. The first time they went to Egypt because of the famine which prevailed in the land of Canaan. The second time they went to Egypt at the insistence of their father, ostensibly in order to buy some grain (43,2) but perhaps even more so in order to secure the release of their brother Shimon. On that occasion Joseph revealed himself to them. The third time they traveled to Egypt with their father as immigrants; by that time all three dreams of Joseph had been fulfilled. ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “and they bowed down to my sheaf.” The sun, moon and stars which bowed down to Joseph in his next dream were Yaakov, Bilhah, and his brothers. The expression וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה, “Israel bowed down (to Joseph) at the head of the bed,” in Genesis 47,31 is the fulfillment of this part of Joseph’s dream. The brothers are reported as prostrating themselves before Joseph already in Genesis 42,6.

Ramban on Genesis 37:7:1

MY SHEAF AROSE, AND ALSO PLACED ITSELF UPRIGHT, AND, BEHOLD, YOUR SHEAVES SURROUNDED. The purport of the dream concerning the sheaves is that Joseph was shown that through the sheaves and the produce they will prostrate themselves to him. The matter of “surrounding” — [your sheaves surrounded] — is to indicate that they will surround him as they do a king arrayed for battle, around whom his subjects encamp.

Rashi on Genesis 37:7:1

מאלמים אלמים — Understand it as the Targum renders it: were binding bundles i.e. sheaves. Similar is (Psalms 126:6) “bearing (אלומותיו) its sheaves”. Similarly in Mishnaic Hebrew we have (Bava Metzia 22b) “and he takes (האלומות) the sheaves and makes public proclamation”.

Rashi on Genesis 37:7:2

קמה אלמתי means it raised itself erect.

Rashi on Genesis 37:7:3

וגם נצבה means remaining erect in its place.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:7:1

Drei Momente sind in dem Traume mit dem dreimal wiederholten "והנה" hervorgehoben. — בתוך השדה ist nicht soviel als: auf dem Felde, das würde בשדה heißen. Ebenso sind אלמים und אלמות wohl nicht daßelbe. Pea 6, 10 wird zwischen אגודים und אגודות unterschieden, und ist dort אלומה nach einer Auffassung: כריכות קטנות ועושין מג׳ או ד׳ עומר א׳. Es scheint, daß das Feld erst völlig geschnitten, sodann erst kleine Bündel, אלומות, gebunden wurden, die sodann zu großen Haufen, אלומים, in die Mitte des leergeschnittenen Ackers zusammengetragen wurden. Er erzählt demnach: Im Traume waren wir gar nicht so geschieden, waren vereinigt bei der Arbeit und wollten größere Haufen in die Mitte des Feldes aus den kleineren zusammentragen. Auch ich war also bereit, meine kleine Garbe zu dem größeren Gesamthaufen hinzutragen; aber die Garbe wollte nicht, stellte sich und blieb stehen, wollte sich nicht zu dem Gesamthaufen in die Mitte tragen lassen. Und nun noch gar traten eure Garben um die meinige herum, und bückten sich vor meiner Garbe! Da lag einmal der vollständige Ausdruck einer isolierten, die andern überragenden, ja sie um sich unterwürfig konzentrierenden Stellung vor, und zwar wider seinen Willen: er war ganz bereit, seinen kleinen Beitrag zu dem Ganzen zu bringen und darin wie die andern aufgehen zu lassen.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:7:2

Eigentümlich ist es ferner, daß ihm im Traume das Bild von Garbenbinden vorkommt; damit waren sie ja sonst in keiner Weise beschäftigt, sie waren ja Hirten. Ein ackerbautreibendes Volk zu werden, lag ja erst in der Bestimmung ihrer Zukunft. Lagen daher seinem Gemüte Vorstellungen des Ackerbaues so nahe, daß er sich im Traume damit beschäftigte, so konnte dies nur aus Belehrung und Mitteilung seines Vaters Israel über die zu erwartende nationale Bestimmung seines Hauses herrühren. Umsomehr durften die Brüder sich zu der Äußerung berechtigt glauben: Willst du wohl einmal König über uns werden, oder vielleicht gar schon jetzt über uns herrschen? So etwas sollte dir nicht einmal im Traume vorkommen können! Sie hassten ihn daher nur noch mehr, sowohl über den Inhalt seiner Träume als über seine Keckheit — wie sie es auffassten — ihnen solches mitzuteilen.

Sforno on Genesis 37:7:1

וגם נצבה, this conveyed to him the impression that his authority would extend over a considerable length of time. In fact, it proved to be so as he ruled for 80 years. There is no record of any ruler mentioned in the Bible as having ruled equally long or longer than Joseph.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:7:1

To stand steadfastly straight. Rashi is explaining the difference between קמה and נצבה, which seem repetitive because they mean the same. Therefore he explains that קמה means momentarily arising from a lying position, and וגם נצבה means staying that way, remaining steadfastly straight. (R. Meir Stern)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:7

Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, as we normally do. Although the sons of Jacob were primarily shepherds, they also owned fields. And behold, instead of resting alongside the other sheaves, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered around, and prostrated themselves to my sheaf.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:7:1

ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “they prostrated themselves before my sheaf.” Joseph did not say that these other sheaves prostrated themselves before him, but before his sheaf. (as opposed to his second dream). In that dream he could not have phrased it differently, saying that sun and moon bowed to “my” star, as how would he know that a particular star was his. The interpretation of this first dream is that seeing Joseph provided the grain to the brothers and all other travelers to Egypt during those years, it was as if they prostrated themselves before him. The fact that in his dream the sheaves arranged themselves around his sheaf, conveyed to the brothers that Joseph saw himself as the central figure in all this.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 16

“There we were binding sheaves” [37:7]. Joseph said: I had a dream. We were cutting wheat in the field. My sheaf stood up and your sheaves gathered around mine and they bowed down to my sheaf. Toldot Yizhak writes here. That is to say, the sheaves gathered around and did not voluntarily bow down to my sheaf, but they had to bow down, out of gratitude. Another explanation is that they gathered around my sheaf like a servant who serves his master and runs to his master. Another explanation, “your sheaves gathered around” [37:7]. This means, your sheaves became small. Joseph gathered wheat in Egypt. The grain became spoiled. Joseph explained that in the dream that your sheaves became small. Therefore, though the dream was about sheaves of grain, it showed that the brothers would bow because of grain and hunger. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:7.)

Jewish Thought

The mission of Mashiach ben Yosef includes revealing Torah mysteries, gathering exiles, and removing unclean spirits. This is hinted at in various verses, such as those referring to the building of Jerusalem and planting. Joseph's actions towards his brothers in Genesis are explained as part of a plan to fulfill his dreams and test their honesty. The Midrash emphasizes the importance of refraining from teaching mystical secrets out of respect for God.

Akeidat Yitzchak 30:1:6

We read in chapter 42,6 that Joseph, though ruler, made it his personal business to allocate grain to the individual buyers. This in spite of the fact that he had many officials who could have attended to such tasks. The reason must be that he supervised the sales personally in order to be on hand when his brothers would show up as buyers sooner or later. When the brothers did arrive, and, naturally bowed down, the first of Joseph's dreams had been fulfilled. (1) His recognition of his brothers was only partial, since they had changed substantially during the twenty years since he had last seen them. The word vayitnakker means "he still remained strange to them," not that he deliberately misrepresented himself still further. The inquiry about their origin was designed to establish positively that these men were indeed his brothers. As soon as the brothers said that they came from Canaan, that clinched the matter for Joseph. From that moment on he had to be careful not to give himself away; therefore, the Torah repeats that now he recognized them fully. The brothers on their part did not have an inkling of Joseph's true identity, however. (2) Once Joseph saw his first dream fulfilled, he became curious to know if the second dream also was capable of being fulfilled. To this end, he devised stratagems that would lead to revelations about which members of his father's generation etc. were alive. Without such knowledge, he judged that the second dream could not possibly become realized. He could not imagine how else eleven stars and a sun could bow down to him. (3) The brothers' reply to Joseph's accusations was two-pronged. We are neither spies, nor, if we ever had been spies are we engaged in plying our trade now. Since the last accusation seemed to expose them to more immediate danger, they responded first to that accusation. They stated unequivocally that they had come to buy grain, witness their beasts and their haversacks etc. They also stated that they had never been spies; on the contrary, they were all the sons of one man. In fact, they said, they could afford to place all their cards on the table. Their answer was disarming in the sense that the brothers felt the secrecy necessary to function successfully as spies could never be maintained in a large family such as theirs. Besides, they argued, a respectable family such as they would have no need to resort to the spying business, anyways. (4) Joseph continued to pry and said that although their natural occupation may not have been spying, on that particular occasion they had come as spies, their gear being only camouflage to hide their real intentions. In this manner, Joseph managed to flush out the information about their father which was what he had been after all along. (5) The classic part of the brothers' answer was that if spies do not operate on behalf of a large group of people, they are a useless commodity. Since the brothers had no such large number of people to fall back on, seeing they were all the sons of one man, and since their residence in the land of Canaan was of recent origin and they were not even landowners, Joseph's accusation was so ludicrous that it was not even worth pursuing. They referred to their father as "one man in the land of Canaan," not "one man from the land of Canaan." Since all the accusations levelled against the brothers had failed to elicit the response Joseph had waited for, namely that his father was still alive, he resorted to their imprisonment and the demand to bring Benjamin to Egypt. He wanted to examine their attitude towards Benjamin, and to judge from their reaction to his demand if their father was still alive. He planned the phony theft of the goblet already at this stage, since he had to find out if the brothers still resented a son of Rachel as a rival for the affection of their father. Even when Benjamin eventually did come down, the question about Jacob being alive had not been settled in his mind, and he had no other recourse but to inquire directly if Jacob was still alive and well. On the surface, Joseph made it appear that questioning a young and inexperienced youth such as Benjamin would be a test of the brothers' truthfulness. If Benjamin in his youthful innocence and naivite would confirm his brothers' statements, that would show Joseph that he was not dealing with spies. When Benjamin finally did get to Egypt, Joseph pretended to be amazed at his age and sophistication, and asked, "Is this your little brother of whom you have spoken?" He meant, "How can I assume that he is more innocent than you are?" I need to test him just as thoroughly. Joseph knew that his father, if still alive, would suffer some anguish, unavoidably, but he did not think that all the brothers would necessarily return with Benjamin. He had considered it more likely that some of the brothers would stay behind with Jacob during that time. The fact that all the brothers did in fact return to Egypt, may have been prompted by their desire to prove their innocence concerning the money that had been found in their sacks after they had left Egypt. (9) The reason Joseph repeated his question about whether their father was still alive after he had revealed himself, was because of the moving description by Yehudah that Benjamin's failure to return would cause Jacob's death.

Derush Chiddushei HaLevanah, Introduction 3

And at its very outset, Midrash Rabbah (Bereishis Rabbah 1:5.) states: “Let the lying lips be dumb;” (Tehillim 31:19.) this means, “Let them be bound” (The verse in Tehillim cited by Bereishis Rabbah uses the word te’alamna (תאלמנה). The root of te’alamna, אלם, is also the root for the Hebrew words ileim, i.e. “dumb” or “unable to speak”, and me’aleim, “bind.” The Midrash is explaining that the verse should not be understood as meaning that the liars will literally be dumb. Rather, the lips of the liars will be bound closed.) …. “which speak against the righteous” – this refers to the Ultimate Righteous One, He Who is the Life of all worlds, “insolent words” – this refers to teachings that He has withheld from His creation. (The verse in Tehillim cited by Bereishis Rabbah uses the word assak (עתק), which means “insolence”. This word is also the root of the word he’etik (העתיק), which means “withheld.” Thus, the Midrash is explaining the phrase “insolent words” as referring to the words people use when expounding Torah teachings that God desired to be withheld.) “with pride” – It is as if God says: “I am amazed that in order to boast and say, ‘I can discourse on the mysteries of creation….’ “and with contempt” – “a person will treat My Glory with contempt.” For R. Yossi ben R. Hanina said: “Whoever aggrandizes himself through his fellow man’s degradation has no share in the World to Come. How much more so does this apply when it is done at the expense of the Glory of the Omnipresent.” (Speaking about these mystical secrets publicly demeans God, for the common people who hear these teachings will misunderstand them and speak about God in manner that in truth deprecates Him.) What is written after this verse? “How abundant is Your goodness which You have stored away for those who fear You.” (Tehillim 31:20. The Midrash is praising those who refrain from teaching mystical secrets because of their awe of God and their fear to create misconceptions in the minds of their listeners.) “For those who fear You,” and not for those who degrade Your manifold awe. Let them not have a portion in that “abundant goodness.”

Kol HaTor 1:11

The general mission of Mashiach ben Yosef is three-fold: revelation of the mysteries in the Torah, ingathering of the exiles, and removal of the unclean spirit from the land. The ingathering of exiles encompasses three tasks: building Jerusalem, gathering in the exiles, and fulfilling the commandments dependent on the Land. All these are hinted at in the following sentences: מי יעלה בהר ה׳ [Ps. 24:3] “who will ascend the mountain of the Lord, ” referring to the ingathering of exiles [initial letters — מ ב י — are initials of Mashiach ben Yosef]. [Ps. 24:3] “who will stand up in the place of his sanctuary” referring to the building [initial letters — מ ב י — are initials of Mashiach ben Yosef]. Wherever the word “to stand up” is mentioned, it refers to the line of Mashiach ben Yosef, as in the phrase [Gen. 37:7] “my sheaf rose” [Ps. 24:5] “he will receive a blessing from the Lord” refers to something that carries with it a blessing, such as planting [the initial letters are the initials of Mashiach ben Yosef, though in reverse order — מ ב י . And in the sentences [Jer 31:20] “return to your cities, ” “build Jerusalem, ” [Ps. 102:14] “it is the time to favor her.” ‘To favor’ refers to planting as it states, “he will favor its dirt.” Each one of them accords with the gematria of “testimony in Yosef” that refers to Mashiach ben Yosef.Also, these three tasks were given to Cyrus as it states: “I am the Lord Who confirms the word of His servant, and fulfills the counsel of his messengers; Who says of Jerusalem: ‘It will be settled’... Who says לצולה to the depths, ‘Dry up, and I will dry out your rivers’. Who says of Cyrus, ‘my shepherd’; he will fulfill all my desire, ” etc. [Isa. 44:24-28]. According to the explanation of the Gaon, the word צולה in Gematria equals Samael [סמאל =131] because the purpose of building Eretz Israel is to drive out סמאל from the gates of Jerusalem. And therefore this is the mission of Cyrus as part of the mission of Mashiach ben Yosef from the left side, which means the quality of Din. The might of Mashiach ben Yosef lies in the miraculous assistance he can offer in connection with the ingathering of exiles that will come about when the awakening comes from below.

Kol HaTor 2:133

(Gen. 37:7) “my sheaf rose and also remained standing” -- Anywhere the term arise is used, it is in the line of Yosef. See above (#73) on the aspect: “who will ascend ... and who will rise, ” etc.

Kabbalah

In Tikkunei Zohar 20a:2, the text discusses the mystery of the word "sheaf" and connects it to the letter Aleph with the vowel-point ḥolem, which represents dreaming. In Ohr Ne'erav, PART I 6:10, the binding of sheaves in the field is mentioned in relation to making someone dumb or deaf. Lastly, Tikkunei Zohar 20a:5 discusses the Shekhinah ascending towards a crown, referencing Psalms 118:22.

Ohr Ne'erav, PART I 6:10

Let them be bound: [As] it states, Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field (Gen. 37:7). (In Cordovero’s citation, this verse was not in its proper order. I have restored the text according to J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (Jerusalem: Wahrman, 1965), vol. 1, p. 3.) Let them be made dumb: This is as you might say, who makes a man dumb or deaf (Exod. 4:11).

Tikkunei Zohar 20a:2

And the mystery of the word: (Gen. 37:7) And behold, we are sheaving etc... ... and behold my sheaf (alumah) rose-up, and it also stood... this is Aleph with vowel-point ḥolem (ֹ) (dreaming) , which is above all vowel-points, with an upright stature, and through it, Joseph ascended [Var. gazed] in a dream (ḥelma) .

Tikkunei Zohar 20a:5

And when the Shekhinah ascends towards [And because of this: (Gen. 37:7) ... and behold your sheaves leaned, and bowed down to my sheaf ] this crown, it is stated of it: (Ps. 118:22) The stone which the builders refused, became the head of the corner.

Midrash

The Midrash draws parallels between the experiences of Joseph and Zion, highlighting similarities in love, hatred, dreams, actions, and outcomes. It also explores the difference between dreams of the righteous and the wicked, emphasizing that righteous dreams are both heavenly and earthly. Additionally, it discusses the relationship between Judah and Joseph, symbolizing the plowman and the reaper, and the sower of seed. The text also addresses the importance of showing respect for the Creator and avoiding arrogance and contempt.

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 1:5

Rav Huna began in the name of bar Kapara: “May they be silenced [te’alamna], those lying lips [that speak harsh words against the righteous one with arrogance and contempt]” (Psalms 31:19) – may they be bound up, may they become mute, may they be silenced. (The word te’alamna can have all these three meanings, as the Midrash goes on to show.) May they become mute – as it says: “Who gives a mouth to a person, or who renders one mute [ilem] or deaf, or sighted or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11). And [may they be bound up,] as it says: “Behold, we were binding [me’alemim] sheaves in the field and behold, my sheaf arose” (Genesis 37:7). May they be silenced – that is its plain sense. (That is the literal translation of te’alamna.) “That speak…against the Righteous One” (Psalms 31:19) – [this refers to] Him of eternal life. (The “righteous one” refers to God.) “Harsh words [atak]” (Psalms 31:19) – matters that He concealed [shehe’etik] from His creations. (They speak out loud and expound on the secrets of Creation.) “With arrogance” (Psalms 31:19) – this is an expression of bewilderment: (Can it be that someone would do such a thing out of arrogance?) [Do they do this] in order to boast arrogantly: I am expounding the act of Creation? “And contempt” (Psalms 31:19) – this [too] is an expression of bewilderment: Is it in order to show contempt for My honor? As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Anyone who attains honor through the degradation of another person has no portion in the World to Come; how much more so is this so regarding the honor of the Omnipresent. What is written following this? “How great is the goodness You have in store for those who fear You” (Psalms 31:20) – for those who fear You, but not for those who demean the [awesome] fear of You. They will not be included in: “How great is the goodness.” The way of the world is that when a flesh-and-blood king builds his palace in [a location that had been] a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place, anyone who comes and says: ‘This palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place,’ is this not an insult? So, too, anyone who comes and says: ‘This world was created from emptiness and disorder,’ is this not an insult? This is a rhetorical question. Rav Huna said in the name of bar Kapara: Were the matter not written explicitly it would not have been possible to say it: “In the beginning, God created” (Genesis 1:1) – from what? “The earth was emptiness and disorder” (Genesis 1:2).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:10

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

Bereshit Rabbah 93:5

Another matter, “Judah approached him.” “Behold, days are coming, the utterance of the Lord, and the plowman will encounter [the reaper]…” (Amos 9:13); “plowman” – this is Judah; (See Hosea 10:11.) “the reaper” (Amos 9:13) – this is Joseph, as it is stated: “Behold, we were binding sheaves” (Genesis 37:7). “And the treader [dorekh] of grapes” (Amos 9:13) – this is Judah; “For I will bend [darakhti] Judah as a bow for Me” (Zechariah 9:13). “The sower of seed [bemoshekh hazara]” (Amos 9:13) – this is Joseph, who drew the offspring [shemashakh zaro] of his father, and caused him to descend to Egypt, as it is written: “With ropes of man, I would draw them” (Hosea 11:4). (The “rope” that drew Jacob to Egypt was a man, namely Joseph. ) “The mountains will drip nectar” (Joel 4:18) (The Sages often view mountains as metaphors for the righteous. They “drip nectar” meaning that their words were sweet and so they succeeded in avoiding unnecessary confrontation (Matnot Kehuna).) – these are the tribes. They said: ‘Kings are contending with one another; of what concern is it to us?’

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayetzei 6:2

Let our master instruct us further: What is the difference between the dreams of the righteous and the dreams of the wicked? The dreams of the wicked are neither in the heavens nor on the earth. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 41:1): PHARAOH DREAMED, AND THERE HE WAS STANDING ON THE NILE. So also it is written of Nebuchadnezzar (in Dan. 4:2): {IT WAS} [I SAW] A DREAM, AND IT MADE ME AFRAID, for he was neither on the earth nor in the heavens (cf. vss. 7-8). However, the dreams of the righteous are < both > in the heavens and on the earth. You therefore find that Joseph said to his brothers (in Gen. 37:7): HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES: Ergo, < his dreams were > on the earth. Where is it shown that they were also in heaven? Where it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME. So also it was in the case of our father Jacob (according to Gen. 28:12): THEN HE DREAMED THAT HERE WAS A LADDER [PLACED ON EARTH WITH ITS TOP REACHING TO THE HEAVENS. Ergo, < his dream was both > in the heavens and on the earth].

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Musar

The commentary questions why Joseph, a righteous son, did not inform his father of his survival after being sold into slavery, causing his father years of anguish.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 48

The next difficulty is: How could a righteous son loved by his father not inform his father that he was alive and save him an untold amount of anguish? Even if Joseph had found himself at the end of the world, instead of in a country bordering on the land of Canaan, was he not duty bound to let his father know that he was alive instead of letting him suffer pain for twenty-two years?

Quoting Commentary

Yismach Yisrael on Pesach Haggadah explains that the sages were surrounded by a mystical fire during the Seder, reaching a state of ecstasy where they were about to release themselves from material existence. HaKtav VeHaKabalah discusses Joseph's righteousness in not revealing his identity to his brothers, as it would have caused them great embarrassment. Bartenura on Mishnah Peah explains that "לאלומה" means to reap in order to prohibit other sheaves, referencing Genesis 37:7.

Bartenura on Mishnah Peah 6:10:2

לאלומה – to reap in order to prohibit through it other sheaves, like (Genesis 37:7): “binding sheaves [in the field]…”

HaKtav VeHaKabalah, Genesis 41:51:2

... And in truth, the greatness of the righteousness of his heart with God prevented him from fulfilling the commandment of honoring his father (and to tell his father that he was alive); in the same way that all of his behavior towards his brothers at this time - even though at first glance it appears as one who is taking vengeance upon them... in truth [was] only because of his righteousness, to not do anything against the will of his Maker. For so was the decree from the Most High which He showed him in a prophetic dream - "and they bowed down to my sheave" (Genesis 37:7). And he did it with great wisdom and deep counsel that they would not fulfill these bowings and this submission in front of him, while knowing that he was Joseph - as this would have been a great embarrassment for them. Surely to save them from this, he made great efforts that they should fulfill [the dream] without knowing that he was the one to whom they were bowing. [This is] as the verse testifies - "And Joseph remembered the dreams that he dreamt about them" (42:9), as explained there. Likewise was Joseph concerned in his heart about informing his father at the beginning of his being brought up, that he was alive and was the ruler of the country, lest the decree of the Most High about the bowings of the sheaves and the eleven stars be nullified. Behold it is for this reason - even though he was personally yearning to honor his father with the good news - that he nevertheless needed to strain with great strength  to nullify the commandment of honoring his father (in the same was as there is no room for the commandment of honoring one's father if, through it, he nullifies one of the commandments of the Lord)... Behold, in order to fulfill the will of his Maker, he was obligated to forget the honor of his father from his heart, even though he found himself obligated to honor him every instant... Hence he called his son, Menasseh, "as the Lord made me forget..." - He is the one who assisted me that I not think about the honor of my father, as if he was forgotten from my heart. And most of the usage of forgetting is just about not putting one's attention to something; in that it is not [sufficiently] important in his eyes to put his mind to it (hence, he "puts it to the side"). And he said, "all of my father's house," to include all those connected with his father, as they were all equally good in his eyes. And he did not have a grudge in his heart about what they did to him; as he said to them afterwards (Genesis 45:8), "It is not you that sent me here, but rather God." And [about] that which he said, "all of my toil" - his intention was not that with the status of being raised up, he forgot all of the heartaches which he had before his entering into all of this honor. For in fact his intention even at the time of his toil when he had the status of a slave - even though he was forced to be involved in things that were unnatural for him - [was that] this toil was not a strain and a burden upon him; as he accepted it with a joyful heart and gave thanks to Him, may He be blessed, that He helped him spiritually that he should not think of it as a strain, but rather to do it with a good heart. So all of the great toil was as removed and forgotten [even] in its time...

Rashi on Bava Metzia 21a:8:3

Bundles (Kerichot) - Small sheaves. [It is] like we translate "gathering bundles" (Genesis 37:7), [as] mekarkhan kerichan in the Jerusalem Talmud.

Rashi on Isaiah 26:11:1

O Lord, Your hand has been taken away I have seen many Aggadic Midrashim on the verses of the above section and the following, but they are not appropriate, either because of the grammatical forms of the language or because of the context of the verses. I had to explain it according to its order. There is an Aggadic Midrash that states that the prophet begs that the nations not see the bounty of the Holy One, blessed be He, when He lavishes good upon Israel. The Holy One, blessed be He, replied, “It is better that they see and be ashamed,” (Eliyahu Zuta ch. 21). (The Midrash explains the verse as follows: O Lord, take away Your hand, so that they see not. I.e., the prophet begs that God conceal His might from the nations that they see it not. Thereupon, God replies, “Let them see and be ashamed...”) This does not fit with the language, however, since it does not say, “Raise Your hand.” Moreover, this word differs from all similar words. Every יָד רָמָה is accented on the final syllable, whereas this one is accented on the first syllable. Comp. (Gen. 37:7) “Behold, my sheaf rose (קָמָה).” Comp. also (Ruth 1:9) “Behold your sister in law has returned (שָׁבָה).” All of these are in the past tense. This too is to be explained: The hand of Your might has been taken away from upon Your enemies so that they see not Your might for they have seen that their way has prospered. I beg of You, let them see and be ashamed.

Siftei Chakhamim, Deuteronomy 32:17:5

In addition, one may explain the word se’arum [as having the same meaning] as “demons”, etc. Here too it would mean “awed by them.” But the word “by them” would mean “from the demons” which refers to the demons mentioned above. The word שערום means “they made demons” just as מאלמים means אלומים (makes bundles)” (Bereishis 37:7). (Re”m)

Yismach Yisrael on Pesach Haggadah, Magid, Story of the Five Rabbis 1:2

A Mystical “Happening:” This passage begins with the word ma’aseh which literally is a tale or an incident. By transposing the letters of the word, it spells mah, “what,” and shin-eiyin is the number 270. By joining together in a mystical fellowship and negating their own self-interests, they drew down upon themselves 270 supernal rivers of light. This is the essence of the mitzvah of the Seder; to eat it in a fellowship. How do we know joined together in a state of ecstasy? The Talmud teaches us that one should not recline in the presence of one’s teacher; yet here all the sages reclined, even though Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Joshua were in the presence of their teacher, Rabbi Eliezer. There are two reasons for this. First, the word misubim, “reclined,” may have a different meaning here. This word may be from the word saviv, “surrounded,” as in Genesis 37:7: “And behold, your sheaves stood round about. ” When the Haggadah says the sages were misubim, it doesn’t mean they were reclining. Rather they were surrounded by a mystical fire and became completely unaware of their very being and one another. As a result of this they entered into the presence of the Holy One, and approached a moment were they were about to release themselves from material existence. We try to reach this state by following Rabbi Isaac Luria’s custom of declaring, before we pray, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” In this way we express our willingness to place our love of others above our self interests. By sincerely performing this mitzvah we will become less focused on our own ego and we will be able to enter into the presence of God. Having reached this mystical state, their students now brought their teachers back to reality by reminding them that it was time for the morning Sh’ma. They said, “Is it really time for you to leave this world and experience the final unification?” (The morning Sh’ma is a reference to this final and ultimate mystical experience. The evening Sh’ma is the beginning of divine service since it is at the beginning of the day, and the morning Sh’ma is the culmination of divine service in which we accept the yoke of God’s sovereignty.

Second Temple

Joseph had two dreams, one about binding sheaves in the plain and his sheaf rising up, and the other about the sun, moon, and eleven stars worshipping him. The first dream symbolizes unskilled labor, while the second dream reflects vainglory and pride. Joseph's character is examined through these dreams, with a focus on his hesitancy and lack of understanding in the first dream.

On Dreams, Book II 12:1

[78] But he who was both the initiated and the initiator in the mysteries of dreams boldly said that his sheaf rose and stood upright (Gen. 37:7). For indeed as skittish horses rear their necks proudly on high, so all the votaries of vainglory set themselves up above everything, above cities and laws and ancestral customs and the affairs of the several citizens.

On Dreams, Book II 1:6

[6] It would seem fitting always to begin our teaching with those which come first; and first to come are those which Joseph saw when from the divisions of the universe, two in number, heaven and earth, two visions were presented to him. From the earth came the dream of the reaping. It runs on this wise: “Methought that we were binding sheaves in the midst of the plain, and my sheaf rose up” (Gen. 37:7). The other has to do with the zodiac: “As it were the sun and the moon and eleven stars worshipped me” (ibid. 9).

On Dreams, Book II 3:1

[17] In what we have said so far we have been giving a rough sketch of Joseph’s character. We must now consider in detail each of his dreams. And the one which must be examined first is the one concerning the sheaves. “Methought,” says he, “that we were binding sheaves” (Gen. 37:7). The very first word, “methought,” is the utterance of one at a loss, hesitating, dimly supposing, not seeing steadily and distinctly.

On Dreams, Book II 4:10

[30] But in fact the man who has never learned the mysteries of reaping vaunts him saying, “Methought I was in company with others binding sheaves which I had not reaped” (Gen. 37:7), and failed, as I pointed out a little while ago, to take into account that this is a service performed by unskilled slaves.

Talmud

Rebbi Eleazar advises not to investigate things beyond one's understanding, focusing instead on what is permitted. Rav curses lying lips to become dumb, referencing biblical verses. Those who boast about knowing hidden things are considered haughty and insulting.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:1:11

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Siracides: What is beyond you do not have to know, what is deeper than the abyss do not investigate. Ponder what is permitted to you; you have no concern with hidden things (Siracides3:21–22. Babli 13a.) . (For the following, including the next paragraph, cf.Gen. rabba1(7).) Rav said, may lying lips be אלם (Ps. 31:19.) : may they become dumb, be rubbed out, silenced. May they become dumb, as you are saying, the Eternal said to him, Who formed a mouth (Ex. 4:11, mentioning deafness and dumbness.) etc. May they be rubbed out, as you are saying, here we were tying sheaves (Gen. 37:7. Reading the word for “sheaf” as “assembly of single stalks”.) . May they be silenced, as it is understood. Which talk boasting about a just one (For the following, including the next paragraph, cf.Gen. rabba1(7).) , who talk about the Universal Just One in matters which He hid from His creatures. With haughtiness and contempt (Ps. 31:19.) , that is he who is haughty to say, I am investigating the Creation. He feels like haughty but only is insulting.

Targum

In the Targum translations of Genesis 37:7, it is described how Joseph's sheaf stood upright while his brothers' sheaves bowed to his.

Onkelos Genesis 37:7

Behold, we were binding sheaves in the middle of the field. Behold my sheaf rose and stood up straight; and behold your sheaves surrounded it and prostrated themselves to my sheaf.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 37:7

Were binding sheaves.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:7

Behold, we were binding sheaves in the midst of the field, and lo, my sheaf arose, and stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves surrounded and bowed to my sheaf.

וַיֹּ֤אמְרוּ לוֹ֙ אֶחָ֔יו הֲמָלֹ֤ךְ תִּמְלֹךְ֙ עָלֵ֔ינוּ אִם־מָשׁ֥וֹל תִּמְשֹׁ֖ל בָּ֑נוּ וַיּוֹסִ֤פוּ עוֹד֙ שְׂנֹ֣א אֹת֔וֹ עַל־חֲלֹמֹתָ֖יו וְעַל־דְּבָרָֽיו׃ 8 J His brothers answered, “Do you mean to reign over us? Do you mean to rule over us?” And they hated him even more for his talk about his dreams.
Joseph's brothers questioned his dreams of ruling over them, intensifying their hatred towards him, with Onkelos' interpretation preferred. The text discusses the special merit of dwelling in the Land of Israel, attributing Esau's power to residing there. Yehudah offered to serve his brother's sentence in Egypt to spare his father's anguish, leading to Joseph revealing his identity in private and ensuring his family's comfortable relocation to Egypt. The Midrash draws parallels between Joseph and Zion, emphasizing similarities in experiences and spiritual themes. The extreme hatred of Joseph's brothers was rationalized by their fear of his desire to reign over them. Shadal explains the phrase "to rule over the day and the night" in Genesis 1:18, supporting Ramban's interpretation. The text praises those who resist vainglory, recognizing its fleeting nature. The Targum highlights Joseph's brothers' hatred towards him for his dreams of ruling over them.

Commentary

The brothers questioned Joseph's dreams, asking if he planned to rule over them voluntarily or by force, with Onkelos' interpretation preferred. The brothers hated Joseph for boasting about his dreams and speaking ill of them, intensifying their hatred due to his megalomaniacal aspirations. The dream itself implied Joseph would rule over them, leading to their questioning and hatred.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:8:1

על חלומותיו, “on account of his dreams.” If you were to ask that thus far Joseph has been reported as telling his brothers the content of only a single dream, so why does the Torah speak of “dreams” in the plural mode? We must answer that the Torah already referred also to events in the future. Alternately, Joseph had been in the habit of telling his brothers about his dreams, but it was only the ones in which he appeared as placing himself above his brothers that they hated him for.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:8:1

SHALT THOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? OR SHALT THOU INDEED HAVE DOMINION OVER US? Shall we set thee up as a king over us? (A king is chosen by the people. Hence I.E.’s comment (Krinsky).) Or shalt thou rule over us by force. (A ruler is not chosen, he seizes power. Hence I.E.’s comment (Krinsky).)

Malbim on Genesis 37:8:1

Will you be a king … will you rule. They noted a contradiction in his dream — his sheaf arising on its own indicated that he would rule by force, but the surrounding of his sheaf by theirs indicated that they would crown him king voluntarily.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:8:1

ויאמרו לו אחיו, His brothers said to him, etc. We need to understand why both the word מלך and the word משל are repeated here. This dream could have been interpreted in two ways. 1) It could presage that Joseph would become an actual physical ruler i.e. מלך; 2) it could presage merely ממשלה. The interpretation that Joseph would become an actual ruler was an interpretation that allowed for some doubt, whereas the interpretation that he would become a משל, a highly placed administrator, seemed absolutely certain. This is why they answered him in accordance with either of these possibilities. Concerning the possibility of his becoming an actual ruler they asked: המלך תמלך עלינו? "Are you really considering the possibility of becoming king over us?" Concerning the definite prediction that he would become a highly placed administrator, they asked אם משל תמשל בנו, "are you going to be administrator over us? Onkelos has referred to this distinction when he rendered the first המלך as את מדמי "do you imagine, etc?" whereas he renders the word אם משל as את סביר, do you think, etc?" The brothers repeated the words because they were amazed at two aspects of the interpretation. 1) Do you think you will become king at all? 2) Do you think your authority as king will also extend over us? The reason for their incredulity was the fact that they had a tradition that Yehudah would become king over all of them. How could Joseph's vision uproot such a tradition?

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:8:2

Another reason these words are repeated is that they accused Joseph of dreaming at night what he had been day-dreaming about by day. They said: "It is only because you have a desire to rule over us that you are able to have such dreams even at night!" This would correspond to Daniel 2,29: רעיוניך על משכבך סלקו "your thoughts (of the day) returned to you while you were on your bed (at night)."

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:8:3

ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אוחו, They hated him even more, etc. Since we explained that the dream under discussion is only one, we need to understand why the Torah mentions that the reason the brothers hated Joseph even more was because of "his dreams" (pl). This is accounted for by the various details in the dream. Each time Joseph had said והנה, the brothers understood this as a separate dream.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:8:4

ועל דבריו. and because of his talk. Because he told them the contents of his dream. It was bad enough that he had such dreams; talking about them made it even worse.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:8:5

Another reason maybe the one we already mentioned. The brothers felt that Joseph's dreams reflected his aspirations during daytime.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:8:7

It is also possible that the meaning of the expression ועל דבריו is that whereas he spoke to them as if he were soliciting their friendship and brotherliness, in his heart he strove all the time to become a ruler over them.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:8:1

ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אותו על חלומותיו ועל דבריו. “They continued to hate him still more on account of his words and his dreams.” The verse explains that their hatred was fanned by two separate causes. First they hated him for having dreamt the kind of dream that he did dream. In addition they hated him for telling them of his dream and bragging about it. It was like a sinful nation who is reprimanded but believes itself righteous expecting favours from G’d instead (Isaiah 58,2).

Radak on Genesis 37:8:1

ויאמרו לו אחיו, are you planning to lord it over us? If you have dreams of this kind, this only reflects dreams of power you entertain during the day.

Radak on Genesis 37:8:2

על חלומותיו, the plural “dreams,” seeing that only one dream had been reported in detail, suggests there had been at least one more dream of which the Torah did not tell us its content. The other dream may not have directly aroused an intensification of the brothers’ hatred, or, the plural includes already the dream to come that has not been spelled out as yet. The Torah spelled out only two dreams as they were the ones fuelling the brothers’ jealousy of Joseph.

Radak on Genesis 37:8:3

ועל דבריו, and on account of his overbearing manner, and the fact that he spread slanderous remarks about them.

Ramban on Genesis 37:8:1

SHALT THOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? OR SHALT THOU INDEED HAVE DOMINION OVER US? Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “Shall we voluntarily make you king over us, or will you rule over us by force?” The opinion of Onkelos appears to be more correct. (Since the authority of a king is essentially the same whether he rules by consent or force, Scripture should not change the expression from malach (reign) to mashal (dominion) if the explanation of Ibn Ezra is correct. Hence Ramban prefers Onkelos’ explanation which follows.) He rendered it: “Shall you be king over us or some authority ruling us?” For people prostrate themselves before both. The verse thus means, “You will never be king or any kind of authority over us.” The meaning of the expression, And they continued to hate him still more for his dreams, and for his words, is that they hated him for the dreams and for relating the dreams to them in a boastful manner, even as it says, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed. (Verse 6 here.)

Rashbam on Genesis 37:8:1

ועל דבריו, the badmouthing. [how did the brothers find out about this? Ed.]

Rashi on Genesis 37:8:1

ועל דבריו AND FOR HIS WORDS — for the evil report about them which he used to bring to their father.

Sforno on Genesis 37:8:1

חלומותיו, because of his dreams. The details he told them proved to the brothers that Joseph was hoping that his dreams would be realised.

Sforno on Genesis 37:8:2

ועל דבריו, and on account of his having insisted that they listen to the details of what he had dreamt.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:8

His brothers, who understood the dream as a metaphor suggesting Joseph’s dominance over them, said to him: Will you reign over us? Will you have dominion over us? There is no chance for that. They hated him even more for his dreams, and for his words. The brother’s hatred of Joseph, which stemmed from his status as favorite son and from the negative reports about them that he would bring to Jacob, was further intensified by the arrogance he expressed through his dreams. Now, in addition to dealing with the fact that Joseph was favored by Jacob, the brothers must contend with a person who entertained megalomaniacal aspirations.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 17

“His brothers answered, so you mean to reign” [37:8]. The brothers were very wise and thought that the dream meant that Joseph would be a king over his brothers. Therefore, they said: do you want to be a king over us? Bahya writes. The brothers hated Joseph very much. Why did they interpret the dream positively? The explanation is that the Holy One made them speak well of his dream with their mouths. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:7.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 18

“They hated him even more for his talk about his dreams” [37:8]. His brothers hated him because of the dream and also hated him and because he told the dreams to his father and boasted of the dreams. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:8.)

Halakhah

The text discusses the special merit of dwelling in the Land of Israel, as seen in the midrashic comment on Jacob's fear of Esau upon his return, attributing Esau's power to residing in the Land of Israel (Bereshit Rabbah 76:2).

Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol II, Part II, Chapter IX Judea and Samaria, Settlement and Return 25

That special merit accrues to one who dwells in the Land of Israel even in the absence of a divine commandment, and indeed even before it became the homeland of the Jewish nation, may be inferred from the midrashic comment upon the verse "And Jacob was sorely afraid" (Gen. 37:8). Jacob's fear seems to be groundless. Earlier, while fleeing from the wrath of his brother Esau, God had promised him, "And behold I am with you and I will watch over you wherever you will go" (Gen. 28:15). Why, then does Jacob find cause for fear upon his return from the home of Laban? The Midrash comments that Jacob feared a confrontation with his brother Esau because, "All those years Esau dwelt in the Land of Israel; perhaps he will come against me, by virtue of the power of residence in the Land of Israel." (Bereshit Rabbah 76:2.)

Jewish Thought

Yehudah offered to serve his brother's sentence in Egypt to spare his father's anguish, Joseph's emotional reactions to his brothers' confessions and Benjamin's presence led to him revealing his identity in private, the brothers' actions in selling Joseph to Egypt were used by God for a greater purpose, Joseph ensured his family's comfortable relocation to Egypt, he proved his identity to Benjamin through language and modesty, Pharaoh welcomed Joseph's family to Egypt and provided them with wagons and compensation, Joseph gave special gifts to Benjamin and ensured his family's dignified lifestyle in Egypt.

Akeidat Yitzchak 30:1:12

Thirdly, the nature of the crime was such that Joseph had latitude to vary the penalty; therefore, Yehudah asked to be allowed to serve his brother's sentence, since he was anyways much better suited to perform the tasks a slave would be expected to perform. At any rate, he could not return to face his father in view of the fact that he had guaranteed their brother's safe return. The entire journey to Egypt had only been due to Yehudah's insistence. Moreover, if he were to return to Canaan minus Benjamin, he would be forced to witness the death of his father from anguish. (16) Joseph's emotions had overcome him on two previous occasions. Once when he had heard the brothers confess their guilt about their conduct versus himself, the other time when he had first set eyes on Benjamin. On one occasion he had left the room to cry; the other time he could restrain himself only with difficulty. This time his emotions were so strong that instead of leaving the room himself, he ordered everyone out of the room, so that his servants would not see him cry. Since they had left him in order not to witness their ruler cry, it happened that they also missed the dramatic moment of Joseph revealing himself to his brothers. The Torah, by again using the term mitapek, holding himself back, wants to contrast the increasing emotional stress Joseph underwent at each successive encounter with the brothers. That he asked about his father, having just heard from Yehudah, only emphasizes the fact that Yehudah's description had been so heart-rending, that Joseph had needed confirmation that his father had still been alive at the time the brothers had left the land of Canaan. Concerning the conflicting statements about the brothers having sold Joseph to Egypt, the meaning is, of course, that whereas G-d’s actions are invariably good, He used the brothers' action to turn it to constructive use on behalf of the Egyptian nation. Therefore, the brothers ought not to grieve that their purpose, namely to prevent Joseph's dreams from coming true, had not been accomplished. G-d had accomplished a far greater purpose, using an action initiated by the brothers. Even their own welfare had been enhanced. Since G-d had sent Joseph to Egypt, they would be spared the ravages of the famine still in store for Egypt and the surrounding countries. Now that they had seen the work of G-d, they would realize that the dreams involving Joseph's being a ruler, referred to his being a ruler over the Egyptians, not as they had thought as him becoming a ruler over them. They had therefore proven to have been tools in the hands of G-d who had engineered his being brought to Egypt, using the brothers' suspicions to serve His overall design. When the brothers asked Joseph's forgiveness at a later stage after their father had died, when they were afraid of Joseph intiating reprisals, they said, "Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the G-d of your father," reminding Joseph that whatever they had done to him, had been done in the service of G-d, by Joseph's own admission. Joseph's reply to that argument will be discussed in Chapter thirty-three. (20) Joseph had to explain that he could keep his father and family in style only if they came to Egypt, where he was in a position to exercise power and influence, and that therefore, no disgrace was attached to their father's migrating to Egypt. (19) When proving his identity, Joseph had to use the kind of proof that would also convince his brother Benjamin, who had neither known of the fact that the brothers had sold him, nor had been aware of the details of what had happened at the time of the sale. The latter facts could have been common knowledge only among the ten brothers and Joseph. Use of the Hebrew language by Joseph all of a sudden would be one point, the other would be the modesty with which he gave the entire credit for his meteoric rise to power to G-d. (21) His mode of behavior towards Benjamin, the crying, the larger gifts etc. all helped to convince the brothers that this was no charade, but that it was indeed their long lost brother who stood before them. The opening phrase of the Midrash quoting Solomon about the superiority of using wit against naked force, is thus explained. (20) The satisfaction felt in Pharaoh's palace and the Egyptian establishment about the turn of events was very considerable. First of all, Joseph was very popular, and for that reason his family would be made welcome as an act of esteem towards him. Secondly, any negative feelings that might have been rampant about the rise of a lowly alien slave to the position of economic Czar, could now be parried, when it could be shown that Joseph had been born into a most prestigious family in Canaan. Pharaoh himself had to authorize the despatch of wagons, since those were not allowed to leave the country without his special permission. He emphasized that they should bring their families, not to worry about leaving behind belongings, since Pharaoh could easily recompense them for anything they might have to leave behind. Chapter 45,21 then tells us that the sons of Israel complied with Pharaoh's generous offer. Joseph wanted his brothers to put on clothing befitting their new station in life, just as he himself had changed his mode of dress when he came out of the dungeon to interpret Pharaoh's dream. The larger gifts for Benjamin represented his special needs, since presumably Benjamin did not return to Canaan and needed changes of clothing for a prolonged stay in Egypt. He also needed extra funds, whereas the ten brothers took food supplies home to Canaan. (18) The description of his power and glory in Egypt was appended to help convince Jacob that once in Egypt, he could look forward to a dignified lifestyle, did not have to view himself as an immigrant without rights.

Midrash

The text from the Midrash Tanchuma and other commentaries draws parallels between the experiences of Joseph and Zion, highlighting similarities in love, hatred, dreams, jealousy, and mistreatment. References to specific verses in Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Lamentations, and Joel are used to illustrate these connections. The text emphasizes how the experiences of Joseph and Zion mirror each other, both in adversity and in blessings, to highlight broader spiritual and prophetic themes.

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Aggadat Bereshit 70:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Jacob saw" Like it is said in scriptures: that he said "Who commands the sun not to shine" and to consume (Job 9:7).Indeed, all of Job's wisdom - does he not know that if the Holy One, blessed be He, were to command the sun, moon, and stars not to shine, they would not shine, except for Jacob and his sons who are compared to the sun, moon, and stars, as it is said, "And behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me" (Genesis 37:9). Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years, and the Divine spirit was withdrawn from Jacob and his sons, and he was not far from them except for three days, and they did not know that he was in Egypt. Before that, great prophets were Jacob and his sons. If you wish to know, when Joseph related his dreams to them, what did they say to him? "Are you really going to be a king and rule over us?" (Genesis 37:8). And when he was sold, they did not know where he was. Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, say this and why did He do it? In order that the prophets should not become haughty, He weakened their power and showed them that they were nothing. This is also the way Moses, the greatest of the prophets, was tested, as it is said, "The matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me" (Deuteronomy 1:17). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "You can solve a difficult problem? I will test you." When the case of the daughters of Zelophehad came before him, he began to falter, not knowing what to say. He only said, "And Moses brought their case before the Lord" (Numbers 27:5). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Moses, did you not say, 'The matter that is too difficult for you'? Behold, the women know something that you do not know, as it is said, 'So are the daughters of Zelophehad speaking'" (Numbers 27:7). The women argued more eloquently than you did. Even though Samuel was as respected as Moses, when he said to Saul "I am the one who sees" (1 Samuel 9:19), the Lord said to him, "Tomorrow I will show you if you really see, as it is written, 'Fill your horn with oil' (1 Samuel 16:1)." As soon as he went and saw Eliab, the Lord said to him, "You are the one who said 'I see,' but you did not see, as it is written, 'Do not look at his appearance' (1 Samuel 16:7). Why does one who chips away at a stone finish it? (Job 9:7). Even Elisha, a great man, accomplished double the miracles that Elijah did, as it is written, "Please let there be a double portion of your spirit upon me" (2 Kings 2:9). And there came a moment when he knew nothing, when he saw the Shunammite woman coming to him, he said to Gehazi, "Please run to meet her and ask her, 'Are you well? Is your husband well? Is your child well?'" (2 Kings 4:26). He did not know that the child had died. Eventually, he felt something and said to Gehazi, "Let her be, for her soul is bitter within her, and the Lord has hidden it from me and has not told me" (2 Kings 4:27). Thus, you have learned that everything is from the Almighty - if He wants people to see, they will see, and if He wants them to hear, they will hear, as it is written, "The ear that hears and the eye that sees - the Lord has made them both" (Proverbs 20:12). Therefore, it is said, "He who says to the deaf, etc." (Proverbs 27:14).

Aggadat Bereshit 76:3

[3] Another interpretation: "Rejoicing in His inhabited world." These are the tribes who sought to nullify something from the Torah. When Joseph saw the dream and said, "And behold, the sun, and the moon" (Genesis 37:9), they said to him, "Shall you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8). Once he left, they said to each other, "Come, let us kill him" (Genesis 37:20), etc. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them, "You seek to abolish something from the Torah and said, 'Let us be killed for it,' let us see who will uphold his words. He only did it when Joseph was sold as a slave and became a ruler, as it is said, 'And Joseph was the ruler, etc.' And Joseph's brothers came, etc. (Genesis 42:6). He began to accuse them of being spies (Genesis 42:9), they said to him, 'No, my lord, your servants have come, etc.' (Genesis 42:10-11), he said to them, 'No, you are thieves who sell your siblings as slaves. Send one of you etc.' (Genesis 42:16). And in the end, when the cup was found in Benjamin's hand, he began to say, 'Who stole the cup? Benjamin, son of a thief mother, for Rachel stole, etc.' (Genesis 31:19). 'Behold, you are the thief,' they began to say to him, 'What shall we say to my lord?' (Genesis 44:16) 'About Joseph,' he replied, 'What shall we speak?' (Genesis 44:16) 'and how shall we justify ourselves?'(Genesis 44:16) 'but] God has found [a way to exact punishment for] the [former] sin of your servants.'(Genesis 44:16) God said to them, 'What could you have abolished one thing for which you said, "Let us be killed for it?" Yet you seek to make yourselves slaves and He does not want that, as it is said, "Far be it from me to do so," etc.' (Genesis 44:17). "He who mocks them [God's words], will play the fool [or 'will be played for a fool'] in his own land [or 'in his own country']." [refer: Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 6:11]

Bereshit Rabbah 84:10

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Musar

The extreme hatred of Joseph's brothers towards him was rationalized by their assumption that he desired to reign over them, as indicated by his dreams and the "evil report" he brought to their father. They feared he would become a master over them or banish them altogether, leading them to plot to rid themselves of him (Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:10).

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:10

(Ibid. 5): "And Joseph dreamed a dream… (8) …Will you reign over us?": Scripture expatiates upon the dreams to rationalize somewhat the extreme hatred of the brothers to Joseph to the point of wanting to remove him from the world: They assumed that he desired to reign over them, for which reason he had brought "evil report" of them to their father, so that he should remove them from his presence [as Rashi explains (Ibid.): "for his dreams and for his words" — "for the evil report that he had brought to their father." And the robe that his father made him served as "supporting evidence" that he had accepted his report], and that perhaps, G-d forbid, he would agree with Joseph, so that he [Joseph] would be a "master" over them, as in Isaac's blessing to Jacob (Ibid. 27:29): "Be a master to you brothers, and your mother's sons will bow down to you." Or, [they thought,] G-d forbid, that he [Jacob] would banish them altogether, as Noach said (Ibid. 9:25): "Cursed is Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers." Therefore, they took counsel on how to rid themselves of him.

Quoting Commentary

Shadal explains that the phrase "to rule over the day and the night" in Genesis 1:18 refers to the luminaries ruling over the day and night, not over lower beings. He suggests that Ramban's interpretation may be correct, as supported by references to Psalms 136:8-9 and the cantillation marks in the text.

Shadal on Genesis 1:18:1

And to rule over the day and the night (velimshol bayom ouvalila): The root, mem-shin-lamed (to rule) is connected to the [letter,] bet [after it], as [is the case with] (Genesis 37:8), "will you surely rule over us (timshol banu)." And the intention is that the night and the day be under the rulership of the luminaries as I have explained; and not that they will rule over the lower beings, this one by day and this one by night as is the opinion of Ramban. And this matter still requires much study, and maybe [Ramban] is right; and so did the Psalmist say (Psalms 136:8-9), "for the government of the day... for the government of the night." And it appears that this is what the author of the cantillation marks intended in verse 16, as he wanted to attach "and the small luminary to rule the night" with "and the stars;" as the psalmist [there] said, "and the moon and the stars for the government of the night."

Second Temple

The text praises those who resisted the champion of vainglory by recognizing that he is not yet strong and his glory is like a dream, not yet pursued with clear vision (On Dreams, Book II 14:1).

On Dreams, Book II 14:1

[93] Praise therefore is due to those also who are here under consideration, because they did not give way to the champion of vainglory but resisted him and said: “Shalt thou indeed reign over us? Not so” (Gen. 37:8). For they see that he is not yet become strong, that he is not as a flame fully kindled and shining brightly with abundance of fuel to feed it, but is still a mere smouldering spark, one who sees glory but as in a dream and does not yet pursue it with clear waking vision.

Targum

Joseph's brothers questioned if he thought he would be a king over them, expressing their hatred towards him due to his dreams and words (Onkelos Genesis 37:8). In Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:8, his brothers asked if he thought he would reign over them, further increasing their enmity towards him because of his dreams and words.

Onkelos Genesis 37:8

His brothers said to him, Will you then be a king over us? [Do you imagine that you will reign over us?] Will you indeed rule over us? [Or do you think that you will rule over us?] They hated him even more because of his dreams and his words.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:8

And his brothers said to him, Art thou thinking to reign over us, or dost thou expect to have rule over us? And they added yet to keep enmity against him, for his dream and for his words.

וַיַּחֲלֹ֥ם עוֹד֙ חֲל֣וֹם אַחֵ֔ר וַיְסַפֵּ֥ר אֹת֖וֹ לְאֶחָ֑יו וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הִנֵּ֨ה חָלַ֤מְתִּֽי חֲלוֹם֙ ע֔וֹד וְהִנֵּ֧ה הַשֶּׁ֣מֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵ֗חַ וְאַחַ֤ד עָשָׂר֙ כּֽוֹכָבִ֔ים מִֽשְׁתַּחֲוִ֖ים לִֽי׃ 9 J He dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers, saying, “Look, I have had another dream: And this time, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”
In Chasidut, Reb Noson explains that Yosef's second dream symbolizes his role as a tzaddik guiding others towards righteousness. In Commentary, Joseph's dream challenges interpreting symbols into reality, with the sun complying with Joshua's command due to his descent from Joseph. In Halakhah, Moses promises rewards in the world to come for Israel, symbolizing God's protection and victory over enemies. In Jewish Thought, the Yalkut Shimoni recounts Joshua's conversation with the sun, emphasizing praising God as a testimony to an absolute Master. In Kabbalah, Joseph reaches the level of 'the Righteous-One' and the 'life-force of the worlds' through worship. In Midrash, praise of the Lord is discussed from angels, righteous individuals, and heavenly bodies, highlighting the significance of dreams and humility. In Musar, Jacob's name as "sun" is interpreted in relation to Joseph's dream, and in Quoting Commentary, Rashi and Rabbeinu Bahya discuss speech forms and the mystical aspects of Torah knowledge. In Second Temple, the Signs in Job 38:32 are connected to the Mazzaroth and the twelve tribes, while in Talmud, Joseph's dream symbolizes his family members bowing down to him, with Rabbi Berekhya noting not all dreams are fully realized. In Targum, Joseph's dream of the sun, moon, and stars bowing down is recounted.

Chasidut

Reb Noson explains that Yosef's second dream symbolizes his role as a tzaddik who guides others towards righteousness by instilling them with perceptions of Godliness, as seen in the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars bowing down to him (Likutei Halakhot, Orach Chaim, Laws of Morning Conduct 4:19:1).

Likutei Halakhot, Orach Chaim, Laws of Morning Conduct 4:19:1

THE SUN, THE MOON, AND THE DISTANT STARS Lastly, Reb Noson shows that Yosef’s second dream too alludes to his being the great tzaddik who “turns the many to righteousness” by instilling them with perceptions of Godliness. And this is the meaning of “Look, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars are bowing down to me.”

Commentary

In Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9:1, the sun and moon represent his parents and the stars represent his brothers. The dreams in the Torah, including Joseph's, the cup-bearer's, the Chief of the bakers', Pharaoh's, and Nevuchadnezzar's, all pose a challenge to interpret the symbols into reality. The events in Joseph's dream did not happen immediately because his dreams were on different nights, unlike Pharaoh's dreams which were on the same night. In B’reshit Rabbah 84,11, it is mentioned that the sun complied with Joshua's command to stand still because he was descended from Joseph.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:9:1

'והנה השמש והירח וגו, “and behold, the sun and the moon, etc.” we read in B’reshit Rabbah 84,11, that when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still in Joshua 10,12, the sun refused to accept his command until he added: “did you not bow down to my forefather already?” (Joshua was descended from Ephrayim, son of Joseph) Upon hearing this, the sun complied with Joshua’s command.

Radak on Genesis 37:9:1

ויחלום, in this dream the meaning is crystal clear. Sun and moon refer to Joseph’s parents, whereas the stars refer to his brothers, seeing there were 11 stars in the dream and Joseph had eleven brothers. All the dreams the content of which the Torah described are to be understood as posing a riddle, a challenge to translate the symbols described in the respective dreams into the matching reality in the “real” world. This is true not only of Joseph’s dreams, but equally of the dreams of the cup-bearer and of the Chief of the bakers whom Joseph met in jail. Also Pharaoh’s dream as related in the Torah, and the dream of Nevuchadnezzar as described in the Book of Daniel follow the same pattern. All of them became reality in accordance with the manner in which they had been interpreted.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:9

He dreamed yet another dream, presumably on another night, 2 and he related it to his brothers. He said: Behold, I dreamed another dream, and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars prostrated themselves to me.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:9:1

ויחלום עוד חלום אחר, “He dreamt yet another dream.” The reason why G’d did not fulfill the events foreshadowed in the dream promptly, as He did with the events foreshadowed in Pharaoh’s dream in chapter 41, may have been that Pharaoh had dreamt both dreams in a single night, whereas Joseph had his dreams on different nights.

Halakhah

Moses promises rewards in the world to come for Israel, connecting physical rewards to spiritual salvation, as seen in the phrase "O Happy Israel!" which signifies happiness in both this world and the world to come. The mention of "protecting shield" and "sword of pride" symbolizes God's protection and victory over enemies, with references to midat ha-din and midat ha-rahamim indicating attributes of severity and compassion. Ultimately, Moses wanted his words to serve as a sign for the soul's destiny in the world of souls.

Shulchan Shel Arba 4:17

You will find also in the words of Moses at the end of the Torah a promise well-known to be about the world to come, which is what is written, “O happy Israel! Who is like you, A people delivered by the Lord.” (Dt 33:29.) Because it specified above the destined physical rewards, when it said, “Thus Israel will dwell in safety, untroubled will be Jacob’s abode, in a land of grain and wine, under heavens dripping dew,” (Ibid., 33:28.) so it connected it immediately to “O Happy Israel!” to say “don’t think that the only recompense and reward you’ll have for doing the mitzvoth will be in this world.” That’s why it said, “O Happy [ashrekha] Israel,” as our sages taught in a midrash, “‘You shall be happy [ashrekha] and you shall prosper,’ (Ps 128:2.) ‘You shall be happy’ – in this world, and ‘You shall prosper’ – in the world to come.” (M. Avot 4:1.) And afterwards it said, “Who is like you?” (Dt 33:29.) that is to say, who among all the nations is like you will be “delivered by the Lord” – which means the salvation [t’shua’at] of the soul in the world of souls, which is why it said, “delivered [nosha’] by the Lord.” (Ibid.) It’s like the similar expression of the prophet: “Israel has been delivered [nosha’] by the Lord, with salvation [t’shuat] everlasting.” (Is 45:17: literally “salvation of the worlds” – t’shuat olamim – the plural of which R. Bahya without a doubt understands as an allusion to salvation in both worlds – this world and the world to come.) And it said, “your protecting shield” (Dt 33:29.) because after it specified the reward of the soul and its salvation in the world of souls, it gave a sign for this and said that Ha-Shem (may He be blessed) is their shield, their protection and their “sword triumphant” [herev ge’utam], (Ibid., literally, “the sword of your pride.”) that is, something they could be proud [le-hitga’ot] about, hence “your protecting shield.” (Ibid.) And this would even include what midat ha-din above is called – magen – “shield”, because one usually holds a shield in the left hand, and He keeps us safe with it so that by protecting us, we need not be afraid of the enemy overpowering it, and so David said, “You have granted me the shield of Your protection – magen yish’ekha“ (2 Sam 22:36, or “shield of Your salvation.”) – the shield which protects You. And he explained further, “For YHWH God is sun and shield,” (Ps 84:12.) that is, “the Great Name” [of YHWH], the quality of Jacob, which is called “sun.” (E.g., in Joseph’s dream, Gen 37:9, where the sun clearly stands for Jacob. I think R. Bahya means that “sun” is expression for God’s other main attribute, His “right hand” – midat ha-rahamim. Thus, when David referred to “Lord God” as “sun and shield” in Ps 84:12, from a kabbalistic perspective, it’s a reference to God having both midat ha-din and midat ha-rahamim, the attribute of severity and the attribute of compassion. I.e., YHWH (“Lord”) = “sun” = “Jacob” = midat ha-rahamim, while Elohim (“God”) = “shield” = midat ha-din.) And so our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash, “Jacob said, ‘Who revealed to him [Joseph] that my name [sh’my] was ‘sun’?” (Bereshit Rabba 84:10. Or as R. Bahya interprets it, sh’my= shem Y’, “the great name of YHWH.”) And he called the heavenly midat ha-din “shield,” and this what is meant by “For YHWH God is sun and shield;” (Ps 84:12.) this is why it is specified “Your protecting shield, your sword of pride” (Dt 33:29.) because of Israel having this eternal success and ultimate victory over all their enemies. So all this is a sign that they are attached to and will be delivered by Ha-Shem in the world of souls. If so, then the account of the things destined for the soul in the Torah are only there by analogy and as a sign, so set your heart to the words of Moses, how he wanted on the day of his death to “seal” his words in the upper world – understand this!

Jewish Thought

The Yalkut Shimoni on Joshua 22 recounts a conversation between Joshua and the sun, in which Joshua explains that by singing praises to God, he can testify to the existence of an absolute and free Master. In Derush Chiddushei HaLevanah 5:1:3, the question is raised as to why the Torah uses terms like "the great luminary" instead of simply referring to the sun and moon by name, with the explanation that it could be to emphasize that their light is greater than other luminaries. In Derush Chiddushei HaLevanah 5:6:5, it is suggested that Yaakov and David are likened to the moon, with Yosef's dream being interpreted as referring to Esav and Yaakov, and in Derush Chiddushei HaLevanah 5:6:9, the liturgical blessing for the moon is connected to the names Yaakov and David, reflecting their nature and renewal.

Akeidat Yitzchak 38:1:7

Yalkut Shimoni on Joshua 22 item 247 relates that when Joshua told the sun, "Stand still," the sun replied, "You are telling me to stand still?!" Joshua said, "Yes!" The sun said, "If I stand still, who will sing the praises of G-d during that time?" Joshua replied, "You be still and I will sing the praises of G-d, as is written in the book of Joshua "Az,” "Then Joshua would say etc.," and we know that wherever the expression “az” is used it is followed by a song of praise (Joshua 10,12). Similarly, “az yashir Moshe,” then Moses would sing a song of praise (Exodus 15,1). The Yalkut exemplifies what we have explained before. The sun testifies to the presence of its Master, i.e. G-d, by its very orderly and predictable orbit. Its failure to perform on time, might give rise to the notion that coincidences govern the universe. Joshua replied that there is another way to testify to the existence of an absolute and free Master, and that this was what he proposed to do by means of working a supernatural, temporary miracle, arresting the sun's motion. A slightly different version of the same conversation between the sun and Joshua has the sun saying, "How can a small one say to a big one ‘Be silent, stand still?!’" The sun meant that having been created already on the fourth day of creation, how could it accept orders from a mere mortal who had only been created on the sixth day of creation?! It did not need to accept orders from its juniors. Joshua's reply was, "Does a young freeman never tell an older slave to keep still? You are the slave, having been created to serve the freeman Abraham. You have bowed to Joseph, (‘The sun, moon, and stars were bowing down to me,’ Genesis 37,9). This makes you merely a bondsman.” The end of that version is similar to that in the Yalkut.

Derush Chiddushei HaLevanah 5:1:3

Instead, according to my humble understanding, the apparent contradiction stems from a fundamental question: Why did the verse use the terms “the great luminaries,” “the great luminary,” and “the small luminary,” which require explanation? It is true, the explanation is obvious, but still the verse could have been worded in a manner which did not require any explanation. Scripture could have simply referred to the luminaries by name, i.e., Scripture could have referred to the luminaries as “the sun” and “the moon,” as Yosef did, in the verse: (Bereishis 37:9.) “Behold, the sun and the moon bowed to me,” and as Moshe Rabbeinu did in Parshas Va’Eschanan, in the verse: (Devarim 4:19.) “and you see the sun and the moon,” and in Parshas Shoftim, which speaks of serving other gods including (Ibid. 17:3.) “the sun or the moon.” Similarly, here, the narrative should have stated, “God made the sun and the moon, the sun to rule during the day and the moon to rule during the night.” It cannot be said that Scripture intends to teach the concept that the light of the sun and the moon is greater than that of the other luminaries, and that the light of one is greater than the other. That would certainly be of no purpose. Why would Scripture need to tell us something that is obvious?

Derush Chiddushei HaLevanah 5:6:5

Scriptural support for the proposition that God made this statement to the moon appears clear to me from the Midrashic passage (Shmos Rabbah 15:27.) cited previously (P. 74 above.) when quoting the author of the Akeidah, who uses the sun and the moon as metaphors for Esav and Yaakov. Extending this analogy, a unique interpretation can be given to Yosef’s dream. Yosef told his father and brothers that he dreamt that (Bereishis 37:9.) “the sun, the moon, and eleven stars are bowing down to me.” Yaakov appeared to reject the dream, questioning, (Ibid. 37:10.) “Will I and your mother come…,” ostensibly because he thought that the sun referred to him and the moon to Yosef’s mother. However, according to the understanding of the passage in Chulin, the sun refers to Esav and to all the nations like him. Esav’s descendants and all these nations bowed down to Yosef when they came to him to purchase grain. Do not negate this interpretation because it includes all the nations that resemble Esav together with him, for these twins, Yaakov and Esav, represent all humanity, since there is no one distinct from all other men except Yaakov. All mankind aside from Yaakov are fundamentally the same – a single entity. True, at present, distinctions have arisen between nations. However, in earlier eras – and certainly, in the time of the Patriarchs – Esav can be understood as representing all the nations like him. Thus, in Yosef’s dream, the moon refers to Yaakov. According to this understanding, the prophecy in Yosef’s dream was fulfilled. Rashi (See Rashi’s commentary to Bereishis 37:10.) explains that the moon in Yosef’s dream refers to Bilhah. That is incorrect, for as Ramban states, (See Ramban’s commentary to the above verse.) Bilhah and Zilpah had already died. (Ramban derives this from the verse (Bereishis 46:26.) that describes the 70 individuals who descended to Egypt with Yaakov. That verse mentions the individuals who descended “in addition to the wives of Yaakov’s sons.” Since the verse explicitly mentions “the wives of Yaakov’s sons” but makes no mention of Yaakov’s wives, it implies that although the wives of Yaakov’s sons descended to Egypt, Yaakov’s wives did not.) (Ramban is positing that Yaakov’s wives did not descend to Egypt with him because they were no longer alive.) Nevertheless, the prophecy of Yosef’s dream was fulfilled because the moon in the dream refers to Yaakov and not Bilhah. True, Yaakov protested to Yosef, “Will I and your mother come….” However, that was only to calm Yosef’s brothers, to reduce their jealousy by intimating that the dream was untrue because Yosef’s mother had already died. In truth, however, Yaakov knew that the dream referred to Esav and himself. We thus have support from Yosef’s dream for the concept that Yaakov is identified with the moon.

Derush Chiddushei HaLevanah 5:6:9

We have thus supported the thesis we sought to substantiate – that Yaakov and David resemble the moon. They are called small like the moon and personify its qualities. On this basis, an insight into the work of the liturgists who ordained (See Sofrim 20:2.) that after reciting the blessing for the sanctification of the moon, we recite בָּרוּךְ יוֹצְרֵךְ בָּרוּךְ עוֹשֵׂךְ בָּרוּךְ קוֹנֵךְ בָּרוּךְ בּוֹרְאֵךְ (“Blessed be He Who formed you; blessed be He Who made you; blessed be He Who brought you into being; blessed be He Who created you”). (The order in which these phrases are recited varies according to custom. The order cited by Tosfos Yom Tov is cited in Tashbetz Katan (responsum 220) and by Rav David Avudraham. Both Tashbetz Katan and Avudraham highlight the association with Yaakov. ) The first letters of the descriptive terms for God mentioned here spell out יעקב – Yaakov. It is as if the verse is saying that God created the moon with these four letters that spell out the name Yaakov. The name Yaakov reflects our patriarch Yaakov’s fundamental nature, like all the names that God brought about within the world, (See p. 108 above) which are not arbitrary like the names given by common people. Similarly, the nature of the moon is reflected by these letters which form the name Yaakov, for the nature of the two are the same. (See Bach (Orach Chayim 426), who makes similar statements. See also Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 18.) For similar reasons, the phrase, “David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring,” is recited after the blessing for the sanctification of the moon. In this phrase, David is described as “King of Israel,” to emphasize that he is ”King of Israel” and not “King of Esav” and the like, who are identified with the sun. David is also described as “alive and enduring,” for King David’s nature resembles that of the moon. Seeing the moon’s renewal teaches us that David is still “alive and enduring” like the moon that can be seen at present, and he also will be renewed as the moon is renewed. The process of renewal is reflected in Yechezkel’s prophecy of the future, in which he states, (Yechezkel 37:24.) “My servant David will be king over them.” Yechezkel then emphasizes the matter by repeating, (Ibid. 37:25. ) “My servant David will be prince over them forever.” This concept substantiates Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the phrase, “They are a faithful witness in the sky, eternally true.” The term selah, translated as “eternally true,” refers to the Ultimate Future, when the moon will be renewed in a complete sense. The expression, “David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring,” was derived from the words of our Holy Teacher Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, who told Rabbi Chiya: (Rosh HaShanah 25a.) “Go to Ein Tav. (Ein Tav is the name of a place.) Sanctify the moon there and send me the message, ‘David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring’ as a sign that you did so.” Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi chose this message because “David King of Israel is described with the analogy of the moon as it is written, ‘His throne is like the sun before Me. Like the moon, his line will be established forever.’”

Kabbalah

Joseph merited the level of 'the Righteous-One' (Yesod) and the 'life-force of the worlds' through which one worships with all the sephirot towards the Shekhinah, leading to his dream as written in Genesis 37:9.

Tikkunei Zohar 37a:9

Joseph, because he merited to the level of ‘the Righteous-One’, (Yesod) the ‘life-force (ḥaiy) (18) of the worlds’, through which one is required to worship with all the sephirot – towards the Shekhinah – he merited this dream. It is this that is written: (Gen. 37:9) ... and behold, the sun and the moon... etc.

Midrash

The Midrash discusses the praise of the Lord from the heavens, identifying angels, righteous individuals, and heavenly bodies like the sun and moon as those who praise Him. It also addresses dreams of the righteous and the wicked, emphasizing the importance of humility and faith in God's plans. Additionally, it highlights the significance of the number twelve in relation to the tribes of Israel and the fulfillment of divine promises throughout history.

Aggadat Bereshit 53:3

[3] Another interpretation: And she vowed a vow, and said, "If you will see me, then you will see that I am barren, and Zion is barren, as it is said, "Sing, O barren one" (Isaiah 54:1). If you see me, then you will also see Zion, and remember me, for me, and do not forget your truth, for Zion. There are seven barren ones corresponding to the seven days of creation. The first is Sarah, as it is written, "And Sarai was barren" (Genesis 11:30), corresponding to the first day. And what was created on the first day? Heaven and Earth, which belong to this purchase by the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, "Blessed is Avram to G-d on High, Possessor of heaven and earth" [Rashi: having acquired them by creating them] (Genesis 14:19). The second is Rebecca, as it is said, "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren" (Genesis 25:21), corresponding to the second day. And what was created on the second day? The firmament, as it is said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate between water and water" (Genesis 1:6). Rebecca also gave birth to two sons, Jacob and Esau, as it is said, "And I will separate you from the peoples" (Leviticus 20:26). The third is Leah, as it is said, "And the Lord saw that Leah was hated, and He opened her womb" (Genesis 29:31), corresponding to the third day. And what was created on the third day? Vegetation, as it is said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation" (Genesis 1:11). And Reuben, the son of Leah, built, as it is said, "And Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest" (Genesis 30:14). The fourth is Rachel, corresponding to the fourth day. And what was created on the fourth day? The sun, moon, stars, and constellations, as it is said, "And God said, 'Let there be lights'" (Genesis 1:14). And Joseph, the son of Rachel, stood as her offspring, and they bowed down to him, as it is said, "And behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me" (Genesis 37:9). The fifth corresponds to Thursday, and what was created on Thursday? Birds that fly in the air (Genesis 1:20). And so was Samuel, the son of Hannah, like a bird flying from place to place and from country to country, and eventually returning to his nest. And so was Samuel involved in the affairs of Israel, going to all places, as it is said, "And he used to go yearly on circuit to Bethel and Gilgal and Mizpah, and he judged Israel in all these places" And his return was to Ramah, for there was his home. (1 Samuel 7:16-17) The sixth corresponds to the Hazzelelponith, the mother of Samson, as it is written: "And their sister (Hazzelelponith) [Hazzelelponi]"(1 Chronicles 4:3) . What was created on the sixth day? Man, and what happened to man? He died by the hand of his wife, as it is written: "And to Adam He said... for from the tree... you shall surely die" (Genesis 3:17), and Samson, too, died at the hands of his wife, as it is written: "And he loved a woman in the valley of Sorek, and her name was Delilah" (Judges 16:4). The Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes (Judges 16:21). The seventh corresponds to Zion, as it is written: "And on the seventh day He rested" (Exodus 20:11). And Zion is my resting place forever (Psalm 132:14). Therefore, Isaiah said: "Sing, O barren one, you who did not bear" (Isaiah 54:1).

Aggadat Bereshit 70:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Jacob saw" Like it is said in scriptures: that he said "Who commands the sun not to shine" and to consume (Job 9:7).Indeed, all of Job's wisdom - does he not know that if the Holy One, blessed be He, were to command the sun, moon, and stars not to shine, they would not shine, except for Jacob and his sons who are compared to the sun, moon, and stars, as it is said, "And behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me" (Genesis 37:9). Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years, and the Divine spirit was withdrawn from Jacob and his sons, and he was not far from them except for three days, and they did not know that he was in Egypt. Before that, great prophets were Jacob and his sons. If you wish to know, when Joseph related his dreams to them, what did they say to him? "Are you really going to be a king and rule over us?" (Genesis 37:8). And when he was sold, they did not know where he was. Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, say this and why did He do it? In order that the prophets should not become haughty, He weakened their power and showed them that they were nothing. This is also the way Moses, the greatest of the prophets, was tested, as it is said, "The matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me" (Deuteronomy 1:17). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "You can solve a difficult problem? I will test you." When the case of the daughters of Zelophehad came before him, he began to falter, not knowing what to say. He only said, "And Moses brought their case before the Lord" (Numbers 27:5). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Moses, did you not say, 'The matter that is too difficult for you'? Behold, the women know something that you do not know, as it is said, 'So are the daughters of Zelophehad speaking'" (Numbers 27:7). The women argued more eloquently than you did. Even though Samuel was as respected as Moses, when he said to Saul "I am the one who sees" (1 Samuel 9:19), the Lord said to him, "Tomorrow I will show you if you really see, as it is written, 'Fill your horn with oil' (1 Samuel 16:1)." As soon as he went and saw Eliab, the Lord said to him, "You are the one who said 'I see,' but you did not see, as it is written, 'Do not look at his appearance' (1 Samuel 16:7). Why does one who chips away at a stone finish it? (Job 9:7). Even Elisha, a great man, accomplished double the miracles that Elijah did, as it is written, "Please let there be a double portion of your spirit upon me" (2 Kings 2:9). And there came a moment when he knew nothing, when he saw the Shunammite woman coming to him, he said to Gehazi, "Please run to meet her and ask her, 'Are you well? Is your husband well? Is your child well?'" (2 Kings 4:26). He did not know that the child had died. Eventually, he felt something and said to Gehazi, "Let her be, for her soul is bitter within her, and the Lord has hidden it from me and has not told me" (2 Kings 4:27). Thus, you have learned that everything is from the Almighty - if He wants people to see, they will see, and if He wants them to hear, they will hear, as it is written, "The ear that hears and the eye that sees - the Lord has made them both" (Proverbs 20:12). Therefore, it is said, "He who says to the deaf, etc." (Proverbs 27:14).

Aggadat Bereshit 73:1

Chapter (72) 73: Torah [1] "And the El Shaddai grant you mercy" (Genesis 43:14). As it is written in scriptures: Knowledge [of escape from You] is concealed from me. It is too formidable. I cannot know it. (Psalm 139:6). What is the meaning of "extraordinary level of understanding beyond my grasp"? It refers to something that is difficult for a person to comprehend, as it says, "If there arise among you a matter too hard for judgment" (Deuteronomy 17:8). Jacob said, "I cannot understand this matter." God promised Abraham that he would have twelve tribes, as it says, "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them...So shall thy seed be" (Genesis 15:5). Just as there are twelve constellations in the heavens that govern the world, so too I will establish twelve tribes from you that will govern the world, as it is said, "Thus shall your seed be" (Genesis 15:5). When Ishmael was born and he begot twelve princes, as it is said, "And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren" (Genesis 16:12), Abraham thought that these were the twelve tribes. But God said to him, "No, not those that you think. Sarah will bear a son for you" (Genesis 17:19), as it is said, "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac" (Genesis 21:12). It is through Isaac that your seed will be called (Genesis 21:12), as I said to you, "Thus shall your seed be" (Genesis 15:5). When Isaac married Rebecca and she was found to be barren, he began to question how the promise that God made to Abraham could be fulfilled, as she was barren, as it is said, "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren" (Genesis 25:21), and the children struggled within her (Genesis 25:22). "I'm sorry," she began, "if that's the case, I apologize to one another and "She went to inquire of יהוה," (Genesis 25:22), went to the study hall of Shem, and the Lord said to her, 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your body' (Genesis 25:23). Why did she say why is it? (Genesis 25:22), "this" is numerically equivalent to 12. And God said to her [Sarah], "What you think is not so, but there are two nations in your womb." When Jacob stood up and went out to Laban, Isaac called him and said to him, "Let it be known that the Lord is establishing twelve tribes from you," as it is said, "Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and commanded him, and said to him, 'Do not marry a Canaanite woman. Arise, go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel, your mother's father, and take a wife from there of the daughters of Laban, your mother's brother. And may God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, that you may be a congregation of peoples; and give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and your descendants with you" (Genesis 28:1-4). The blessing that He blessed Abraham with, saying, "Look up now" (Genesis 15:5), is fulfilled through you. And once Jacob went and took wives and fathered twelve tribes, as it says, "And the sons of Jacob were twelve" (Genesis 35:22), Joseph began to see hints of it in his dream, saying, "Behold, I have dreamed a dream" (Genesis 37:9). Jacob began to keep watch over his father's words, and his father kept the matter (Genesis 37:11). And when Joseph was sold and Simeon was bound and Benjamin was brought to take revenge, Jacob began to cry out, "Me? What do I know? I thought that from my fathers I would establish twelve tribes, but I am dwindling and going down," as it says, "Joseph is gone" (Genesis 42:36). Everything that the old man promised was fulfilled, and yet I am decreasing and going down. "How incomprehensible is this to me," as it says, "I do not know what to say to you, but one thing remains in my hand, the blessing that my father blessed me with, saying, 'And Almighty God bless you'" (Genesis 28:3).

Aggadat Bereshit 76:3

[3] Another interpretation: "Rejoicing in His inhabited world." These are the tribes who sought to nullify something from the Torah. When Joseph saw the dream and said, "And behold, the sun, and the moon" (Genesis 37:9), they said to him, "Shall you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8). Once he left, they said to each other, "Come, let us kill him" (Genesis 37:20), etc. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them, "You seek to abolish something from the Torah and said, 'Let us be killed for it,' let us see who will uphold his words. He only did it when Joseph was sold as a slave and became a ruler, as it is said, 'And Joseph was the ruler, etc.' And Joseph's brothers came, etc. (Genesis 42:6). He began to accuse them of being spies (Genesis 42:9), they said to him, 'No, my lord, your servants have come, etc.' (Genesis 42:10-11), he said to them, 'No, you are thieves who sell your siblings as slaves. Send one of you etc.' (Genesis 42:16). And in the end, when the cup was found in Benjamin's hand, he began to say, 'Who stole the cup? Benjamin, son of a thief mother, for Rachel stole, etc.' (Genesis 31:19). 'Behold, you are the thief,' they began to say to him, 'What shall we say to my lord?' (Genesis 44:16) 'About Joseph,' he replied, 'What shall we speak?' (Genesis 44:16) 'and how shall we justify ourselves?'(Genesis 44:16) 'but] God has found [a way to exact punishment for] the [former] sin of your servants.'(Genesis 44:16) God said to them, 'What could you have abolished one thing for which you said, "Let us be killed for it?" Yet you seek to make yourselves slaves and He does not want that, as it is said, "Far be it from me to do so," etc.' (Genesis 44:17). "He who mocks them [God's words], will play the fool [or 'will be played for a fool'] in his own land [or 'in his own country']." [refer: Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 6:11]

Bereshit Rabbah 68:10

“He encountered the place” – he sought to pass, but the entire world became a barrier of sorts before him. (So he could not continue on his way.) “Because the sun had set” – the Rabbis say: “Because the sun had set” – it teaches that the Holy One blessed be He caused the orb of the sun to set not at its proper time, in order to speak with Jacob privately. This is analogous to a king’s friend who would come to him on occasion. The king said: ‘Extinguish the lamps, extinguish the lanterns, as I wish to speak with my friend privately.’ So, the Holy One blessed be He caused the orb of the sun to set not at its proper time, in order to speak with Jacob privately. Rabbi Pinḥas said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanin of Tzippori: He heard the voices of the ministering angels saying: ‘The sun has arrived, the sun has arrived.’ (This was a reference to the fact that Jacob had come.) When Joseph said: “Behold, the sun and the moon” (Genesis 37:9), Jacob said: ‘Who revealed to him that My name is “sun”?’ Those two hours that the Holy One blessed be He caused the orb of the sun to set when he left his father’s house, when did He restore them? It was when he returned to his father’s house. That is what is written: “The sun rose for him” (Genesis 32:32). The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You are a model for your descendants; just as you, when you departed, I caused the sun to set, and upon your return, I restored the orb of the sun for you, so, your descendants, upon their departure: “The one who bore seven is miserable…[her sun set while still day]” (Jeremiah 15:9), and upon their return: “But the [sun of righteousness] will shine for those who fear My name…”’ (Malachi 3:20).

Bereshit Rabbah 6:9

“And to rule during the day and at night, and to divide between the light and the darkness, and God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:18). “And to rule during the day and at night” – Rabbi Ilfa said: If this is referring to the lights, is it not already stated: “The greater light to rule the day”? Genesis 1:16). Why, then, does the verse state: “And to rule during the day and at night”? Rather, it is referring to the righteous, who exert control over the body that was created to illuminate during the day and the body that was created to illuminate at night. That is what is written: “The sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance against their enemies. Is it not written in the book of the upright?” (Joshua 10:13). What is the book of the upright? It is the book of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Genesis.) Why is it called the book of the upright? It is as it is written: “Let me die the death of the upright” (Numbers 23:10). (Where “upright” alludes to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.) Rabbi Ḥalafta applied it [this lesson] to here: “And to rule during the day and at night.” (As Rabbi Ilfa just said.) Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Shmuel applied it to the end of the book: “However, his younger brother [Ephraim] will be greater than he [Manasseh]” (Genesis 48:19). Is it possible to say this? (Manasseh’s descendants were more numerous than those of Ephraim (Numbers 26:34–37).) Rather, this refers Joshua, who would descend from him [Ephraim], who would cause the orbs of the sun and the moon, which rule from one end of the world to the other, to stand still. (And in that sense Ephraim was greater than Manasseh.) Rabbi Ḥanan in the name of Shmuel applied it to the end of the Torah, [where it is said of Joseph]: “A firstborn bull is his majesty…[he will gore the peoples together at the ends of the earth]” (Deuteronomy 33:17). Is it possible? (Is it possible that a king would arise from Joseph that would defeat kings throughout the world? No such king is recorded.) Rather, this is Joshua, who would descend from him, and who would cause the orbs of the sun and the moon, which rule from one end of the world to the other, to stand still. (Thereby becoming known to everyone in the world. ) This is as Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: The book of Deuteronomy was like a standard for Joshua. When the Holy One blessed be He appeared to him, he found him sitting with the book of Deuteronomy in his hand. He said to him: ‘“Be strong” Joshua, “be courageous” Joshua, “this book of the Torah shall not depart…”’ (Joshua 1:6–8). He took him and showed him to the orb of the sun. He [Joshua] said to it: ‘Just as I have not been still from [reading] this [book], so, you shall stand still before me.’ Thereupon, “The sun stood still, and the moon stopped” (Joshua 10:13). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: He said to it: ‘Wayward slave, are you not the acquired possession of my ancestor [Joseph]? Did my ancestor not see you in a dream: “Behold, the sun and the moon…[were prostrating themselves to me]”?’ (Genesis 37:9). Thereupon, “the sun stood still, and the moon [stopped].”

Bereshit Rabbah 84:11

“He dreamed yet another dream, and related it to his brothers, and he said: Behold, I dreamed another dream: and, behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars prostrated themselves to me” (Genesis 37:9). “He dreamed yet another dream…” – when Joseph said: “Behold, the sun, the moon,” Jacob said: Who revealed to him that my name is sun? (See Bereshit Rabba 68:10.) Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Joshua said to the sun: Wayward slave, were you not purchased with the money of my father? Did my father not see you in the dream: “Behold, the sun, the moon…prostrated themselves to me”? You, too, stand still before me. Immediately, “the sun stood still, and the moon stopped” (Joshua 10:13). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him and said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed? Will we come, I, your mother, and your brothers, to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘So you will scold your prophets,’ as it is stated: “Now, why did you not scold Jeremiah of Anatot” (Jeremiah 29:27). (This quote, ascribed to the false prophet Shemaya the Neḥelamite, indicates that the Israelites were wont to scold their prophets. ) “And said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed”? Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: So, our patriarch Jacob believed that the revival of the dead would occur in his lifetime, as it is stated: “Will we come [havo navo]” – Will I and your brothers come? That is fine. “[Will we come,] I and your mother” – is your mother not dead; and you say: “I, your mother, and your brothers? (Nevertheless, the next verse states: “But his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:11).) However, Jacob our patriarch did not know that the matter related to Bilha, Rachel’s maidservant, who raised him as though she was his mother.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:15

“Reuben heard, and delivered him from their hand and said: Let us not smite him mortally” (Genesis 37:21). “Reuben heard, and delivered him” – where had he been? (The fact that he heard implies that he was not there during the initial discussion and heard about it after the fact (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis: Rabbi Yosei said: Each one of them would serve his father on his day, and that day was Reuben’s day. Rabbi Neḥemya said: Reuben said: I am the firstborn, and the blame will be attributed only to me. The Rabbis say: Reuben said: He enumerates me with my brothers; shall I not rescue him? I was under the impression that I had been banished because of that incident, (The incident of Reuben and Bilha; see Genesis 35:22. ) and he enumerates me with my brothers, As it is stated: “And eleven stars prostrated themselves to me” (Genesis 37:9) – shall I not rescue him? The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You were the first to engage in the saving of lives; as you live, they will designate cities of refuge first only within your boundaries.’ That is what is written: “Betzer in the wilderness…[for the Reubenites]” (Deuteronomy 4:43).

Bereshit Rabbah 97:4

“Joseph saw that his father was placing his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, and it displeased him; he supported his father’s hand, to remove it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh” (Genesis 48:17). “Joseph saw that his father was placing…” – Rabbi Berekhya said: The hand that overcame one-third of the world, (See Bereshit Rabba 68:12.) you are seeking to move it? “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn; place your right hand upon his head. His father refused, and said: I know, my son, I know; he too will become a people, and he too will be great; however, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his descendants will be the plenitude of nations” (Genesis 48:18–19). “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father.… His father refused, and said: I know, my son, I know” – I know the incident of Reuben and Bilha and the incident of Judah and Tamar; (I know that they all acted with pure intentions (Yefe To’ar).) if matters that were not revealed to you were revealed to me, matters that were revealed to you, all the more so. “He too will become a people, and he too will be great” – is it possible that it will be so? (The continuation of the verse states that Ephraim would be “the plenitude of nations.” The midrash asks: Is it possible that one tribe would be so numerous?) Rather, this is Joshua, who stopped the orb of the sun and the moon, which have dominion from one end of the world to the other end. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Bad slave, are you not the purchase of my father… (Joshua said to the sun: ‘You prostrated yourself to my father Joseph in his dream; therefore you must obey me’ (see Bereshit Rabba 84:11). )

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Berakhot 9:5

R. Berachia said: "There may be a dream which thought in part fulfilled, yet is impossible of being entirely fulfilled. We can derive it from Joseph, for it is written (Gen. 37, 9.) The sun and the moon and the eleven start. — Shall we indeed come, I and thy mother, and thy brothers (Ib. b). And at that time his mother was dead." R. Levi said: "A man should look forward to the realization of a good dream even for as long as twenty-two years; as it is written (Gen. 37, 2.) These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph was seventeen years old [when he had the dreams], and it is written also (Ib. 41, 46.) And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh. From seventeen to thirty are thirteen years, to which add the seven years of plenty and the two years of famine, will make the total of twenty-two years." R. Huna said: "To a good man bad dreams are shown, and to a bad man good dreams." We have also a Baraitha to the same effect: "During all the years of David he never dreamed a good dream, and during all the years of Achitophel he never dreamed a bad dream." R. Bizna b. Zabda, in the name of R. Akiba, who spoke in the name of R. Panda, who, in turn, spoke in the name of R. Nachum, who quoted R. Birim, said: "A venerable man by the name of R. Bana'ah had told him there were twenty-four places in Jerusalem for the interpretation of dreams; that once he had a dream and went to each one of these places; each one gave a different interpretation and each was fulfilled." This establishes what is written: "Every dream is in accord with its interpretation." Is this a passage? Yes, as R. Elazar said, for R. Elazar said: "Whence do we learn that every dream is realized according to its interpretation? It is written (Gen. 41, 13.) And just as he interpreted it, so it was."

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Achrei Mot 14:1

(Lev. 17:1 & 3:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING…. IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SLAUGHTERS AN OX, A LAMB, OR A GOAT IN THE CAMP. The Holy Spirit proclaims (in Mal. 1:11): FROM THE RISING OF THE SUN TO ITS SETTING [MY NAME SHALL BE GREAT AMONG THE GENTILES AND IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE IS OFFERED TO MY NAME, EVEN A PURE OBLATION]. (Tanh., Lev. 6:9.) From the time that the sun rises until it sets, the praise (Qillus. Cf. the Greek, kalos (“beautiful”).) of the Holy One never ceases from its mouth, as stated (in Ps. 113:3): FROM THE RISING OF THE SUN TO ITS SETTING, THE NAME OF THE LORD IS PRAISED. And you find it so when Joshua waged war with Gibeon. What is written there (in Josh. 10:12)? THEN JOSHUA SPOKE TO THE LORD…: O SUN, BE QUIET (dom) (Although dom can mean “stand still”, it commonly means, “be quiet” in the sense of “be silent.” It is this latter sense which the midrash is stressing here.) AT GIBEON. < When > Joshua wanted to silence the sun, he did not say to it: "O Sun, stand still ('amod) at Gibeon," but BE QUIET (dom). Why did he say; BE QUIET? Because every hour that it is traveling, it is praising the Holy One; and as long as it praises < the Holy One >, it has the power to travel < its course >. Joshua therefore told it to be silent, as stated (ibid.): O SUN, BE QUIET AT GIBEON. The sun said to Joshua: Is someone younger saying, BE QUIET, to someone older? I was created on the fourth < day >, while human beings were created on the sixth; so are you saying, BE QUIET, to me? Joshua said to < the sun >: When a young free person has an elderly slave, does he not say to him: Be silent? In the case of our father Abraham, the Holy One delivered (rt.: PNH) heaven and earth to him, as stated (in Gen. 14:19): THEN HE BLESSED HIM, AND SAID: BLESSED BE ABRAM OF GOD MOST HIGH, ACQUIRER (rt.: PNH) (Apart from the context in the midrash, a traditional biblical translation would read: CREATOR.) OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. And not only that, but you bowed down to Joseph, as stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME. [So would you speak against me?] Ergo (in Josh. 10:12): O SUN, BE QUIET AT GIBEON. The sun said to Joshua: And so are you decreeing over me that I am to be quiet? He said to it: Yes. It said to him: Then who will speak the praise of the Holy One? You be quiet, and I will speak the praise of the Holy One, as stated (in Josh. 10:12): THEN (az) JOSHUA SPOKE TO THE LORD. Now az can only be a hymn, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:1): MOSES SANG THEN (az). (THEN is understood as the object of the verb SANG. See above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:32; Exod. 4:12.) (Mal. 1:11): AND IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE IS OFFERED TO MY NAME, < EVEN A PURE OBLATION >. R. Ammi asked R. Samuel bar Nahman: Is it correct that IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE IS OFFERED TO MY NAME? (See Numb. R. 13:4.) The Torah warns (in Deut. 12:13–14): TAKE HEED THAT YOU DO NOT OFFER UP YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS IN ANY PLACE THAT YOU SEE, BUT ONLY IN THE PLACE THAT < THE LORD > WILL CHOOSE…. So also it says (in Lev. 17:3–4): IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SLAUGHTERS AN OX, A LAMB, OR A GOAT IN THE CAMP…, AND DOES NOT BRING IT UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE TENT OF MEETING…, < BLOODGUILT SHALL BE IMPUTED TO THAT PERSON >. But < there seems to be a contradiction when > the prophet says (in Mal. 1:11): AND IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE (muqtar) IS OFFERED TO MY NAME, < EVEN A PURE OBLATION >. R. Samuel bar Nahman said to him (i.e., to R. Ammi): What is A PURE OBLATION (minhah) which is burned (muqtar) IN EVERY PLACE and offered to the name of the Holy One? (The Hebrew wording of this question reproduces almost exactly the wording in Mal. 1:11.) This is the prayer of the afternoon service (minhah). INCENSE (muqtar) can only be the prayer of the afternoon service (minhah), since it is stated (in Ps. 141:2): LET MY PRAYER BE SET FORTH AS THE INCENSE BEFORE YOU…. [It also says] (in I Kings 18:36): AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFERING OF THE OBLATION (minhah), < THE PROPHET > ELIJAH DREW NEAR < AND SAID >…. (Since Elijah carried out this minhah on mount Carmel, it could not have been a temple sacrifice. Thus here also minhah must refer to the afternoon service.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Miketz 13:7

(Ibid., cont.:) THEY FELL TO THE GROUND BEFORE HIM to fulfill that which was stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Miketz 6:1

[(Gen. 42:1:) THEN JACOB SAW THAT THERE WAS GRAIN IN EGYPT.] This text is related (to Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE < AND SEALS UP THE STARS >. (Gen. R. 91:1.) {It simply tells about Jacob and his children, since they were likened to them. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME.} Look at all Job's wisdom! Now who does not know that, if the Holy One tells the sun or the stars not to shine, they do not shine, as stated (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE … ? It simply tells about Jacob and his children, [since they were likened to them. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME]. (Job 9:7:) THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE. For the twenty-two years that Joseph stayed away from his brothers in Egypt, the Holy Spirit was hidden from Jacob and his children. He was no farther from them than a journey of four or five days; but they did not know that he was in Egypt. Now Jacob and his children had previously been great prophets. Do you want to understand? When Joseph had told them his dream, what did he say (in Gen. 37:10)? ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN < TO THE GROUND FOR YOU > ? Then, when he had been sold, they did not know where he was. Ergo (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE. Why so? So that the prophets would not be boastful. The Holy One therefore made his power known to them to show them that they were nothing. And so you find with the greatest of the prophets (i.e., Moses). Because he had said (in Deut. 1:17): BUT THE CASE WHICH IS TOO HARD FOR YOU < YOU SHALL BRING UNTO ME >…. (Sifre to Deut. 1:17 (17); Sanh. 8a.) The Holy One said to him: Are you able to interpret a difficult case? By your life, I am showing you! So, when the affair of the daughters of Zelophehad arrived, he began to have difficulties with it. When he did not know what to say, he brought their cause before the LORD, as stated (in Numb. 27:5): THEN MOSES BROUGHT THEIR CAUSE BEFORE THE LORD. The Holy One said to him: Was it not you who said (in Deut. 1:17): BUT THE CASE WHICH IS TOO HARD FOR YOU < YOU ARE TO BRING UNTO ME > … ? See, you do not know what the women know. (Numb. 27:7:) THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK WHAT IS RIGHT. These women have judged better than you. And so also in the case of Samuel, when he was measured against Moses and Aaron. Because he had said (in I Sam. 9:19): I AM THE SEER, the Holy One said to him: You have said: I AM THE SEER! By your life, tomorrow I am showing you whether you are a seer. Thus it is stated (in I Sam. 16:1): FILL YOUR HORN WITH OIL AND GO; {COME} [I AM SENDING YOU] UNTO JESSE THE BETHLEHEMITE BECAUSE I HAVE CHOSEN A KING FOR MYSELF AMONG HIS SONS. When he had gone, what is written (in I Sam. 16:6)? AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN HE HAD COME, THAT HE SAW ELIAB AND SAID: SURELY THE LORD'S ANOINTED IS STANDING BEFORE HIM. The Holy One said to him: Are you the one who said (in I Sam. 9:19): I AM THE SEER? (I Sam. 16:7:) DO NOT LOOK UPON HIS APPEARANCE…. And so also in the case of Jacob [and his children], they were prophets and sages, and nothing was hidden from them. When Joseph was sold, they did not know about him until the Holy One [wanted] < them to know >. Ergo (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE….

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayetzei 6:2

Let our master instruct us further: What is the difference between the dreams of the righteous and the dreams of the wicked? The dreams of the wicked are neither in the heavens nor on the earth. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 41:1): PHARAOH DREAMED, AND THERE HE WAS STANDING ON THE NILE. So also it is written of Nebuchadnezzar (in Dan. 4:2): {IT WAS} [I SAW] A DREAM, AND IT MADE ME AFRAID, for he was neither on the earth nor in the heavens (cf. vss. 7-8). However, the dreams of the righteous are < both > in the heavens and on the earth. You therefore find that Joseph said to his brothers (in Gen. 37:7): HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES: Ergo, < his dreams were > on the earth. Where is it shown that they were also in heaven? Where it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME. So also it was in the case of our father Jacob (according to Gen. 28:12): THEN HE DREAMED THAT HERE WAS A LADDER [PLACED ON EARTH WITH ITS TOP REACHING TO THE HEAVENS. Ergo, < his dream was both > in the heavens and on the earth].

Midrash Tanchuma, Achrei Mot 9:1

(Lev. 17:1, 3:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses, ‘Speak to Aaron saying, “…. If any single person from the House of Israel slaughters.”’” The holy spirit proclaims (in Mal. 1:11), “From the rising of the sun to its setting, My name shall be great among the gentiles.” From the time that the sun rises until it sets, the praise (Qillus. Cf. the Greek, kalos (“beautiful”).) of the Holy One, blessed be He, never ceases from its mouth, as stated (in Ps. 113:3), “From the rising of the sun to its setting, the name of the Lord is praised.” And you find it so when Joshua waged war with Gibeon. What is written there (in Josh. 10:12)? “Then Joshua spoke to the Lord…, ‘O sun, be quiet (dom) (Although dom can mean “stand still”, it commonly means, “be quiet” in the sense of “be silent.” It is this latter sense which the midrash is stressing here.) at Gibeon.’” [When] Joshua wanted to silence the sun, he did not say to it, "O sun, stand still ('amod) at Gibeon," but “Be quiet (dom).” Why did he say, “Be quiet?” Because every hour that it is traveling, it is praising the Holy One, blessed be He; and as long as it praises [the Holy One, blessed be He], it has the power to travel [its course]. Joshua therefore told it to be silent, as stated (ibid.), “O sun, be quiet at Gibeon.” The sun said to Joshua, “May someone younger be saying, ‘Be quiet,’ to someone older? I was created on the fourth [day], while human beings were created on the sixth; and are you saying, ‘Be quiet,’ to me?” Joshua said to [the sun], “When a young free person has an elderly slave, does he not say to him, ‘Be silent?’ In the case of our father Abraham, the Holy One, blessed be He, delivered (rt.: pnh) heaven and earth to him, as stated (in Gen. 14:19), ‘Then he blessed him, and said, “Blessed be Abram of God most high, acquirer (rt.: pnh) (Apart from the context in the midrash, a traditional biblical translation would read: CREATOR.) of heaven and earth.”’ And not only that, but you bowed down to Joseph, as stated (in Gen. 37:9), ‘here were the sun, the moon, [and eleven stars bowing down to me.’ So would you speak against me?]” Ergo (in Josh. 10:12), “O sun, be quiet at Gibeon.” The sun said to Joshua, “And so are you decreeing over me that I am to be quiet?” He said to it, “Yes.” It said to him, “Then who will speak the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He?“ He said to him, “You be quiet, and I will speak the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He,” as stated (in Josh. 10:12), “Then (az) Joshua spoke to the Lord.” Now az can only be a hymn, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:1), “Moses sang then (az).” (THEN is understood as the object of the verb SANG. See Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:32; Exod. 4:12.) (Mal. 1:11:) “And in every place incense is offered to My name, even a pure oblation.” R. Ammi asked R. Samuel bar Nahman, “Is it correct that ‘In every place incense is offered to My name, even a pure oblation?’ (See Numb. R. 13:4.) The Torah warns (in Deut. 12:13-14), ‘Take heed that you do not offer up your burnt offerings in any place that you see. But only in the place that [the Lord] will choose….’ So also it says (in Lev. 17:3-4) ‘If any single person from the House of Israel slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat in the camp…. And does not bring it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting…, [bloodguilt shall be imputed to that person.’ So how can you] say (in Mal. 1:11), ‘and in every place incense (muqtar) is offered to My name, [even a pure oblation]?’” R. Samuel bar Nahman said to him (i.e., to R. Ammi), “What is a pure oblation (minhah) which is burned (muqtar) in every place and offered to the name of the Holy One, blessed be He? (The Hebrew wording of this question reproduces almost exactly the wording in Mal. 1:11.) This is the prayer of the afternoon service (minhah). Incense (muqtar) can only be the prayer of the afternoon service (minhah), since it is stated (in Ps. 141:2), ‘Let my prayer be set forth as the incense before you….’ [It also says] (in I Kings 18:36), ‘And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the oblation (minhah), Elijah drew near.’”

Midrash Tanchuma, Miketz 10:11

And Judah and his brothers came to Joseph’s house (Gen. 44:14). Why did they go to Joseph’s house? Did he not leave each day to preside at court? He had said to himself: “I will not disgrace my brothers before the Egyptians.” And they fell before him on the ground…. “Behold, we are my lord’s bondsmen” (ibid., v. 14–16). This fulfilled the verse And behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars bowed down to me (ibid. 37:9). Whereupon Joseph said to them: What deed is this that ye have done? Know ye not that such a man as I will indeed divine (ibid. 44:15). And he said to them also: “I will tell you why this youth stole it. He did so in order to divine through it and learn the whereabouts of his brother.” And Judah said: “What shall we say unto my lord? What shall we speak? Or how shall we clear ourselves?” (ibid., v. 16). What shall we say concerning the first pieces of silver (that were placed in their sacks by the steward)? How shall we speak concerning the second pieces of silver? How shall we clear ourselves in the matter of the cup? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants (ibid.). Do not read the phrase as matza (“found out”) but as motza (“revealed”).

Midrash Tehillim 148:1

Hallelujah, praise the Lord from the heavens, praise Him in the heights. Who are in the heavens? They are the angels who serve Him. Praise Him, all His angels. Just as there are many armies on earth, so too are there in heaven. (Genesis 2:4) These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. Therefore, it is said, "Praise Him, all His hosts." (Psalm 103:21)And who are His hosts who do His will? As it is said, "Bless the Lord, all His hosts." Therefore, it is said, "Praise Him, all His hosts." Praise Him, sun and moon. And who are the sun and moon? They are the fathers and mothers who rule with the sun and moon. As it is said, "And behold the sun and the moon." (Bereshit 37:9) Praise Him, all the stars of light. And who are the stars of light? They are the righteous, as it is said, "And those who lead the many to righteousness [shall be] like the stars forever and ever." Therefore, it is said, "Praise Him, all the stars of light." From here you learn that each one of them has a star in the heavens, and according to their deeds, so does their star shine. Therefore, it is said, "Praise them, whose stars shine." (Daniel 12:3) Praise the heavens of heavens. From here you learn that they are only rain (in the name of Radel - the 3rd heaven). As it says (1 Kings 8:27), "Behold, the heavens and the highest heaven." Therefore it is said, "Praise Him," etc. These are the waters that God created in the beginning, as it says (Genesis 1:8), "And God called the firmament Heaven." Ask for water. "Let them praise the name of the Lord," etc. They did not come before the Holy One, blessed be He, when He created them, as it says (Genesis 2:4), "On the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." And it is written (Exodus 20:11), "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth." They did not come before the Holy One, blessed be He, but He commanded and they were created by themselves. Therefore it is said, "Let them praise the name of the Lord," because they were created to praise Him. And He established them forever with an ordinance that will not pass away. And what is this ordinance that He gave? He said to them (Genesis 1:6), "Let there be a firmament," etc. From that day on they did not move. God created them to take pleasure in them, but because of Adam's sin, the earth was cursed, as it says (Genesis 3:17), "Cursed be the ground," etc. Cain killed Abel, and God said to him (Genesis 4:9), "Where is Abel your brother?" (Genesis 4:10), "The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to Me from the ground." (Genesis 4:12), "You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth." And God did not allow Himself to take pleasure in His creations.

Musar

Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Chanin of Tzipporin suggests that Jacob overheard angels calling him "sun" when the sun unexpectedly set, explaining Jacob's reaction to Joseph's dream about the sun bowing down to him. This interpretation of Jacob's name being "sun" as a secret makes sense in this context.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayetzei, Torah Ohr 20

Bereshit Rabbah 68,10, quotes Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Chanin of Tzipporin as offering a strange comment on 28,11, where the Torah reports Jacob camping overnight in an open field, because the sun had set unexpectedly. He claims that Jacob had overheard the ministering angels saying: "The sun has set, the sun has set." When Joseph told his brothers and his father about the dream in which eleven stars, sun and moon bowed down to him (Genesis 37,9), Jacob proclaimed: "Who has told him that my name is "sun"?! This sounds very strange. Why should the fact that Jacob's name was שמש be considered a secret? Considering what I have written, this Midrash makes sense.

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that the expression "שנינה" is a form of speech, while Rabbeinu Bahya discusses the significance of male and female forces in the cosmos and the need for knowledge of Torah for the soul to return to its origins. Additionally, Rabbeinu Bahya delves into the mystical dimension of the construction of the Tabernacle, linking it to the Shechinah in the west and the four geographical directions associated with patriarchs and King David.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 25:10:6

You are aware already that the masculine element is the predominating one. The male is the active element, the female element is responsive by nature. This is what Solomon referred to in Proverbs 19,2 when he wrote: גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב, “it is also not good for a person (soul) to lack knowledge.” He meant that the soul cannot attain its objective, its fulfillment, unless it possesses intelligence. There is no need to add that if this is true of the creatures in our “lower” terrestrial world this is certainly true of the world of the planets and the stars. In that part of the cosmos we also have male and female forces such as the sun being a masculine, active force, whereas the moon is responsive, feminine. This is why both of these forces appeared in Joseph’s dream (Genesis 37,9), i.e. the masculine and the feminine force in the middle part of the cosmos, the world of the planets and stars. Even in the celestial regions this division between masculine and feminine forces exists as it is the function of the soul to eventually return to G’d as a soul which has absorbed divine intelligence [as if the feminine נפש after it had become impregnated with the masculine שכל, intelligence, had achieved its purpose, Ed]. Both of the cherubs, which represented the male and female elements in the celestial spheres were constructed out of the pure gold of the kapporet, the lid. of the Ark, in a single piece, מקשה. This kapporet was an allusion to the throne of G’d the source of חכמה, wisdom. The word כפורת, of course, is derived from כפרה, atonement. A return of the soul to its origin is impossible unless atonement for sins committed while inside the body had first been obtained. Similarly, without knowledge of the Torah a return to its holy roots is also impossible as during its stay on earth the soul otherwise becomes contaminated by the body. We learn from this whole description of the construction of the Holy Ark that by means of knowledge of the Torah which is stored inside the Holy Ark the soul as well as the intelligence, both of which were “emanated” from celestial regions down to man on earth from their origin near the throne of the attribute כבוד will be able to regain their roots if they make prudent use of their potential. This is hinted at when the Torah describes the cherubs as סוככים בכנפיהם על הכפורת, “they shall have their wings spread out shielding the cover with their wings.”

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 26:25:1

והיו שמונה קרשים, “there shall be eight beams, etc.” Two of the eight beams overlapped with the beams forming the long sides of the Tabernacle, one at the southern end and one at the northern end. There were therefore six beams left which formed the western wall without any part of them serving as extensions of the long walls. This is what was meant by verse 22 ולירכתי המשכן תעשה ששה קרשים, “and for the end of the Tabernacle you are to construct 6 beams. This verse reveals a mystical dimension. Seeing that the Shechinah which is situated in the west is composed of 6 extremities, the west is referred to as ים in order to allude to this fact. The west is known as ים, “ocean” because the ocean is a collection point for all the waters just as the Shechinah is a collection point for all the directions of the globe from the farthest extremities. The order of the four geographical directions of the world in the celestial entourage, מרכבה, are: the three patriarchs of the world (Avraham Yitzchak and Yaakov), and David. South ranks first as Avraham was the first of the patriarchs, and it is written of him that Avraham journeyed southwards to the land of the south (Genesis 20,1). This is followed by north, as Yitzchak made a supreme effort at the time he was bound on the altar. This is followed by east seeing it is written of Yaakov that the sun shone for him (Genesis 32,32), and his son Joseph has also been compared to the sun (Genesis 37,9). Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 84,11) have said quoting Yaakov: “who told this one (Joseph) that my name is “sun?” West is the סוף, the end; it is the harp on which David played which used to play all by itself on occasion (Berachot 3). This direction was called ים, i.e. the sea known as ים האחרון, the westernmost sea. In order to allude to these four great men the directions of the earth have been identified with these people through their names.

Rashi on I Kings 9:7:2

And a mockery. As the Targum [Yonoson rendered], ולשועי, [i.e.,] they will tell about the evils that have befallen them and will scoff at them, as in, “ויספר [=and he told,” which the Targum rendered] ואשתעי. The expression “שנינה” is also an expression of speech as it is written [in Scriptures], “and you shall repeat them [ושננתם] to your children.”

Second Temple

The Signs mentioned in Job 38:32 are believed to refer to the Mazzaroth, with some scholars connecting them to Gen. 37:9 and Jacob's blessing in ch. 49. Philo interpreted the twelve tribes as corresponding to the twelve heavenly bodies, a concept also found in Rabbinical tradition where each tribe had a Sign on its banner. The relationship between the Zodiac and the tribes' founders is not extensively explored in earlier sources.

On Rewards and Punishments, Appendix 13

It seems to be agreed that the Signs are mentioned in Job 38:32 under the name of the Mazzaroth (a word copied without translation by the LXX), and many modern scholars have thought that Gen. 37:9 actually refers to them, some indeed finding traces of them in the blessing of Jacob in ch. 49. Whether this is so or not, Philo naturally took the words so, but the tone of that passage, where Joseph’s presumption is condemned, is very different from this, where the twelve tribes are the earthly counterpart of the twelve great heavenly bodies. It would be interesting to know how far the idea was current in Philo’s time. An article by Feuchtwanger, in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1915, pp. 241–267, gives an account of the place held by the Zodiac in Rabbinical tradition, but mostly in later times, and does not dwell much upon its relation to the tribes and their founders. One point mentioned (also by the Jewish Encyclopaedia, s.v. Zodiac) is the tradition that each of the tribes had one of the Signs on its banner.

Talmud

The dream of Joseph in which the sun, moon, and stars bow down to him symbolizes his father, mother, and brothers, respectively. Despite part of the dream being fulfilled, not all of it was realized as his mother had already passed away. Rabbi Berekhya also notes that even if part of a dream comes true, not all of it necessarily will be fulfilled, using Joseph's dream as an example.

Berakhot 55a:17

On a similar note, Rabbi Berekhya said: Even though part of a dream is fulfilled, all of it is not fulfilled. From where do we derive this? From the story of Joseph’s dream, as it is written: “And he said: Behold, I have dreamed yet a dream: and, behold, the sun and the moon

Berakhot 55b:1

and eleven stars bowed down to me” (Genesis 37:9), and at that time his mother was no longer alive. According to the interpretation of the dream, the moon symbolizes Joseph’s mother. Even this dream that was ultimately fulfilled contained an element that was not fulfilled.

Targum

Joseph has a dream where the sun, moon, and eleven stars bow down to him, which he tells his brothers about. (Onkelos Genesis 37:9, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:9)

Onkelos Genesis 37:9

He had another dream and told it to his brothers. He said, Behold! I dreamed another dream. The sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:9

And he dreamed again another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, Behold, I have dreamed yet a dream, and lo, the sun, and the moon, and eleven stars, bowed to me.

וַיְסַפֵּ֣ר אֶל־אָבִיו֮ וְאֶל־אֶחָיו֒ וַיִּגְעַר־בּ֣וֹ אָבִ֔יו וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֔וֹ מָ֛ה הַחֲל֥וֹם הַזֶּ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָלָ֑מְתָּ הֲב֣וֹא נָב֗וֹא אֲנִי֙ וְאִמְּךָ֣ וְאַחֶ֔יךָ לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺ֥ת לְךָ֖ אָֽרְצָה׃ 10 J And when he told it to his father and brothers, his father berated him. “What,” he said to him, “is this dream you have dreamed? Are we to come, I and your mother and your brothers, and bow low to you to the ground?”
Joseph shared his dream with his family twice, leading to his father rebuking him to prevent envy and hatred from his brothers. Prostration after Shemoneh Esreh allows for prayer in all three positions of Moses, with no fixed text for supplications. Jacob doubted the prophetic nature of Joseph's dreams, questioning how his deceased wife could be included, indicating a belief in the resurrection of the dead. The Talmud discusses different forms of bowing, including kidda, keria, and hishtaḥava’a, as exemplified in biblical verses. In Genesis 37:10, Joseph's dream leads to his father's rebuke and disbelief in the idea of his family bowing down to him.

Commentary

Joseph related his dream about the sun, moon, and stars to his father and brothers a second time, with his father rebuking him to dissipate his brothers' anger. Jacob's rebuke was to prevent envy towards Joseph, as he pointed out the absurdity of the dream regarding his deceased wife, Bilhah. The dream was significant, as Jacob kept track of it, even though he outwardly dismissed it. The dream was understood to contain invalid elements, as no dream is without meaningless aspects. Joseph's father rebuked him to deflect his brothers' hatred, not because he did not want the dream to come true.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:10:1

ויגער בו אביו, “his father rebuked him;” in spite of his father’s obvious displeasure, he carefully retained this dream in his memory, awaiting future developments if any. He displayed anger only in order to minimise the jealousy of Joseph by his brothers [and because of his arrogance in telling about such dreams. Ed.]

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:10:1

AND HIS FATHER REBUKED HIM. When the word ga’ar (rebuked) is followed by a bet it means to rebuke. (Our verse reads va-yigar bo aviv (and his father rebuked him). In our verse ga’ar thus precedes a bet and henceforth is to be translated as rebuked.) When it is not followed by a bet it means to destroy. Compare, Behold, I will destroy (go’er) the seed for your hurt (Mal. 2:3). On the other hand, it is possible that the word go’er is used metaphorically in the aforementioned verse, its meaning being God will rebuke the seed and it will become frightened and not arise out of the ground. (In other words the term ga’ar always means to rebuke.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:10:2

I AND THY MOTHER. Thy mother refers to Bilhah his mother’s handmaiden who raised him. (Rachel was dead by then.)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:10:1

ויגער בו אביו, His father rebuked him, etc. He did so in order to remove the brothers' hatred towards him. He contradicted the interpretation of the dream by questioning how his father and mother could possibly bow down to Joseph? He implied that the sons of Jacob would not attain greatness through the Gentiles rather than through their father. Since the idea that his father would bow down to him was ludicrous, the brothers had no cause to worry. Jacob personally did not discount the dream, however.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:10:1

ויגער בו אביו, “his father rebuked him;” Yaakov wanted to nullify the meaning of the dream in the presence of Joseph’s brothers; this is why he demonstrated anger in order to divert their anger from him and said:

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:10:2

הבא נבא אני ואמך ואחיך, “do you really expect me and your brothers to come and bow down before you?” Seeing that Joseph’s mother was already dead, Yaakov wanted to demonstrate that the other parts of the dream could also not be taken seriously. Nonetheless, Yaakov took the dream far more seriously than he let on and that is why the Torah added: “his father kept careful track of the matter.” He knew that the dream was very significant and awaited its realisation at a future date. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,12 the Holy Spirit told Yaakov to remember the matter, i.e. as if the Torah had written שמור את הדבר, “remember the matter well!”

Radak on Genesis 37:10:1

ויספר אל אביו, the reason why he told only this dream to his father was because his father appeared in that dream, whereas neither his father nor his mother had been featured in his other dreams.

Radak on Genesis 37:10:2

אני ואמך, I and your mother? Just as the dream could not possibly relate to your mother who has died already, so it cannot very well relate to me either. Therefore, you would do well to dismiss this dream entirely. Our sages, on the other hand, learn from this dream that every dream no matter how accurately it foreshadows an event in the future, contains some element which is not going to come true. (Berachot 55)

Ramban on Genesis 37:10:1

AND HE RELATED IT TO HIS FATHER. He told his father of this dream concerning the sun, moon and stars, but not of the first one concerning the sheaves because he himself recognized its interpretation and knew that the sun alluded to his father, and his father rebuked him. (Ramban’s intent is to say that the father’s rebuke is proof that he knew that Joseph understood the meaning of the dream.) The meaning of the expression, And he related it to his father and to his brothers, is that he related it to them a second time, (Since it is already stated in Verse 9 that he related this dream concerning the sun, moon and stars to his brothers, it must mean here in Verse 10 that he related it to them a second time.) as he told it to his father in their presence, and his father rebuked him in order to dissipate their anger towards him. The meaning of the expression, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? is the same as, What is man that Thou shouldst take cognizance of him? (Psalms 144:3.) That is to say, “What is this dream? It is nothing that you should relate for it is nothing but idle talk.” Alternatively, the meaning of the rebuke may be: “How dare you dream such a dream? It is but your conceit and youth that bring up such matters in your heart,” just as it says concerning dreams, Thy thoughts came upon thy bed; (Daniel 2:29. Here understood literally: “The thoughts you entertained during the day came with you to bed, and you dreamed about them.”) And imaginings upon my bed. (Ibid., 4:2. Understood in the same sense as above.)

Ramban on Genesis 37:10:2

SHALL I AND THY MOTHER AND THY BRETHREN INDEED COME TO PROSTRATE OURSELVES TO THEE TO THE EARTH? “Is not your mother long since dead?” Jacob, however, was not aware that the matter alluded to Bilhah who had raised him as if she were his mother. From here, our Rabbis derived the principle that there is no dream that does not contain invalid matters. Jacob’s intention in pointing out the invalidity of the dream was to cause his sons to forget the matter so that they should not be envious of him because of it. Jacob said to Joseph: “Just as it is impossible for the dream to be fulfilled with respect to your mother, so is the remainder invalid.” Thus the language of Rashi. In my opinion, at the time when Jacob went down to Egypt, Bilhah and Zilpah had already died (See Ramban 46:15.) since, in enumerating the seventy souls that went down to Egypt, Scripture states, Besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, (Further, 46:26.) and it does not say “besides Jacob’s wives and his sons’ wives.” (Thus, there is proof that Bilhah had already died at the time Jacob went down to Egypt. So how then could Rashi say that the mother in the dream, symbolized by the moon, who was to bow before Joseph in Egypt, referred to Bilhah?) And if you say that because they were concubines Scripture does not want to say “besides Jacob’s sons’ wives and his concubines,” yet we find that they are referred to as his father’s wives. (Above, Verse 2. Why then does Scripture not say “besides Jacob’s wives and his sons’ wives?” Thus it is clear that they had already died.) Besides, it is unlikely that “the moon” in the dream alludes to his concubine. Instead, my opinion concerning the matter of the dream is that the sun is an allusion to Jacob, and the moon alludes to the children of his household and all his wives, which comprised Jacob’s seed. Thus, the moon alludes to the fact that all his seed will prostrate themselves to Joseph, these being all the seventy souls that issued from his loins, since they all prostrated themselves when they came before him. The eleven stars represent the brothers who bowed down before him separately, (This explains why the brothers are singled out from all of Jacob’s seed, alluded to by the moon.) before their father arrived, as it is written, And when Joseph came into the house, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and prostrated themselves to him to the earth. (Further, 43:26.)

Rashbam on Genesis 37:10:1

מה החלום הזה?, even if Joseph’s mother had still been alive, Yaakov would still have rebuked Joseph for having such a dream.

Rashi on Genesis 37:10:1

ויספר אל אביו ואל אחיו AND HE TOLD IT TO HIS FATHER AND TO HIS BRETHREN — After he had related it to his brothers (see 5:9) he again related it to his father in their presence.

Rashi on Genesis 37:10:2

ויגער בו AND HIS FATHER REBUKED HIM because he was arousing hatred against himself by relating the dream.

Rashi on Genesis 37:10:3

הבוא נבוא SHALL WE INDEED COME — “Is not your mother long since dead?” He did not, however, understand that the statement really alluded to Bilhah who had brought him up as though she were his own mother (Genesis Rabbah 84:11). Our Rabbis inferred from here that there is no dream but has some absurd incidents (Berakhot 55). Jacob’s intention in pointing out the absurdity of Joseph’s mother, who was dead, bowing down to him was to make his sons forget the whole matter so that they should not envy him, and on this account he said to him, “Shall we indeed come etc.” — meaning, just as it (the fulfillment of the dream) is impossible in the case of your mother so the remainder of the dream is absurd.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:10:1

Die Brüder hatten diesen Traum zuerst gar nicht auf sich bezogen. Als sie aber den Vater ihn so deuten hörten, fingen sie auch an, daran zu glauben und beneideten ihn um die ihm bevorstehende Zukunft.

Sforno on Genesis 37:10:1

מה החלום הזה?, this is only a reflection of unworthy thoughts. It shows us that you plan to rule over us. Your nocturnal dreams reflect your thinking when you are awake.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:10:1

After he had told it to his brothers he retold it to his father in their presence. You might ask: Why did Yoseif not tell the first dream to his father? The answer is: Yoseif knew that most dreams follow their verbal interpretation, and his brothers interpreted it for the good, so he did not want to tell it to his father. But his brothers did not interpret his second dream for him, as they realized he was telling them his dreams so they will make a good interpretation. Thus he had to tell it to his father so he will interpret it for him. His father did so, and rebuked him so that his brothers would not hate him. (Maharshal)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:10:2

Because he was bringing hatred upon himself. I.e., Yoseif was bringing hatred upon himself. That is why Yaakov rebuked him — not because Yaakov did not want the dream to come true. For it is written in the next verse, “His father kept the matter in mind.” [See Rashi there.]

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:10:3

But he did not know that these things were referring to Bilhah who had raised him like his mother. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yaakov did not know this? Perhaps Yaakov knew, but he questioned [the dream] for the reason Rashi had given before: that Yoseif should not bring hatred onto himself. Re’m asks [the question this way]: Regarding the explanation of “These things were referring to Bilhah,” Rashi says that Yaakov did not know. But had he known, he would not have said, “Has your mother not already died?” lest his sons realize [that his comment was just a trick]. Yet, regarding the explanation of “No dream is without meaningless things,” why did Yaakov not fear that his sons, too, might know this rule and thus say that his comment was just a trick? Maharshal answers: [In the first explanation,] had Yaakov known that these things were referring to Bilhah, his sons surely would have known too, because this is a matter grasped through reasoning. Saying, “Shall I, your mother and your brothers come...” would not make them ignore the matter. But [in the second explanation,] it then says, “His father kept the matter in mind,” because Yaakov had an oral tradition that no dream is without meaningless things. His sons however, did not know this tradition.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:10:4

However, our Sages learned from here that no dream is without meaningless things... Rashi is explaining why Yaakov questioned [the dream] and said, “Shall I, your mother and your brothers come...” Did he not know that no dream is without meaningless things? Perforce, [he said it] “To make his sons ignore...”

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:10:5

But Yaakov intended to make his sons ignore... I.e., our Sages hold that “your mother” must mean Yoseif’s true mother. However, “No dream is without meaningless things.”

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:10

He related it to his father and to his brothers. Unlike in the first dream, Jacob is represented in this dream. For this reason, Joseph also related the dream to his father. 3 And his father rebuked him, and said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed? This is certainly not a meaningful dream. Considering that the sun and the moon are metaphors for one’s parents, will I and your mother and your brothers come to prostrate ourselves to you to the earth? Surely we will not. Your mother is already dead.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:10:1

ויספר אל אביו, “he told his father, etc.” He had not told his father about his first dream, seeing that he was certain that he understood the meaning of his dream. Seeing that the subject of his second dream concerned his father, he told him about it.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:10:2

ואל אחיו, “and to his brothers.” After he had told this dream to his father, he told it to his brothers in the presence of his father. His father rebuked him [not because of its content, Ed.] but in order to deflect his brothers’ fury from him. Some commentators ask that seeing all dreams supposedly are influenced by the interpretation given to them, (Berachot 58) why was this dream fulfilled altogether, seeing that Yaakov had rejected the original interpretation as soon as he heard the dream in front of the brothers? They give a very forced answer, saying that seeing Joseph had already told the dream to his father previously, and at that time his father had not disagreed with the apparent interpretation, it was now too late to do anything about it. Personally, I do not think that the question has any merit at all. Rather, on the contrary, the reason that fulfillment was so long delayed was because Yaakov had protested the obvious interpretation. This is further proof that the sages were correct in saying that the results of the dreams are greatly influenced by who interprets them and how. [The Talmud, on the folio quoted, illustrates the point with numerous examples. Ed.] His father’s objection to the obvious interpretation of his dream resulted in it coming true so many years later.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:10:3

הבא נבא אני ואמך, “are indeed I, your mother etc., going to come and bow down, etc.?” How could this be seeing that your mother has died already? Yaakov was not aware that the moon in Joseph’s dream portrayed Bilhah who had raised Joseph as his foster mother. This is Rashi’s interpretation of our verse. Nachmanides writes that in his opinion Bilhah had died before Yaakov moved to Egypt so that she had no opportunity to prostrate herself before her stepson. The Torah, when listing the names of who went down to Egypt, speaks of 70 souls, not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons. We are therefore forced to conclude that had Zilpah and Bilhah been alive still at that time, they would have been mentioned by name. If the Torah at that juncture (46,26) did not want to refer to them as “the wives of Yaakov,” seeing they were his concubines, this is no argument at all, seeing that we read the words נשי אביו, (37,2) and those words clearly refer to Bilhah and Zilpah. We must assume that the sun in the dream refers indeed to Yaakov, and the moon to the members of his household, including all his wives and their children, a total of 70. The eleven stars refer to Joseph’s eleven brothers bowing down to Joseph on their second trip to Egypt, before they had decided to immigrate to Egypt.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 19-22

“And he told it to his father and his brothers” [37:10]. Joseph told his dream again to his father and to his brothers. Jacob shouted at Joseph: what do you think with the dream, that I and your mother will bow down to you, even though your mother Rachel had died? That is, you say that the dream shows that the sun is the father and the moon is the mother and the eleven stars are eleven brothers. They will all bow down to you. Your mother died long ago. Therefore, the dream is nothing. Jacob said all this so that the brothers should not hate Joseph. However, Jacob thought in his heart that the dream would come true. The moon indicated Bilhah who had raised Joseph like a mother and she would bow down to Joseph. Our sages say that there is some foolishness in every dream. That is to say, even if the dream is true, there is some foolishness in that dream. Jacob wanted to remove the hatred from the brothers. That is why he said that the mother had died long ago, so the dream cannot be true. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:10.) Toldot Yizhak asks a question. Why was the first dream about sheaves of wheat, and the second dream was about stars? The explanation is that the brothers first came for grain, like the peasants who plow, sow and work the fields. However, the second time the brothers came with authority and honor. They were the brothers of Joseph the king. Therefore, the second dream was about stars. That is to say, important people. Therefore, Joseph did not see the sun and moon in the first dream, since the first time the brothers came alone, without father and without mother. However, the second time his father came with Bilhah. That is why the sun and moon were present in the second dream. This explains why Joseph told the second dream to his brothers and to his father. He only told the first dream to his brothers. The explanation is that the first dream was only that the brothers would come, but his father and mother did not yet come the first time. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:9–11.) Imre Noam asks a question. Why does the verse say concerning the sheaves, “and bowed low to my sheaf” [37:7]? This means, they bowed to my sheaf and concerning the stars it is not written that the stars bowed to my star. The explanation is that the stars are in the sky, so Joseph could not say that your stars bowed to my star. The brothers would have asked Joseph, did you have your star in your hand that you say that the stars bowed to your star? However, with the sheaves, Joseph could well say, I had my sheaf in my hand and your sheaves bowed down to my sheaf. (Imre Noam, Genesis, 37:7.) Another explanation is that the first dream was that the brothers came for grain and did not recognize Joseph. Thus, the brothers bowed down for the sake of the grain. Therefore, it is written, “and bowed low to my sheaf” [37:7]. That is to say, they bowed down for the sake of the grain and not to me and my honor. However, the stars showed that the brothers, father and mother, knew him well and bowed down for the sake of Joseph’s honor. Therefore, it says concerning the stars, “bowed to me” [37:9]. That is to say, you will bow for the sake of my honor.

Halakhah

After completing the fifth bow in prayer, one is to prostrate themselves on the ground, falling with their face towards the earth and uttering supplications. Prostration after Shemoneh Esreh is significant as it allows one to pray in all three positions of prayer employed by Moses. There is no fixed text for the prayers recited during prostration, allowing for individual creativity. "Kneeling" refers to falling on one's knees, "bowing" to bending over on one's face, and "prostration" to stretching out on hands and feet until flat with the face on the ground.

Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 5:13

Prostration, what is implied? After one lifts his head from the fifth bow, he sits on the ground, falls with his face towards the earth, and utters all the supplications (Megillah 22b relates that the custom of falling to the earth in supplication was followed in Babylonia in Talmudic times. The Tur, Orach Chayim 131, explains that the reason for prostrating oneself after Shemoneh Esreh is that by doing so, one prays in all three positions of prayer employed by Moses: sitting (during the verses of Praise), - "...and I sat on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights" (Deuteronomy 9:9), standing (during Shemoneh Esreh) - "And I stood on the mountain as on the first day for 40 days and 40 nights" (Deuteronomy 10:10), prostration - "And I fell down before God, as at first, for 40 days and 40 nights" (Deuteronomy 9:25). The Zohar (Parshat BaMidbar) explains that after prayer, a person should feel as if he has returned his soul to God and has no life-energy left. Thus, he falls to the ground where he receives new spiritual power.) that he desires. (i.e., there is no fixed text of prayers recited at this time. In his Seder Tefilot kol HaShanah, the Rambam writes: "It is our custom to make supplication while prostrated with these statements and verses; sometimes, mentioning them all and sometimes, mentioning only some of them." Thus, though there was a basic text for these prayers (which is, to a large extent, included in the extended Tachanun recited on Mondays and Thursdays), what a person actually said was still left to his own creative impulse. There are two different versions of תחנון today. The תחנון of Nusach Ha'ari is based on Psalm 25, whereas that of Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach Sefard is based on Psalm 6.) "Kneeling" always refers to [falling to] one's knees; (Megillah 22b derives this law from I Kings 8:54: "And so it was when Solomon completed his Prayer to God... that he rose from kneeling on his knees.") "bowing," to bending over on one's face; (This is derived from I Kings 1:31: "And Bat Sheva bowed with her face to the earth" (ibid.).) and "prostration," to stretching out on one's hands and feet until he is flat with his face on the ground. (This is derived from Genesis 37:10: "Will it come to pass that I and your mother and brothers will prostrate ourselves to you on the ground" (ibid.). The definition of these three terms is important within the context of the following halachah.)

Jewish Thought

In Yalkut Parashat Vayera, it is discussed how Jacob doubted whether Yosef's dreams were prophetic since he questioned how his deceased wife Rachel could be included in the vision of bowing down before Yosef. This indicates Jacob's belief that the resurrection of the dead would occur in his lifetime.

On Resurrection of the Dead 1:2:1

1.2. In the Yalkut Parashat Vayera, about Yosef's dream repeated to his father in the words of Jacob in Genesis 37: מה החלום הזה אשר חלמת הבוא נבוא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה Are we to come, I and your mother and your brothers, and bow down before you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10) They say from this: היה יעקב אבינו סבור, שתחית המתים מגעת בימיו, שנאמר: הבא נבא אני ואמך ואחיך רחל מתה, ואת אומר אני ואמך Our father, Jacob, imagined that the resurrection of the dead would arrive in his days; as it says: Are we to come, me and your mother? Rachel is dead, and you say, me and your mother?! (Yalkut, Parashat Vayera) It seems that Jacob the patriarch doubted whether the dreams were prophetic since he put into question the impossibility concerning the mother Rachel that was already dead.

Midrash

The text compares the experiences of Joseph with those of Zion, highlighting similarities in love, hatred, jealousy, and mistreatment. It also discusses Jacob's reaction to Joseph's dreams and suggests that Jacob believed in the revival of the dead. Additionally, it mentions a story involving Joshua commanding the sun to stand still.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:11

“He dreamed yet another dream, and related it to his brothers, and he said: Behold, I dreamed another dream: and, behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars prostrated themselves to me” (Genesis 37:9). “He dreamed yet another dream…” – when Joseph said: “Behold, the sun, the moon,” Jacob said: Who revealed to him that my name is sun? (See Bereshit Rabba 68:10.) Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Joshua said to the sun: Wayward slave, were you not purchased with the money of my father? Did my father not see you in the dream: “Behold, the sun, the moon…prostrated themselves to me”? You, too, stand still before me. Immediately, “the sun stood still, and the moon stopped” (Joshua 10:13). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him and said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed? Will we come, I, your mother, and your brothers, to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘So you will scold your prophets,’ as it is stated: “Now, why did you not scold Jeremiah of Anatot” (Jeremiah 29:27). (This quote, ascribed to the false prophet Shemaya the Neḥelamite, indicates that the Israelites were wont to scold their prophets. ) “And said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed”? Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: So, our patriarch Jacob believed that the revival of the dead would occur in his lifetime, as it is stated: “Will we come [havo navo]” – Will I and your brothers come? That is fine. “[Will we come,] I and your mother” – is your mother not dead; and you say: “I, your mother, and your brothers? (Nevertheless, the next verse states: “But his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:11).) However, Jacob our patriarch did not know that the matter related to Bilha, Rachel’s maidservant, who raised him as though she was his mother.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Miketz 6:1

[(Gen. 42:1:) THEN JACOB SAW THAT THERE WAS GRAIN IN EGYPT.] This text is related (to Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE < AND SEALS UP THE STARS >. (Gen. R. 91:1.) {It simply tells about Jacob and his children, since they were likened to them. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME.} Look at all Job's wisdom! Now who does not know that, if the Holy One tells the sun or the stars not to shine, they do not shine, as stated (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE … ? It simply tells about Jacob and his children, [since they were likened to them. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME]. (Job 9:7:) THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE. For the twenty-two years that Joseph stayed away from his brothers in Egypt, the Holy Spirit was hidden from Jacob and his children. He was no farther from them than a journey of four or five days; but they did not know that he was in Egypt. Now Jacob and his children had previously been great prophets. Do you want to understand? When Joseph had told them his dream, what did he say (in Gen. 37:10)? ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN < TO THE GROUND FOR YOU > ? Then, when he had been sold, they did not know where he was. Ergo (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE. Why so? So that the prophets would not be boastful. The Holy One therefore made his power known to them to show them that they were nothing. And so you find with the greatest of the prophets (i.e., Moses). Because he had said (in Deut. 1:17): BUT THE CASE WHICH IS TOO HARD FOR YOU < YOU SHALL BRING UNTO ME >…. (Sifre to Deut. 1:17 (17); Sanh. 8a.) The Holy One said to him: Are you able to interpret a difficult case? By your life, I am showing you! So, when the affair of the daughters of Zelophehad arrived, he began to have difficulties with it. When he did not know what to say, he brought their cause before the LORD, as stated (in Numb. 27:5): THEN MOSES BROUGHT THEIR CAUSE BEFORE THE LORD. The Holy One said to him: Was it not you who said (in Deut. 1:17): BUT THE CASE WHICH IS TOO HARD FOR YOU < YOU ARE TO BRING UNTO ME > … ? See, you do not know what the women know. (Numb. 27:7:) THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK WHAT IS RIGHT. These women have judged better than you. And so also in the case of Samuel, when he was measured against Moses and Aaron. Because he had said (in I Sam. 9:19): I AM THE SEER, the Holy One said to him: You have said: I AM THE SEER! By your life, tomorrow I am showing you whether you are a seer. Thus it is stated (in I Sam. 16:1): FILL YOUR HORN WITH OIL AND GO; {COME} [I AM SENDING YOU] UNTO JESSE THE BETHLEHEMITE BECAUSE I HAVE CHOSEN A KING FOR MYSELF AMONG HIS SONS. When he had gone, what is written (in I Sam. 16:6)? AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN HE HAD COME, THAT HE SAW ELIAB AND SAID: SURELY THE LORD'S ANOINTED IS STANDING BEFORE HIM. The Holy One said to him: Are you the one who said (in I Sam. 9:19): I AM THE SEER? (I Sam. 16:7:) DO NOT LOOK UPON HIS APPEARANCE…. And so also in the case of Jacob [and his children], they were prophets and sages, and nothing was hidden from them. When Joseph was sold, they did not know about him until the Holy One [wanted] < them to know >. Ergo (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE….

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Quoting Commentary

Yosef's dreams of domination came after receiving a special tunic, leading him to believe he was elected leader of the clan. Rashi translates "rebuked" as excommunicated, deriving from Genesis 37:10. Siftei Chakhamim and Rashi discuss prostrating with extended arms and legs. Rashi interprets "byword" as recounting misfortunes, similar to the Targum of Genesis 37:10. Rambam explains "rebuked" as the Aramaic translation of Genesis 37:10.

Rambam on Mishnah Taanit 1:7:1

נזופים – rebuked. It is the Aramaic translation of (Genesis 37:10): “his father berated him,” – that his father berated him (in Aramaic).

Rashi on Avot 6:2:2

"rebuked (nazouf)": excommunicated; as "and his father rebuked him" (Genesis 37:10), we translate [into Aramaic as] ounezaf beh avohi.

Rashi on II Chronicles 7:20:3

and a byword - Heb. וְלִשְׁנִינָה, like (Deut. 6:7): וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ, “and you shall teach them.” [It is] an expression of recounting misfortunes. Similarly, the Targum of (Gen. 37:10) וַיְסַפֵּר “And he told,” is וְאִשְׁתָּעֵי, and [the Targum of] וְלִשְׁנִינָה is וּלְשׁוּעֵי.

Redeeming Relevance; Exodus, CHAPTER 6 Clothing Aharon 45

In this regard, it is significant that Yosef does not have his dreams about domination over his family until after his father gives him the special tunic. (See Thomas Mann’s humorous, fanciful account of the tunic’s lineage and Yosef’s hunger for it in Joseph and his Brothers (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986) pp. 314–23.) It is as if the acquisition of this garment makes him believe, perhaps only somewhat incorrectly, that he has been elected to be the leader of the clan. It is to this perception that his father Ya’akov addresses himself when he rhetorically asks his son, “Am I also to bow down to you?” (Bereshit 37:10). (Bereshit 37:10.) When he hears this, Yosef is silent.

Siftei Chakhamim, Numbers 33:52:2

On which to prostrate themselves. Rashi wishes to prove that משכית is in the sense of a floor, since it is written in the verse ואבן משכית ["overlaid stones"]. He also wishes to prove his comment, “To prostrate themselves with arms and legs extended.” [He derives this from the fact that] it is written, “On which to prostrate yourselves,” and regarding Yosef it is written (Bereishis 37:10), “To prostrate to you upon the ground” which refers to extending the arms and legs.

Second Temple

In Book II 19:3 of On Dreams, a dreamer is gently rebuked by his father for his dream, as referenced in Genesis 37:10.

On Dreams, Book II 19:3

[135] And therefore one of this sort is gently rebuked by his father, not Jacob, but by that right reason which is higher and greater than Jacob. “What is this dream which you dreamt?” (Gen. 37:10), he says.

Talmud

The Talmud discusses different forms of bowing, including kidda, which involves falling on one's face, keria, which involves bowing on one's knees, and hishtaḥava’a, which involves bowing with arms and legs spread in total submission, as exemplified in biblical verses such as Bathsheba bowing, Solomon kneeling, and Jacob's question to Joseph.

Berakhot 34b:3

Having mentioned Solomon bowing, the Gemara distinguishes between various types of bowing. The Sages taught in a baraita: The term kidda means bowing upon one’s face, with his face toward the ground, as it is stated: “Then Bathsheba bowed [vatikod] with her face to the ground” (I Kings 1:31). Keria means bowing upon one’s knees, as regarding Solomon it is stated: He finished praying and “he rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikkeroa] upon his knees.” Finally, hishtaḥava’a, that is bowing with one’s hands and legs spread in total submission, as it is stated in Jacob’s question to Joseph in response to his dream: “Shall we, I and your mother and your brothers, come and bow down [lehishtaḥavot] to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10).

Megillah 22b:16

Apropos Rav’s practice of prostrating himself, the Gemara continues with a discussion of different forms of bowing. The Sages taught in a baraita: The term kidda indicates falling upon one’s face, with one’s face toward the ground, as it is stated: “Then Bathsheba bowed [vatikod] with her face to the ground” (I Kings 1:31). Keria means bowing upon one’s knees, as it is stated with regard to Solomon: He finished praying and “he rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikkeroa] upon his knees” (I Kings 8:54). Finally, hishtaḥava’a, that is bowing with one’s arms and legs spread in total submission, as it is stated that Jacob asked, in response to Joseph’s dream: “Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down [lehishtaḥavot] to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10).

Shevuot 16b:9

The Gemara discusses the different forms of bowing in greater detail. The Sages taught: The term kidda indicates falling upon one’s face, and so the verse states: “Then Bathsheba bowed [vatikkod] with her face to the ground” (I Kings 1:31). Keria means descending upon one’s knees, and so the verse states with regard to Solomon: “He rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikero’a] upon his knees” (I Kings 8:54). Hishtaḥava’a, this is prostrating oneself while spreading one’s arms and legs in total submission, and so the verse states that Jacob asked, in response to Joseph’s relating of his dream: “Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down [lehishtaḥavot] to you to the ground” (Genesis 37:10), i.e., spread out completely on the ground.

Targum

In Genesis 37:10, Joseph tells his dream to his father and brothers, leading his father to rebuke him for the idea of his family bowing down to him. Both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan versions of the text emphasize the disbelief and disapproval of the dream.

Onkelos Genesis 37:10

He told it to his father and to his brothers. His father rebuked him, and said to him, What is this dream that you dreamed? Shall I, your mother and your brothers come and prostrate themselves on the ground to you?

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:10

And he related it to his father and to his brethren: but his father rebuked him, and said to him, What dream is this that thou hast dreamed? Shall I, and thy mother, and thy brethren, really come and bow before thee to the ground?

וַיְקַנְאוּ־ב֖וֹ אֶחָ֑יו וְאָבִ֖יו שָׁמַ֥ר אֶת־הַדָּבָֽר׃ 11 J So his brothers were wrought up at him, and his father kept the matter in mind.
Chasidut emphasizes the importance of spiritual preparation before prayer and commandments, with good intentions leading to spiritual growth and fulfillment of commandments. Kabbalah discusses envy as a cause of punishment, seen in figures like Cain, the ten tribes of Israel, and Yeravam. Midrash highlights Joseph's prophetic dreams causing tension and foreshadowing future events, leading to his betrayal and descent into Egypt. Musar focuses on studying Torah for its own sake, connecting Esau's jealousy to the punishment of Jewish scholars, and questioning interpretations of biblical verses. Quoting Commentary examines the active anticipation implied in observing the Sabbath, the need for vigilance and caution in making covenants, and the sanctity of thoughts and intentions. Second Temple discusses Joseph's dream of the sun, moon, and stars bowing to him, reflecting on the power of God. Tanakh and Targum both mention Joseph's dream causing jealousy among his brothers, with his father keeping the matter in mind.

Chasidut

The text from Kedushat Levi in Genesis discusses the importance of preparing oneself spiritually before addressing God, using the analogy of clothing and a house as a way to approach prayer and commandments. In Exodus, the mention of the Sabbath each day is emphasized by Nachmanides to show the anticipation and preparation required for honoring the Sabbath. Leviticus emphasizes that good intentions are accounted as fulfilling commandments, leading to spiritual growth and the opportunity to fulfill more commandments. In Deuteronomy, the yearning to perform commandments even in exile will lead to the ability to fulfill them in the Holy Land. Tzava'at HaRivash, Flames of Faith, and Ba'al Shem Tov texts all discuss the importance of being constantly attentive to fulfilling mitzvot, with the Ba'al Shem Tov particularly focusing on the connection between thought, speech, and purity.

Ba'al Shem Tov, Vaetchanan 6:1

This is a very great thing. For then, a person knows that he did [a mitzvah] on that day, and created one angel – “And if there is for him an angel, an intercessor, one among a thousand (A thousand accusers.) to vouch for a man’s uprightness, then He will be gracious to him, and say, ‘Deliver him from descending to the pit, I have found a ransom’” (Job 33:23). This is alluded to in [the verse]: “He who keeps (shomer) the commandment will not know an evil thing…” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). That is, when a person commits himself to being constantly attentive – from morning till eve – for a mitzvah to present itself to him. This is the meaning of shomer, as in “And his father watched out for the matter (shomar et hadavar)” (Genesis 37:11). Then, the result will be that he “will not know an evil thing.” That is, he will not have an improper seminal emission, which is called “evil,” G-d forbid. (The Torah considers the act of spilling seed as one of the most grievous sins possible, so much so that it is given the unique title of “evil” – ra. (As in the verse: “And Er, Judah’s first-born, was evil in the sight of G-d…” (Genesis 38:7), on which Rashi comments that he intentionally spilled his seed on the ground.) According to Kabbalah, this act was part of the sin of Adam, and causes damage even when it happens unintentionally, such as during sleep. Much of Chasidic thought deals with rectifying this sin on the personal and cosmic level. In addition to the mystical power of mitzvah observance to engender purity, the Baal Shem Tov may have meant that constant attentiveness to fulfilling the will of G-d protects a man from impure thoughts during the day, so that his dreams will be pure at night. This is as the Talmud states: “A person shouldn’t think about illicit things during the day that will bring him to impurity in the night” (Kesuvos 46a).) This is alluded to in the verse: “The kindness of G-d is all the day” (Psalms 52:3). That is, each and every day, you must do kindness to G-d. Tzava’as HaRivash, p. 3b

Ba'al Shem Tov, Vayeshev 3:1

And his father guarded the matter. (Genesis 37:11) Thought precedes speech, and gives birth to it. Thus, thought is called “father,” and speech is called “offspring.” “His father guarded the matter” means that thought guards speech, so that a person only speaks that which is appropriate. Noam Megadim, Mishpotim

Flames of Faith 1:11

According to Jewish mystics, Joseph was the paradigm of virtue and righteousness, the personification of tzaddik yesod olam, a man of such holiness that his merit sustains the entire world. Joseph was also Jacob’s favorite son, and they shared a special relationship. (See Gen. 30:25 and Rashi’s comment on that verse; Gen. 37:2 and the respective Rashi; also Gen. 37:11, 37:35, 45:27-28.) When Jacob lay dying he called Joseph and requested burial in the Land of Israel. Although Joseph promised that he would ensure his father’s interment in Israel (Gen. 47:30), Jacob was not satisfied and demanded that an oath be sworn in God’s name: “And he [Jacob] said ‘Swear to me’ and he [Joseph] swore to him, and Israel [another name for Jacob] bowed back toward the head of the bed” (Gen. 47:31).

Kedushat Levi, Deuteronomy, Eikev 7

Deuteronomy 8,1. “The entire commandment that I ‎enjoin upon you this day is so that you will live (thrive) and ‎multiply and be able to take possession of the land, etc.‎‏"‏‎; ‎‎ We have a rule that even if a person is unable to observe all ‎of the commandments of the Torah, especially in exile, when we ‎are all unable to fulfill the commandments which are applicable ‎to people resident in the Holy Land, as long as such people yearn ‎for the day when they will be able to observe these ‎commandments, G’d will help them to be able to fulfill these ‎commandments in the Holy Land in due course.‎ This is the message Moses conveys to the people at this ‎juncture when speaking of ‎כל המצוה‎, “the entire complex of ‎commandments.” If you will yearn, starting now, to perform ‎these commandments as soon as the opportunity will present ‎itself, you will surely enjoy the merit of doing so in person.‎ The word ‎תשמרון‎ in this verse is to be understood in the same ‎way as when Yaakov is reported when reacting to Joseph’s dream ‎in which 11 stars and sun and moon bow down to him. At that ‎point (Genesis 37,11) the Torah writes: ‎ואביו שמר את הדבר‎, “his ‎father looked forward expectantly to the matter.” ‎‎[Contrary to Joseph’s brothers, who were outraged by ‎Joseph’s dream of lording it over them, his father did not dismiss ‎it out of hand, although he pointed out that Joseph’s deceased ‎mother could certainly not bow down to him. Ed.]‎

Kedushat Levi, Exodus, Beshalach 56

Once we have appreciated this, we will also understand the ‎opinion of Nachmanides who writes that it is a commandment to ‎mention the Sabbath on each of the days preceding it. This is the ‎reason why when we recite the daily psalm at the end of our daily ‎morning prayers we commence with mentioning what day of the ‎week it is by linking it to the Sabbath, i.e. “today is the first day ‎of the Sabbath.” [We do not say: “this is the first day of ‎the week,” for instance. Ed.] According to Nachmanides ‎this is the reason that the Torah writes ‎זכור את יום השבת לקדשו‎, ‎‎“remember the day of the Sabbath to sanctify it,” instead of ‎merely writing: “remember the Sabbath to sanctify it.” (Exodus ‎‎20,8). The message is that we are to remember the Sabbath every ‎day of the week, the word ‎זכור‎ not being in the imperative mode ‎but in the infinitive mode. By doing so we indicate how we look ‎forward to keeping the Sabbath at the end of the week. Having ‎looked forward to the Sabbath in such a fashion ensures that ‎when the day arrives we will honour it with all our heart and will ‎not, G’d forbid, commit any act which would desecrate its ‎holiness. From all the above it follows that if Moses had ‎announced the fact that the manna would not descend on the ‎Sabbath as soon as He had been told about this by G’d, the people ‎could have prepared themselves for this day until Friday and the ‎desecration by some people of the Sabbath might well have been ‎avoided. The sudden announcement shortly before the onset of ‎the Sabbath took everyone by surprise and resulted in some ‎people not treating the Sabbath with the respect due to it. The word ‎לשמור‎ in our verse need not be understood as “to ‎observe,” but may equally well be understood as “to await,” as it ‎is understood in Genesis 37,11 where it describes Yaakov’s ‎reaction to Joseph’s dream in which he saw sun and moon bowing ‎down to him. It means that Yaakov awaited further developments ‎before deciding if there was any substance to Joseph’s dream. This ‎is also how Rashi understands the word ‎לשמור‎ in our verse, ‎when he writes that Moses was punished by G’d not excluding ‎him from the accusation leveled at the community at large. He ‎was the indirect cause of the desecration of the Sabbath by the ‎people, as he had failed to prepare the people for the advent of ‎the Sabbath. They should have eagerly awaited that day, i.e. have ‎looked forward to it with great expectations.‎

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayetzei 31

Genesis 31,13. “I am the G’d of Betel to Whom you have ‎vowed, etc.” The spelling of the word ‎ביתאל‎ both here and in ‎‎35,1 suggests that a house may serve more than one function. It ‎may serve a person to dwell in, just as clothing serves the body as ‎a “house” to surround him with a feeling of security and ‎familiarity. When you see the clothes a person wears, this serves ‎as a preparation to making the acquaintance of the personality ‎behind these clothes. When you see the house a person lives in, ‎you get an initial impression of what kind of a person lives in ‎such a house. ‎When a person prepares to “meet” his Creator, in prayer, etc., ‎he also has to prepare himself for what to expect, by performing ‎certain commandments that serve his soul, much as his clothing ‎serves his body. One of the most appropriate “introductions” ‎prior to addressing G’d is to do so in a house designated for this ‎purpose, i.e. a synagogue. The type of “preparations” used, ‎depend on the importance of the “interview” one expects to have ‎with one’s Creator. Issues involving life and death, obviously ‎deserve a more careful preparation.‎ In psalms 84,2 and 84,3 respectively, the authors (sons of ‎Korach) describe their yearning for entering either the dwellings ‎of G’d on earth, or at least to be allowed to enter the courtyards ‎of these dwellings. They speak of both their body (flesh) and their ‎‎“heart,” (spirit) yearning for this. They hope that admission to ‎these sites will enable them to shout for joy to the living G’d. ‎Their yearnings reflect the fact that they are in exile, and they ‎pray that they not be treated worse than birds that always can ‎return to their nest. They are aware that in order to really come ‎close to G’d, they must first make the appropriate preparations, ‎i.e. build a Temple with the courtyards surrounding it. The ‎psalmist clearly suggests, at the end of verse 3, that only after ‎these preparations have been made can his heart and body rejoice ‎having come closer to His Creator. He can then approach G’d ‎being certain that he, on his part, has made the appropriate ‎preparations.‎ Our author sees in the word ‎נכספה‎ at the beginning of verse 3 ‎an additional spiritual plus of the psalmist, as he made plain that ‎he had made the necessary preparations that would entitle him to ‎have the desired “interview” with Hashem, but he ‎emphasizes, that contrary to performing such a commandment ‎as putting on phylacteries, an act that does not involve ‎pleasurable sensations of his body, what he did when building a ‎courtyard and temple for G’d involved him emotionally on the ‎highest level. He was literally yearning for the spiritual ‎experience no less than the body on occasion yearns for satiating ‎physical urges.‎ On folio 40 in Kidushin 40, where the Talmud deals with ‎the relative moral/ethical value of appropriate intentions when ‎compared to performance, but not necessarily with appropriate ‎intentions, we are told that if someone planned sincerely to ‎perform a certain commandment but was prevented from ‎carrying out his intention by forces beyond his control, he is ‎credited with having performed the commandment. In ‎emphasizing the value of a constructive attitude, the Talmud ‎adds that planning to commit a transgression, and carrying it ‎out, brings in its wake a penalty only for the execution, not for ‎the planning that preceded carrying out the foul deed. ‎‎[The planning of idolatry is the only exception to this ‎rule. ibid. Ed.]‎ This is also the meaning of Deuteronomy 6,6: ‎והיו הדברים האלה ‏אשר אני מצוך היום על לבבך‎, “these matters that I command you this ‎day shall be on your heart.” Even commandments that are not ‎capable of being fulfilled in exile should remain part of our ‎constant consciousness through discussion between father and ‎son, pupil and teacher, so that we are not deprived of receiving a ‎reward for them as if we had actually performed them. The desire ‎to be able to perform the respective commandments in reality is ‎the principal criterion used by G’d to judge our mitzvah ‎performance. Even King David in Chronicles I 22,14 already ‎referred to this when he said (concerning his desire to build a ‎Temple) ‎והנה בעניי הכינותי לבית ה' זהב ככרים מאה אלף כסף וגו'‏‎, “and ‎here through denying myself, I have set aside for the house of the ‎Lord one hundred thousands talents of gold, and one million ‎talents of silver, etc;” what David meant was that the ‎commandment of charity cannot only be fulfilled by the actual ‎handing out of sums of money, but can also be carried out by ‎preparing such monies to be ready when the need arises. David ‎adds that even while he was not able to hand out sums that were ‎needed because he was temporarily short of even bare essentials ‎for himself, i.e. ‎בעניי‎, his sincere desire to be of help would be ‎accounted for him as if he had actually carried out his desire, as ‎we know from psalms 119,106 ‎נשבעתי ואקימה לשמור משפטי צדקך‎, “I ‎have sworn to keep Your just rules.” [As soon as the ‎opportunity will arise. Ed.] Yaakov had similar thoughts ‎when he vowed that if G’d would be with him and grant him even ‎minimal comforts he would turn what is now merely a stone into ‎a building designed to serve G’d. G’d reminds him (31,13) of this ‎vow by describing Himself as ‎אנכי הא-ל ביתאל‎, saying that His ‎presence will not only be with him in his heart, but that he can ‎now carry out his desire to convert the stone he had anointed ‎into a house of G’d.‎

Kedushat Levi, Leviticus, Bechukotai 1

Leviticus 26,3. “if you will walk in My statutes and ‎observe My commandments and carry them out.” At first ‎glance there appears to be unnecessary verbiage in this verse. We ‎would have expected the Torah to write simply: ‎אם תשמרו את ‏מצותי ונתתי גשמיכם בעתו‎, “if you will observe My commandments I ‎will provide your rainfall at the appropriate time.” However, the ‎reason for the additional words may be understood when we recall ‎that the Talmud in Kiddushin 40 states that G’d will ‎account a good intention as if it were a good deed, i.e. that the ‎good intention is already accounted as fulfillment of a ‎commandment. In other words, the good intention is accounted ‎as if it had already been translated into action, so that if through ‎an accident beyond one’s control actual performance of the good ‎intention was prevented, one is still given credit for it.‎Leviticus 26,3. “if you will walk in My statutes and ‎observe My commandments and carry them out.” At first ‎glance there appears to be unnecessary verbiage in this verse. We ‎would have expected the Torah to write simply: ‎אם תשמרו את ‏מצותי ונתתי גשמיכם בעתו‎, “if you will observe My commandments I ‎will provide your rainfall at the appropriate time.” However, the ‎reason for the additional words may be understood when we recall ‎that the Talmud in Kiddushin 40 states that G’d will ‎account a good intention as if it were a good deed, i.e. that the ‎good intention is already accounted as fulfillment of a ‎commandment. In other words, the good intention is accounted ‎as if it had already been translated into action, so that if through ‎an accident beyond one’s control actual performance of the good ‎intention was prevented, one is still given credit for it.‎ From this it follows that when one performs a good deed ‎‎(commandment) truly without any ulterior motive this may ‎result in such a person being transported to a higher spiritual ‎level than the one he had been on prior to performance of that ‎commandment. As a result of such a spiritual “promotion,” one ‎will be granted the opportunity to fulfill still other ‎commandments. The process will continue as a self-fulfilling ‎prophecy. This is what the sages had in mind when they said that ‎the reward of fulfilling a commandment is another ‎commandment. (Avot 4,2) It is also the meaning of ‎מצוה ‏גוררת מצוה‎, “performance of one commandment drags an ‎additional commandment in its wake.” (ibid.) Keeping this in ‎mind we can also understand the meaning of the line in ‎‎Niddah 73 quoted in the name of Tanna de bey Eliyahu ‎that every person who makes it a rule to study at least one ‎‎halachah daily, is assured that he will have a share in the ‎world to come. The meaning is that that individual will progress ‎daily ever closer to his ultimate objective of the world to come as ‎he has not been deflected from his path. This is the meaning of ‎the verse from Scripture quoted by the author of this saying, i.e. ‎Chabakuk 3,6 ‎הליכות עולם לו‎, “he will make steady progress ‎towards another, eternal life.”‎ The words: ‎אם בחקותי תלכו‎, mean that “if you cleave to My ‎statutes,” you will be considered as “walking” on the right path, ‎תלכו‎. The words: ‎ואת מצותי תשמרו‎, refer to your planning, ‎thinking of, performing My commandments, even if you have not ‎succeeded for some reason to carry out your good intention, I will ‎consider it as if you had done it, i.e. ‎ועשיתם אותם‎. When ‎understood in this manner, none of the words in our verse are ‎superfluous or repetitious.‎

Tzava'at HaRivash 17:3

The mnemonic by which to remember this, is the verse, (Ecclesiastes 8:5) “He who guards-Shomer-שומר the mitzvah will know no evil.” In other words, whoever accepts this matter upon himself, must stand guard at his post from morning to evening, awaiting the opportunity to fulfill any mitzvah that comes his way. That is, the term guard-Shomer-שומר is of the same root used in the verse, (Genesis 37:11) “His father waited in anticipation-Shamar-שמר of the matter.” (Rashi to Genesis 37:11 ) Through this, one merits that, “He will know no evil.” That is, he will not be subject to random happenstance (Keri-קרי) (Leviticus 26:21 & Rashi there; Also see Ginat Egoz of Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla, translated as HaShem Is One, Volume 2, pg. 353.) which is called evil, God forbid.

Commentary

The brothers were jealous of Joseph because they believed his dreams had a deeper meaning, leading them to envy him for receiving a divine message. Jacob, despite initially dismissing Joseph's dreams, kept them in mind, indicating he believed they would come true.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:11:1

KEPT THE SAYING. In his mind. This is also the correct meaning of kept in They kept His testimonies (Ps. 99:7). (The meaning of Ps. 22:7 is that they kept the testimonies in mind so that they would at the appropriate time teach them to the children of Israel.)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:11:1

ויקנאו בו אחיו, His brothers were jealous of him. When the brothers had heard this second dream they backtracked from accusing Joseph of wanting to be a ruler over all of them; they agreed that Joseph could not have aspired to rule over his own father. The very fact that he had such a dream, however, indicated that he had received a message from heaven. They were jealous of Joseph having received that communication.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:11:1

ויקנאו בו אחיו, “his brothers were jealous of him.” It is well known that in most instances hatred is the result of jealousy; the hatred which the Torah had spoken of earlier in verse four had been due to the brothers’ awareness that their father Yaakov loved Joseph more than he loved them, as the Torah has spelled out there. Why then did the Torah have to repeat here that the brothers were jealous of Joseph? It is possible that the correct explanation of the original hatred of the brothers towards Joseph was not due to the preferred status Joseph enjoyed in the eyes of their father due to his excelling in virtues, but was due merely to their father showing him more love. There was actually no reason to be envious of a young boy of seventeen years of age who had not demonstrated any qualities superior to those of his brothers. One usually envies one’s peers or one’s superiors. One is not given to envy inferiors. Now, after having heard repeatedly the kind of dreams their brother had experienced, his older brothers realised that there might be more to Joseph than they had thought before. Therefore they now envied him his dreams and hated him because of them. The Torah therefore told us of this additional dimension of the brothers’ jealousy of Joseph. This idea is best illustrated by the change of preposition the Torah chose to describe their new jealousy. In our verse the Torah chose the preposition בו as distinct from the preposition את or אותו which was used to describe their hatred of him, or the verse in Genesis 26,14 where the Philistines’ jealousy of Yitzchak is described as ויקנאו אותו פלשתים.

Radak on Genesis 37:11:1

הדבר, even though Yaakov had been angry at Joseph he was worried about what the dream might forecast and he remembered it.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:11:1

ואביו שמר את הדבר. Why did the Torah bother to write this line? The reason is that when the brothers returned from Egypt and reported about Joseph’s position there, and Yaakov did not believe them that Joseph was still alive, he saw the carriages which Pharaoh had sent to transport him in (45,27) and realised that such an honour could only be bestowed by a king, and that seeing that the King of Egypt had no reason to honour him in such a manner, the carriages, though sent with the approval of Pharaoh, must have been sent by someone in an almost equally high position, i.e. his son Joseph, who had dreamed of attaining such stature. It was the recollection of the dream Joseph had told him about which then prompted Yaakov to exclaim רב,עוד יוסף בני חי, וכי הוא מושל בכל בארץ מצרים, “it is too much! Not only is my son Joseph still alive, but he is the ruler of the whole land of Egypt!” (45,28 combined with 26)

Rashi on Genesis 37:11:1

שמר את הדבר OBSERVED THE MATTER — He awaited and looked forward to the time when this would come to pass. In the same sense we have (Isaiah 26:2) “that watch (שומר) for faithfulness” (i.e., for the performance of a promise) and (Job 14:16) — “לא תשמור for my sin” — which means “thou dost not wait for my sin”.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:11:1

(11-12) Nach dem Vorgange Sipornos, eines unserer denkendsten Kommentatoren, halten wir uns verpflichtet, uns hinsichtlich des nun folgenden Vorganges, wenngleich nicht nach einer Rechtfertigung, so doch nach einer Erklärung umzusehen. Wir haben es doch nicht mit einer Rotte Räuber und Mörder zu tun, denen es ein Leichtes wird, um eines Rockes willen Mord und Totschlag zu begehen. Macht ja Siporno mit Recht darauf aufmerksam, wie später, als den Brüdern in äußerster Not das Gewissen schlug, sie (Kap. 42, 21) sich keineswegs über ein an Josef verübtes Verbrechen, sondern nur über ihre Härte Vorwürfe machten, daß sie seinem Flehen haben widerstehen können. Sie müssen also die Tat an sich für hart, aber nicht für Unrecht gehalten haben. Wir müssen daher ein Auge auch für die leisesten Andeutungen haben, die uns alles dies psychologisch erklärlich machen dürften.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:11:2

Das Missverhältnis, wird uns gesagt, hatte mit קנאה begonnen; es war darauf שנאה hinzugekommen, sie hassten ihn, weil sie aus seinen Träumen seine Gedanken und Pläne zu erkennen glaubten, sie fürchteten ihn jedoch nicht, weil sie nicht an deren Verwirklichung glaubten. Als sie nun aber seinen letzten Traum hörten — der ihm ja eine höchste Majestät auf Erden und nicht bloß einen Herrscherrang im Familienkreise verhieß — und sahen, wie der Vater dies auffasste, es nicht als bloßen Traum ansah, sondern nachdenkend darüber wurde, an eine Möglichkeit der Erfüllung dachte: da fing in der שנאה zugleich wieder קנאה an wach zu werden (— ׳קנא ב heißt buchstäblich: seine berechtigten Ansprüche durch jemanden gefährdet glauben —) und da heißt es denn unmittelbar darauf: וילכו אחיו und zwar bedeutsam durch Ethnach getrennt, also: sie gingen fort! Es war in sie tief das Bewusstsein gedrungen, daß ihnen durch Josef eine Beeinträchtigung ihrer Rechte drohe, darum gingen sie fort. Und zwar entfernten sie sich sehr weit. שכם ist von הברון zehn bis zwölf deutsche Meilen entfernt. Dazu ist das את in לרעות את צאן punktiert, nach מדרש רבות, anzudeuten: nur ostensibel die Schafe, in Wahrheit "sich zu weiden"; wollten die Selbständigkeit bewahren, die sie durch Jakobs Meinung über die künftige Stellung Josefs beeinträchtigt glaubten. Eigentümlich ist es, daß sie gerade nach Sichem gingen. שכם war ja die Stätte, wo sich das Gefühl ihrer Zusammengehörigkeit zu allererst so energisch betätigt hatte, dort hatten Simon und Levi das denkwürdige: הכזונה יעשה את אחתנו?! gesprochen. Steht nun die ganze Familie als ein Mann nach außen, wenn ein Glied bedroht wird, um wie viel mehr hält sie zusammen, wenn im innern von einem Gliede Ehre und Selbständigkeit bedroht wird — so durften sie denken, und deshalb nach שכם gezogen sein, dort, auf der Stätte brüderlicher Großtat, die ihnen wieder notwendig scheinenden Entschlüsse zu nähren. Und wirklich war ihre Zukunft bedroht, wenn Josefs Stellung eine solche hätte werden sollen, wie sie ihnen vorschwebte. War es ja noch gar nicht so lange her, seitdem mit Nimrod das Königtum begonnen. Waren ja ihre Vettern in Sei׳r-Edom bereits unter Aluphim und Königen geknechtet. Im Gegensatz zu diesem, die Menschen zu Ziegelsteinen für den Bau des Ehrgeizes eines einzelnen herabwürdigenden Königtum sollte ja eben die Abrahamsfamilie einen Menschenverein verwirklichen, in welchem auf dem Boden der Freiheit und Gleichheit der Menschenadel und die Menschenwürde zur Geltung kommen, und die gemeinsame Aufgabe לשמר דרך ד׳ לעשות צדקה ומשפט als der ausgesprochene Wille Gottes allein die über alle gleich gebietende Herrschaft haben sollte —: wo bliebe ihre und der Menschheit Zukunft, wenn auch sie sich in die Fesseln des Ehrgeizes eines einzelnen schlagen ließen?? — Merkwürdig, als später, nach Salomos Tode, das Volk dem Rehabeam erst Bedingungen setzen und seine Selbständigkeit durch eine Kapitulation wahren wollte, versammelte es sich wiederum nach Sichem, dort gegen ein seine Macht missbrauchendes Königtum im Gefühle der Zusammengehörigkeit und Gleichheit vor Gott Opposition zu erheben. Es scheint hier ein kleines, ähnliches Vorspiel.

Sforno on Genesis 37:11:1

ויקנאו בו אחיו, they attributed such aspirations by Joseph to the fact that their father had appointed them as senior to them, otherwise he would not have dared tell such dreams even in his father’s presence.

Sforno on Genesis 37:11:2

ואביו שמר, he remembered it because he thought that the dream reflected what would in fact occur. In fact, his father was looking forward to the fulfillment of Joseph’s dream. This reflects the statement in the Talmud Sanhedrin 105 that a person may be jealous of everyone except his students and his children.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:11

His brothers envied him, whether on account of his abnormal dreams, or because of their father’s relatively mild response. Unlike Joseph’s brothers, Jacob did not rebuke Joseph for expressing undeserved arrogance; he claimed only that the dream could never come to fruition. But his father kept the matter in mind. Despite his stated assertion that Joseph’s dreams were mere fantasy, Jacob kept them in mind, as he believed that there was some significance to them.

Jewish Thought

The text discusses Joseph's reaction to his father's dream and how he doubted it while waiting for it to come true.

On Resurrection of the Dead 1:2:2

And still, we see that the sacred Scripture says below, and his brothers were angry with him, and his father had the matter in mind (Gen 37:11). So the ancients say, how did he doubt, on the one hand, and waited for her?

Kabbalah

Envy was the cause of punishment for many ancient figures in the Kabbalah, such as Cain who was jealous of his brother's twin sister, leading to his exile, and the ten tribes of Israel who were exiled to Egypt due to envying Joseph. Yeravam was also punished for his envy of the House of David's kingdom, leading to his excision from the world.

Sha'arei Kedusha, Part 2 4:39

Study and you will see that all the ancients were punished solely on account of their envy. Cain, who spoke with HaShem-יהו״ה, blessed is He, mouth to mouth, was excised from the world along with his descendants, because he was envious of his brother Abel’s twin sister. (Midrash Bereishit Rabba 22:1; Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Ch. 21) As a result of his jealousy he came to transgress all his sins. Similarly, the ten tribes of Israel were exiled to Egypt because Joseph’s brothers envied him. (Genesis 37:11; Also see Tanchuma Veyeishev 18 and elsewhere.) Ultimately, they were further punished with the incident the ten martyrs. (Midrash Eileh Ezkera and elsewhere.) Yeravam, before whom all the Torah scholars of the generation were like grass of the field, (Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 101a-b) was excised from the world solely because he envied the kingdom of the House of David.

Midrash

Joseph, at seventeen years old, was favored by his father Jacob, which made his brothers jealous. Joseph's dreams of sheaves and celestial bodies bowing before him caused further resentment among his brothers. Jacob rebuked Joseph for his dreams, indicating that even though he kept the matter in mind, he did not fully understand the significance. The dreams of Joseph were seen as prophetic, reflecting the future establishment of the twelve tribes of Israel. Joshua even used the dream to command the sun to stand still. Joseph's dreams were a source of tension and foreshadowed future events, ultimately leading to his brothers' betrayal and his descent into Egypt.

Aggadat Bereshit 73:1

Chapter (72) 73: Torah [1] "And the El Shaddai grant you mercy" (Genesis 43:14). As it is written in scriptures: Knowledge [of escape from You] is concealed from me. It is too formidable. I cannot know it. (Psalm 139:6). What is the meaning of "extraordinary level of understanding beyond my grasp"? It refers to something that is difficult for a person to comprehend, as it says, "If there arise among you a matter too hard for judgment" (Deuteronomy 17:8). Jacob said, "I cannot understand this matter." God promised Abraham that he would have twelve tribes, as it says, "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them...So shall thy seed be" (Genesis 15:5). Just as there are twelve constellations in the heavens that govern the world, so too I will establish twelve tribes from you that will govern the world, as it is said, "Thus shall your seed be" (Genesis 15:5). When Ishmael was born and he begot twelve princes, as it is said, "And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren" (Genesis 16:12), Abraham thought that these were the twelve tribes. But God said to him, "No, not those that you think. Sarah will bear a son for you" (Genesis 17:19), as it is said, "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac" (Genesis 21:12). It is through Isaac that your seed will be called (Genesis 21:12), as I said to you, "Thus shall your seed be" (Genesis 15:5). When Isaac married Rebecca and she was found to be barren, he began to question how the promise that God made to Abraham could be fulfilled, as she was barren, as it is said, "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren" (Genesis 25:21), and the children struggled within her (Genesis 25:22). "I'm sorry," she began, "if that's the case, I apologize to one another and "She went to inquire of יהוה," (Genesis 25:22), went to the study hall of Shem, and the Lord said to her, 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your body' (Genesis 25:23). Why did she say why is it? (Genesis 25:22), "this" is numerically equivalent to 12. And God said to her [Sarah], "What you think is not so, but there are two nations in your womb." When Jacob stood up and went out to Laban, Isaac called him and said to him, "Let it be known that the Lord is establishing twelve tribes from you," as it is said, "Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and commanded him, and said to him, 'Do not marry a Canaanite woman. Arise, go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel, your mother's father, and take a wife from there of the daughters of Laban, your mother's brother. And may God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, that you may be a congregation of peoples; and give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and your descendants with you" (Genesis 28:1-4). The blessing that He blessed Abraham with, saying, "Look up now" (Genesis 15:5), is fulfilled through you. And once Jacob went and took wives and fathered twelve tribes, as it says, "And the sons of Jacob were twelve" (Genesis 35:22), Joseph began to see hints of it in his dream, saying, "Behold, I have dreamed a dream" (Genesis 37:9). Jacob began to keep watch over his father's words, and his father kept the matter (Genesis 37:11). And when Joseph was sold and Simeon was bound and Benjamin was brought to take revenge, Jacob began to cry out, "Me? What do I know? I thought that from my fathers I would establish twelve tribes, but I am dwindling and going down," as it says, "Joseph is gone" (Genesis 42:36). Everything that the old man promised was fulfilled, and yet I am decreasing and going down. "How incomprehensible is this to me," as it says, "I do not know what to say to you, but one thing remains in my hand, the blessing that my father blessed me with, saying, 'And Almighty God bless you'" (Genesis 28:3).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:11

“He dreamed yet another dream, and related it to his brothers, and he said: Behold, I dreamed another dream: and, behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars prostrated themselves to me” (Genesis 37:9). “He dreamed yet another dream…” – when Joseph said: “Behold, the sun, the moon,” Jacob said: Who revealed to him that my name is sun? (See Bereshit Rabba 68:10.) Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Joshua said to the sun: Wayward slave, were you not purchased with the money of my father? Did my father not see you in the dream: “Behold, the sun, the moon…prostrated themselves to me”? You, too, stand still before me. Immediately, “the sun stood still, and the moon stopped” (Joshua 10:13). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him and said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed? Will we come, I, your mother, and your brothers, to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘So you will scold your prophets,’ as it is stated: “Now, why did you not scold Jeremiah of Anatot” (Jeremiah 29:27). (This quote, ascribed to the false prophet Shemaya the Neḥelamite, indicates that the Israelites were wont to scold their prophets. ) “And said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed”? Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: So, our patriarch Jacob believed that the revival of the dead would occur in his lifetime, as it is stated: “Will we come [havo navo]” – Will I and your brothers come? That is fine. “[Will we come,] I and your mother” – is your mother not dead; and you say: “I, your mother, and your brothers? (Nevertheless, the next verse states: “But his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:11).) However, Jacob our patriarch did not know that the matter related to Bilha, Rachel’s maidservant, who raised him as though she was his mother.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:12

“His brothers envied him; but his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:12). “His brothers envied him; but his father kept [the matter] in mind” – Rabbi Levi said: He took a quill and wrote on which day, at which hour, at what place. (He recorded all the details of Joseph’s recounting of the dream so he could refer back to it. This indicated that he believed in the dream. ) Rabbi Ḥiyya Rabba said: “But his father kept the matter in mind” – the Divine Spirit was saying: Keep these matters in mind because they are destined to occur. Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: This is what our patriarch Jacob believed. He saw that these matters were impending. (Jacob saw that he was in fact destined to bow to Joseph (Matnot Kehuna). ) He said: If his ledger was scrutinized, what can I do? (If my ledger has been scrutinized, meaning if my own record has been scrutinized in heaven and I am destined to bow to my own son as a result of my sins, so be it (Matnot Kehuna). )

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 2

And Joseph was seventeen years old, and he still continued to regard himself above his ‎brothers and to exalt himself above them. And at that time Joseph dreamed a dream, and he ‎came unto his brothers to tell them of his dream, and he said unto them: I dreamed a dream, ‎and behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and also stood ‎upright, and behold your sheaves stood round about and made obeisance to my sheaf. And ‎his brothers said unto him: What is the meaning of this dream that thou didst dream? Dost ‎thou think in thine heart to govern and to rule over us. And Joseph came also unto his father ‎informing him of his dream, and Jacob heard the words of his mouth and he kissed him and ‎Jacob blessed Joseph. And when the sons of Jacob saw that their father had kissed and ‎blessed Joseph and that he loved him so dearly, they became jealous of him and they hated ‎him still more. And afterwards Joseph dreamed another dream and he related it unto his ‎father in the presence of his brothers, and he said unto his father and brothers: Behold, I have ‎dreamed another dream, and lo, the sun, and the moon, and eleven stars bowed down ‎before me. And Jacob heard the words of Joseph and his dream, and he saw that his brothers ‎hated Joseph on account of these words, and Jacob rebuked Joseph in the presence of his ‎brothers, saying: What is the meaning of this dream which thou hast dreamed that thou ‎exaltest thyself over thy brothers who are greater than thou. Thinkest thou perhaps in thine ‎heart that we will come, I and thy mother and thy eleven brothers to bow down before thee, ‎that thou speakest these words. And his brothers were jealous of him concerning his words ‎and dreams and their hatred against him increased. And Jacob observed and kept the dreams ‎within his heart.‎

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 8:1:1

“If only you were like a brother to me, who suckled the breasts of my mother. I would find you outside; I would kiss you, yet they would not despise me” (Song of Songs 8:1). “If only you were like a brother to me” – like what brother? Like Cain to Abel? Cain killed Abel, as it is stated: “Cain arose against Abel his brother, and killed him” (Genesis 4:8). Rather, like Ishmael to Isaac? Ishmael hated Isaac. Rather, like Esau to Jacob? But it is stated: “Esau hated Jacob” (Genesis 27:41). Rather, like Joseph’s brothers to Joseph? They hated him, as it is stated: “His brothers were jealous of him” (Genesis 37:11). Like what brother? “One who suckled the breasts of my mother” – that is to say like Joseph to Benjamin, who loved him wholeheartedly, as it is stated: “Joseph saw Benjamin with them” (Genesis 43:16). (As the story unfolds, the verse states that Joseph wept when he saw Benjamin (Genesis 43:30).) “I would find you outside; I would kiss you”; “outside” – this is the wilderness, which is outside the settled area. “I would kiss you” – regarding two brothers who kissed each other, and these are Moses and Aaron, as it is stated: “He went, and he met him at the mountain of God, and he kissed him” (Exodus 4:27). “They would not despise me” – Rabbi Pinḥas said: There was an incident involving two siblings, one of whom was in Meron and one in Gush Ḥalav. The house of the one who lived in Meron caught fire. His sister from Gush Ḥalav came and began hugging, embracing, and kissing him, and saying: This does not demean me, as my brother was in dire straits and was delivered from them.

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 8:6:4

“For love is as intense as death” – the love that the Holy One blessed be He has for you is as intense as death. That is what is written: “I have loved you, said the Lord…” (Malachi 1:2). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – when they infuriate the Holy One blessed be He with their idol worship, as it is stated: “They would infuriate Him with strange gods” (Deuteronomy 32:16). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Isaac had for Esau; that is what is written: “Isaac loved Esau” (Genesis 25:28). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy Esau had for Jacob, as it is stated: “Esau hated Jacob [because of the blessing with which his father blessed him]” (Genesis 27:41). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Jacob had for Joseph, as it is stated: “Israel loved Joseph more than his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that his brothers had for him, as it is stated: “His brothers were jealous of him” (Genesis 37:11). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Jonathan had for David, as it is stated: “Jonathan loved him as himself” (I Samuel 18:1). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that Saul had for David, as it is stated: “Saul eyed David with suspicion” (I Samuel 18:9). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that a man has for his wife, as it is stated: “Enjoy life with a woman whom you love” (Ecclesiastes 9:9). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that he has regarding her when he says to her: Do not speak with so-and-so, and she goes and speaks with him, and immediately, “a spirit of jealousy passes over him and he is jealous of his wife” (Numbers 5:14). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that the generation of persecution had for the Holy One blessed be He, as it is stated: “For we are killed all day long for You” (Psalms 44:23). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – as the Holy One blessed be He is destined to have great zealotry on behalf of Zion. That is what is written: “So said the Lord [of hosts]: I became zealous for Zion with great zealotry” (Zechariah 8:2). “Its sparks are the sparks of fire, a great conflagration” – Rabbi Berekhya said: Like the supernal fire; the fire does not quench water and the water does not extinguish fire.

Musar

The first text discusses the interpretation of the verse "ועשיתם אתם," with Rabbi Chanina emphasizing the importance of studying Torah for its own sake. The second text connects Esau's attributes of jealousy and hatred to the punishment of ten Jewish scholars by the Romans, seen as retribution for the brothers' jealousy of Joseph. The third text questions Rabbi Yoshiah's interpretation of changing "Matzot" to "Mitzvot" and the definition of "ושמרתם" by Rashi in relation to Jacob's actions in Genesis 37,11.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Bo, Derekh Chayim 2

Why does Rabbi Yoshiah say: "Do not read Matzot, but read: Mitzvot?" Furthermore, he applies the word ושמרתם to all commandments while this paragraph has dealt exclusively with matters related to Passover and Matzot! Another difficulty is the definition of the word ושמרתם by Rashi to mean not allowing an existing condition to continue. Normally the word שמירה means that an existing condition is to be preserved. When the Torah says of Jacob ואביו שמר את הדבר, "His father kept this matter in mind" (Joseph's dream Genesis 37,11), it certainly meant that this condition would be preserved. As a rule, whenever a commentator uses the phrase אל תקרי, "do not read, etc.," there is some proof in the text that would cause us to read it differently. What is the proof in this case?

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Introduction 35

Let us now examine in what way the different Rabbis quoted in this Midrash differ. What nuances in the verse did each Rabbi find that he based his comment on? The central theme mentioned in the verse is "ועשיתם אתם." The word אתם seems superfluous. Even the word ועשיתם, is not needed, since the Torah could simply have said ואת מצותי תשמרו ותעשו. Why did the Torah have to say: ועשיתם אתם? Rabbi Chanina seems to explain this verse in the sense that I have written, that preoccupation with Torah should be לשמה, as I have defined; he will then be considered as having done the many things that he was unable to actually perform. The word תשמרו which precedes the word ועשיתם, would refer to study of Torah just as Rashi explained in Deut. 4,6: ושמרתם refers to study, ועשיתם to performance. The word שמירה would even include someone waiting patiently for the opportunity to perform a certain מצוה to present itself.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 10

Esau was the exact opposite. He represented קנאה, jealousy, and שנאה, hatred. Jealousy is the exact opposite of truth. The attribute of truth is defined as a preparedness to admit that something is objectively so, without one denying it or misrepresenting it (even if one puts oneself in a bad light thereby). When the prophet Ovadiah in the verse quoted describes the house of Esau as becoming straw, קש, the letters in that word are the respective first letters of קנאה and שנאה. Now that the brothers had become guilty of being jealous of Joseph and hating him, as we know from 37,4 and 37,11, they became victims of Esau in this world. Since ten of the brothers were guilty of such feelings, the Romans tortured ten outstanding Jewish scholars to death, the ones commonly known as עשרה הרוגי מלכות, whom Jewish liturgy eulogized in the poem אלה אזכרה recited on the Day of Atonement. The ten scholars involved were re-incarnations of the ten brothers of Joseph who had taken part in selling him. This is stated in the book Heychalot. Rabbi Yishmael said: "The day the instructions came to torture Jewish sages to death was on a Thursday. Originally, four sages were to be arrested, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava and Rabbi Yehudah ben Damah. Eight thousand scholars in Jerusalem were prepared to offer themselves in lieu of these four leaders. When Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah realised that the decree would not be revoked, he "lowered me" to the מרכבה, and I interceded with the שר הפנים in the Celestial Regions. The שר הפנים told me that the Supreme Court in Heaven had decreed that ten eminent scholars were to be handed over to Samael, the Celestial representative of Rome. The reason for the decree was to carry out on the bodies of leaders of Israel the penalty imposed on kidnappers as per Exodus 21,16: "If someone kidnaps a person, sells him and is found out, he shall be executed." [According to Sanhedrin 85, the words "found out" mean that there were witnesses to the deed already before the sale. Ed.]

Quoting Commentary

Or HaChaim questions the use of the verb "to do" in the context of observing the Sabbath in Exodus 31:16, suggesting that it implies an active anticipation rather than mere abstention. In Exodus 34:11, the term "observe" is linked to Moses being warned not to make a covenant with the Canaanite nations, implying a need for vigilance and caution. Rashi explains the term "watched" in I Samuel 1:12 as an expression of waiting, while Rashbam connects it to the idea of waiting for something to occur. Rabbeinu Bahya interprets the directive to be holy in Leviticus 19:2 as applying to the sanctity of thoughts and intentions, with a genetic impact on children born in holiness. Rashi in Ecclesiastes 5:7 links the term "wait" to the idea of awaiting the realization of punishment, while Rashi in Job 14:16 explains it as not waiting for sin to be requited. Radak connects the term "watched" in I Samuel 1:12 to waiting and analyzing, while Midrash BeChiddush on Pesach Haggadah connects it to God's calculation of the end times. Chizkuni links the term "watch" to waiting for the turn of the angels in Exodus 14:24 and connects the term "observe" to remembering and waiting in anticipation in Deuteronomy 5:12 and 7:9.

Chizkuni, Deuteronomy 5:12:1

שמור את יום השבת, “to observe the Sabbath day.” In the first version of the Ten Commandments the Torah wrote: זכור את יום השבת, “to remember the Sabbath day.” This was in order to remind the people of the Sabbath each week as they were not to go out looking for manna. Now, in the fortieth year, when the people had been familiar with the manna since the day they were born, it was more appropriate for Moses to underline the importance of the observance of the commandments related to Sabbath observance. Another interpretation for the difference in the terminology used on these two occasions for the law to keep the Sabbath day. The expression שמר also means “to remember.” It was used first by Yaakov when Joseph related the dream to him in which sun, moon and eleven stars bowed down to him (Genesis 37,11) The word שמר refers to long term remembering. Yaakov/Joseph had to wait for 22 years until they understood the meaning of that dream. זכור, on the other hand, refers to remembering for a short period of time. This is like the person who waits all day long for the arrival of the Shabbat so that he can properly sanctify it, like Rabbi Yannai who would wrap himself in his tallit and stand at the eve of Shabbat at twilight, saying: Come, my bride; come, my bride. It is also possible that the expression זכור is addressed to people embarking on protracted voyages on the sea, where they may lose track of time, whereas the expression שמור is addressed to people living on dry land.

Chizkuni, Deuteronomy 7:9:3

שומר הברית, “He keeps His covenant;” the word שומר here means: “waiting in anticipation,” as it did in Genesis 37,11 where Yaakov was described as awaiting fulfillment of Joseph’s dream with the words: ואביו שמר את הדבר, “and his father remained in expectation of what would happen.”

Chizkuni, Exodus 14:24:1

באשמורת הבקר, “during the morning watch;” Rashi claims that seeing that the night is divided in accordance with the songs of the angels in heaven, these watches are called אשמורת. This word means “waiting for;” the angels have to be on time so as not to miss the turn allocated to them. We find the root שמר used in this context when Yaakov, hearing Joseph’s last dream is reported to have taken it seriously and he was waiting how that dream would play out. (Compare Genesis 37,11: ואביו שמר את הדבר, “his father kept track of the matter.”)

Midrash BeChiddush on Pesach Haggadah, Magid, In the Beginning Our Fathers Were Idol Worshipers 3:1

It would have been more appropriate to say, “Blessed is the One who kept His promises….” if we are speaking of the Exodus. Also our text states, מְחַשֵּׁ֥ב, “The Holy One calculates the end, to do…” It should have stated, חִשֵּׁב “Who calculated.” (Note that many Sephardic and Ashkenazic texts actually do have חִשֵּׁב Hishev, calculated, while Rabbi Foa’s text says Michashev, “calculates.” Many of the variations in the manuscripts of the Haggadah text have, מְחַשֵּׁ֥ב. He now asks why the text doesn’t say חִשֵּׁב “calculated” instead of מְחַשֵּׁ֥ב “calculates.”) But the intention of the Maggid is to make known to us what God is doing for us. God continues “To keep” the promise that was made to Abraham (and is still calculating the endtime). The word shomer, is similar to the language in the verse, “And his father kept ( שָׁמַ֥ר ) the matter in mind.” (That is, Jacob kept the matter private regarding Joseph’s dreams… Similarly in our verse God kept the promise of four hundred years of slavery private but never forgot his promise to Abraham’s descendents.) (Gen. 37:11) That is, God hid and kept the promise in mind until they had completed the four hundred years that God told Abraham his descendents would be enslaved and afflicted (before being redeemed.) Since they were only enslaved in Egypt for two hundred and ten years, there remained another hundred and ninety years for our people to complete the exile. If Israel had not continued to sin the exile would not have continued more than one hundred and ninety more years. But since they had to atone for the sins and guilt that they committed day after day, causing troubles and afflictions to overcome them constantly. As a result, they only deducted a small number of the extra years after the golden calf. (See BT Sanhedrin 102a - “Rabbi Yitzḥak says: You have no punishment that comes to the world in which there is not one twenty-fourth of the surplus of a litra of the first calf. When weighing a substance, there would often be a disparity of up to one twenty-fourth of its weight. as it is stated: “On the day when I punish, I will punish their sin upon them” (Ex. 32:34), indicating that atonement for that sin is incomplete, and the Jewish people will continue to suffer for it. “ (Sefaria) The idea here is because of all their sins - they only remove a small amount of their guilt for worshiping the Golden Calf with each act. Thus the 190 years get added on to their other transgressions drawing out their punishment. When the 190 years are complete, redemption will come.) When they complete the 190 years, the redeemer will come and redeem them. That is why we calculate the redemption/end time based on the 190 years - the Ketz. If Israel had been meritorious (and not sinned) then redemption would have hastened and their suffering would have taken place in the count of 190 years. It is to this that Maggid refers when it states, “Blessed is the one who keeps His promise.” The Maggid states that God calculates the end and it does not say that God calculated the end. (With each sin and transgression God has to recalculate the end time…..) God constantly calculates all of the oppressions that will come upon us during this exile, and how much will be added to the reckoning of 190 years in order to fulfill what God said to Abraham at the Covenant of the Pieces. Was not the purpose of the Covenant of the Pieces to judge the nations that afflicted Us, as it states, “But I will execute judgment on the nation they shall serve…” (Gen. 15:14) This means not only those nations that afflicted us by taking our wealth and our lives will be judged for such judgment would not purify Israel. Rather, “the nation that they served” is Egypt. It would appear that this was not meant to be seen as a punishment of the Egyptians since God had decreed that Israel would be enslaved. Rather God decreed that they should be judged for the abominations they committed, how they committed evil acts, and Egypt’s stubborness in not listening to God.

Or HaChaim on Deuteronomy 11:32:1

ושמרתם לעשות, "And you will observe to carry out, etc." Inasmuch as the commandments which Moses is about to convey are all of the kind that can be performed only in ארץ ישראל, Moses applies the term שמירה [usually reserved for the avoidance of violating negative commandments, Ed.] much as we read in Genesis 37,11 that ואביו שמר את הדבר, "his father remained aware of the matter" (Joseph's dream about the brothers and his father and mother bowing down to him). Moses meant by this word that the Israelites should constantly look forward to the opportunity to carry out these commandments although at the time he spoke to them they had no opportunity to fulfil these מצות. He concluded by saying אלה החוקים "these are the statutes." Commandments such as the one to wipe out locations where the Canaanites had worshiped idols, he called "statutes," as they applied only once the Israelites were in that country. They could not carry out this commandment until they had conquered the land.

Or HaChaim on Exodus 31:16:1

ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת, "The children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, etc." Why did the Torah add another "observance?" Besides, why does the Torah use the verb לעשות, "to do," which expresses an activity when the meaning seems to be that the children of Israel are to observe the Sabbath by "abstaining" from a number of activities? Our sages have pursued their own path in explaining this wording.

Or HaChaim on Exodus 31:16:4

The meaning of the word ושמרו may also follow the meaning of the word in Genesis 37,11 where Jacob is described as awaiting realisation of Joseph's dream and the word chosen by the Torah is ושמר. In our context the Torah means that the Sabbath should not be considered as a burden because many activities are prohibited on that day, but that it should be eagerly awaited and looked forward to. The words לעשות את השבת are designed to counter the prevailing perception that the Sabbath is a day on which one is passive, rests up and treats it as a day on which to indulge one's laziness. The basic purpose of the Sabbath is not to provide physical rest for the body but to actively fulfil the various commandments associated with the Sabbath.

Or HaChaim on Exodus 34:11:1

שמר לך, "Observe for yourself, etc.!" How does the term "observe" apply to the subject matter of this verse? If the Torah refers to the commandment G'd is about to reveal as something Moses is to "observe" as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra suggests, why would G'd select this commandment of not concluding a covenant with the seven Canaanite nations rather than any other of the many commandments as something for Moses to be very careful about? After all, Moses had already been told that it was not he who would conquer these nations What point was there in warning him specifically not to conclude such a covenant?

Or HaChaim on Exodus 34:11:2

Perhaps there is a lesson here about how true repentance works. Seeing the Israelites had become guilty of worshiping an idol, the תקון, rehabilitation, for such a sin required that they destroy everything even remotely connected with idolatry if they wanted to attain complete atonement for their sin. This required that they cultivate a strong abhorrence for all forms of idolatry starting already now, long before they would displace the idolatrous Canaanites and destroy any vestiges of idol worship the Canaanites had been guilty of. The verb שמר may perhaps be understood in the sense that Jacob used it when he heard Joseph's dream with the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowing down to him. At that time (Genesis 37,11), Jacob had begun to look forward to the way this dream would become fulfilled. The Israelites (including Moses) were now meant to look forward to the time when they could carry out the commandment G'd was about to give them.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 19:2:4

It is also possible to explain the directive: “you shall be holy” at the beginning of our Parshah as applying to the sanctity of one’s thoughts, one’s intentions, similar to what the sages said (Shevuot 18) that when engaging in the act of marital relations with his wife both parties should harbour only pure thoughts, not wanting to merely indulge their libido. Seeing that such purity of thought at such a time has a genetic impact on the kind of children produced through the act of cohabitation, the Torah even referred to the children born as having been born “for Me” (compare Ezekiel 23,37: “and even their children which they had born to Me they passed before them the idols, -specifically the Moloch-that they may be consumed”). The prophet speaks of children conceived in holiness as children born to G’d. This is applicable to all the Israelites whose existence is dedicated to G’d. The reason this paragraph is addressed to כל עדת בני ישראל, “the entire community of the Children of Israel,” is because these laws apply to males and females equally. When Moses assembled the people and gave them the directive to build the Tabernacle and for the Israelites to donate materials for that project we also find the directive addressed to כל עדת בני ישראל, “the entire community of the Children of Israel” (Exodus 35,1). There too the directive was addressed directly to the males and the female members of the community. The reason for the formula איש אמו ואביו תיראו, is that there are three partners involved in bringing about the birth of a human being, G’d, father, and mother (Kidushin 30). The Torah mentions the mother first as it is a great achievement for the mother to attain the level of sanctity desired when she cohabits with her husband. The father, partner number two, is mentioned next as his contribution to the fetus is critical, i.e. his sperm is the most important ingredient. G’d is mentioned last as He contributes the soul, an essential component, (but only after husband and wife have already started the fetus). The words: “I am the Lord your G’d” at the end of the verse describe that G’d is the third party in the creation of the baby. The third partner, G’d, is alluded to in the words “and observe My Sabbaths,” seeing that amongst observant people cohabitation takes place primarily on Friday nights. The word תשמרו, is appropriately translated as “waiting.” We find the word שמר used in this sense in connection with Yaakov “waiting for something to occur” when told of a dream his son Joseph had which on the face of it defied interpretation (Genesis 37,11). Our sages in Berachot 3 use the word in a similar manner when they speak about שמר לי על הפתח, as the subject Elijah there waiting for Rabbi Yossi. The prophet Isaiah 56,4 speaks of the Lord having an encouraging message for the eunuchs and sterile men who observe the Sabbaths (although unable to sire children and hope for G’d’s partnership being manifest in the children they will father, resp. not father). The subject there are not people unable to produce viable sperm but people who deny themselves the opportunity of cohabiting with their wives except on Friday nights, thus observing the Sabbaths. Our sages interpret the words אשר פריו יתן בעתו, “someone (normally tree) who will give its fruit at its appropriate time” (Psalms 1,3) as an allusion to people who indulge in cohabitation with their wives only on Friday nights, thus observing the Sabbath in a special manner (compare Ketuvot 62). G’d rewards such people by granting them יד ושם טוב מבנים ובנות, “a memorial and name better that physical sons and daughters.” [This is the end of the verse in Isaiah 56,4 and ignores the literal promise of that verse which is understood as consoling people who have no children by suggesting that there are greater rewards than biological offspring. Ed.]

Radak on I Samuel 1:12:2

Watched (shomer) her mouth: He watched and analyzed her mouth - what was this long prayer? He did not hear her voice, "only her lips moved." Therefore he thought her to be drunk. And Yonatan translated it [in the Targum] as, shomer, like, await - as in (Genesis 37:11), "he shamar the thing"; (Job 14:16), "and not tishmor my sin." And the explanation of, "her mouth," is like her utterance and her speech. And likewise did Yonatan translate it as, "and he waited for her until she ceased."

Rashbam on Exodus 12:42:3

שמורים, represents an element of “waiting for something.” It is used in this sense in Genesis 37,11 ואביו שמר את הדבר, “his father waited to see what would happen in this matter.”

Rashi on Ecclesiastes 11:4:1

He who watches [waits] for the wind. He who waits and looks forward for the wind to come. (שמר הרוח cannot means “watching” a wind, Rashi therefore explains that שומר הרוח means “waiting” for the wind. שומר is used in the same context in Bereishis 37:11, which states, “his father waited [שומר]” to see when Yoseif’s dream would be fulfilled. (Sifsei Chachomim) )

Rashi on Ecclesiastes 5:7:6

And there are high ones. He has [many agents] over them to punish them when their time of visitation arrives, as in, “you do not wait תִּשְׁמוֹר for my sin,” (Iyov 14:16. ) [and as in,] “awaiting שֹׁמֵר the realization,” (Yeshayahu 26:2. ) [and as in,] “awaited שָׁמַר the matter.” (Bereishis 37:11. God waits, but ultimately He will punish them in the proper time. )

Rashi on I Samuel 1:12:2

Watched. An expression of waiting, as in, "[and his father] kept the matter in mind ]שָׁמַר[" (Bereishis 37:11.) i.e., waited, [and similarly] "do not wait [תִשְׁמוֹר] for my sin." (Iyov 14:16.)

Rashi on Isaiah 26:2:3

awaiting (שֹׁמֵר) waiting. Comp. (Gen. 37:11) “And his father awaited (שָׁמַר) the matter.” Similarly (Deut. 7:12), “And the Lord, your God, shall await (וְשָׁמַר) the covenant for you.”

Rashi on Job 14:16:3

You do not wait Heb. תשמר. You do not wait for my sin to requite me, as (Gen. 37:11), “but his father awaited (שמר) the matter,” and in the language of the Mishnah (Sanh. 63b): “A person may not say to his companion, ‘Wait (שמר) for me beside such and such a pagan deity.’” [It is] an expression of waiting.

Rashi on Sotah 18b:1:1

Nor as a widow waiting for my yavam, nor when married - and if she was his yevamah and he married her and warned her, and she secluded herself, he can extend an oath onto her that she was not defiled while she was a "shomeret yavam". A "shomeret yavam" is one who is anticipating and waiting for her yavam to marry her through levirate marriage. ["Shomeret" is] in the sense of "and his father kept the matter in mind" [Genesis 37:11] and "You would not keep watch over my sin" [Job 14:16].

Second Temple

The text discusses the dream of Joseph where he sees the sun, moon, and eleven stars making obeisance to him, which is interpreted as Joseph being the twelfth to complete the Zodiac. Joseph's father rebukes him for the dream, but keeps the saying in memory, reflecting on the power of God that cannot be evaded or defeated.

On Dreams, Book II 16:2

[111] He saw, the text says, another dream and told it to his father and brethren, and said “it was as though the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” And his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream that thou hast dreamt? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to do obeisance to thee on the earth?” And his brothers were angry with him, but his father kept the saying in memory (Gen. 37:9–11).

On Dreams, Book II 20:3

[141] There is a further excellent lesson in the words, “The father retained the saying” (Gen. 37:11). For surely it is the business of a soul which is no youngster nor barren nor sterile but verily an elder and skilled in parenthood, to take caution for its lifemate, to despise nothing at all but to crouch in awe before the power of God which none can evade or defeat, and to look with circumspection to see what end shall befall it.

On Rewards and Punishments, Appendix 12

§ 65. (The twelve sons of Jacob and the Zodiac.) For this connexion of the twelve tribes and their founders with the Twelve Signs cf. De Som. ii. 111 ff., where Philo is discussing Gen. 37:9–11, where Joseph says “the sun and moon and eleven stars did obeisance to me,” thus “classing himself as the twelfth to complete the Zodiac.”

Tanakh

Yosef's descent into slavery and exile began when his father sent him to see his brothers, after Yosef had a dream where his family bowed down to him. His father, Yaakov, rebuked him for the dream, questioning if he, his mother, and brothers would bow down to him.

Covenant and Conversation Family Edition, Vayigash, II; Does My Father Love Me? 3

The story of Yosef’s descent into slavery and exile began when his father sent him, alone, to see how the brothers were faring. Immediately prior to this episode, the Torah tells us about the second of Yosef’s dreams: “The sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?” (Bereshit 37:9–11).

Targum

In Genesis 37:11, Onkelos and Targum Jonathan both state that Joseph's brothers were jealous of him, but his father Jacob kept the matter in mind or in his heart.

Onkelos Genesis 37:11

His brothers were jealous of him but his father kept the matter in mind.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:11

And his brothers envied him; yet his father kept the saying in his heart.

וַיֵּלְכ֖וּ אֶחָ֑יו לִרְע֛וֹת אֶׄתׄ־צֹ֥אן אֲבִיהֶ֖ם בִּשְׁכֶֽם׃ 12 E One time, when his brothers had gone to pasture their father’s flock at Shechem,
Chasidut teaches that the melody helps the shepherd maintain a spiritual mindset while surrounded by animals, referencing Joseph's brothers grazing themselves in Genesis 37:12. The dots above "את" in the same verse suggest a disconnection between tending themselves and their father's flock, leading to evil actions against Joseph. The Yosef narrative in Midrash includes the Yehuda/Tamar episode and chronological issues. Rashi explains the role of Bilhah's sons, and dots over Aharon's name in Numbers 3:39 indicate his exclusion from Levite counting. The Talmud discusses dots in the Torah, while Targum Jonathan and Onkelos mention Joseph's brothers tending their father's sheep in Shechem in Genesis 37:12.

Chasidut

The melody benefits the shepherd by preventing him from being drawn into an animalistic mindset while being constantly surrounded by animals, as seen in the story of Joseph's brothers grazing themselves in Genesis 37:12.

Likutei Moharan, Part II 63:1:6

The melody is also beneficial for the shepherd himself. Because the shepherd is constantly in the company of animals, it could happen that they draw and drag him down from the category of human-spirit to animal-spirit. The shepherd might end up grazing himself, as in “they went to pasture their father’s flock…” (Genesis 37:12), which Rashi explains as: they went to pasture themselves.

Commentary

The brothers distanced themselves from their father to follow their own inclinations in Shechem, tending to themselves and not their father's flock, as indicated by the dots above the word "את" in Genesis 37:12. This separation led to their confidence in God's protection and their ability to do as they pleased in Shechem, even after killing its male population. The dots suggest a disconnection between tending themselves and tending their father's flock, leading to further evil actions against Joseph.

Alshekh on Torah, Genesis 37:12:1-12

Going astray in the field. Yoseif thought the time had come for the fulfillment of his dream and that his brothers would bow to him in the field, but the angel came to warn him that he was “astray” and must not speak to them of this matter.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:12:1

לרעות את אחיו את צאן אביהם, “to assist his brothers in tending the flocks of their father.” The reason that there are two dots over the word את in this verse is that the brothers had not gone to the neighbourhood of Sh’chem in order to look after their father’s flocks, but only to look after their own, and to put more mileage between themselves and Joseph. In other words, that word may be considered as if erased. They had not gone to also tend their father’s flocks. We find a similar construction in Michah 7,14: ירעו בשן וגלעד, “the ones which graze in Bashan and Gilead,” where we would have expected the prophet to say: ירעו את בשן ואת גלעד, “They will graze both in Bashan and in Gilead,” [the prophet continues with the words: “as in the olden days,” (when things were better). If you were to interpret the word את in our verse to mean that the brothers had gone to let the flocks graze in a place where there was ample virgin (not privately owned grazing land), or that it means to let their own as well as their fathers’ flocks graze there, there is no possible reason to omit the word את, as we always find it in connection with sheep or cattle grazing.

Radak on Genesis 37:12:1

וילכו אחיו לרעות צאן, there are dots above the letters of the word את. The sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,13 suggest that the Torah meant that the brothers were tending themselves, i.e. they distanced themselves from their father in order to escape supervision and to follow their personal inclinations in matters of food and drink and to do in Shechem whatever they felt like doing. They were not afraid at all of the inhabitants of that city whose male population they had killed only a year or two earlier. They had complete confidence in G’d‘s protection. The Canaanite population in the region lived in awe of the sons of Yaakov. They had been afraid of them already at the time when they executed the male population of Schechem for being accessories to the rape of Dinah.

Rashi on Genesis 37:12:1

לרעות את צאן TO FEED THE FLOCK — The word את has dots above it, to denote that they went only to feed themselves (Genesis Rabbah 84:13).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:12:1

There are dots on the word את indicating that they went only to “pasture” themselves. Rashi means that if there were no dots on את, it would be connected to צאן, and mean “to pasture the sheep.” But now that it has dots, it is as if the את was not written at all. Consequently, לרעות is not connected to the next word, and means: “They went to pasture.” I.e., to pasture themselves. And צאן אביהם בשכם is a separate statement. But if את was completely omitted from the verse, it would not prove the point. Surely we could still say it means “to pasture themselves,” but it would be more logical to say that the words are connected, and form one statement. Thus, although the את would be omitted, we would say it is an abbreviated verse. But now that את is written, and it has dots, it is considered as erased. This indicates that the words are not connected; they are rather two statements. Otherwise, why does it have dots?

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:12

His brothers went to herd their father’s flock in Shekhem.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 23

“To pasture their father’s flock” [37:12]. The children went to pasture themselves. That is to say, they had their father’s sheep. They ate from the sheep and were pasturing themselves, without their father’s knowledge. Therefore, the word “et” is written with two dots over it in the Torah. This shows us that the sheep also fed the brothers. That is, they ate from the sheep. Therefore, they did even more evil things to their brother Joseph. That is to say, they ate their fill of their father’s sheep and they sold their brother Joseph. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:12; Devek Tov, Genesis, 37:12 note 7.)

Midrash

The Yosef narrative includes the Yehuda/Tamar episode within it, creating a chronological problem in the text. In Bereshit Rabbah 84:13, it is discussed how Jacob sends Joseph to check on his brothers, and the Levites are counted without Aaron in Numbers 3:39. Additionally, in Bereshit Rabbah 84:12, it is mentioned that Jacob recorded Joseph's dream details, believing they were destined to occur.

Bamidbar Rabbah 3:13

“All those counted of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron counted by the directive of the Lord, by their families, all males from one month old and above, were twenty-two thousand” (Numbers 3:39). “All those counted of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron [ve’aharon] counted” – the vav in ve’aharon is dotted because Aaron was not part of the census. (He was not counted, nor did he participate with Moses in the census.) Similarly, “may the Lord judge between me and you [uveinekha]” (Genesis 16:5) – as she said it only regarding Hagar alone. (There is a dot over the yod in uveinekha, indicating that Sarah did not demand that God punish Abraham.) Some say, it was regarding those who introduce discord between him and her. (While this interpretation also maintains that Sarah was referring to Hagar, it is not based on the dot over the yod, but rather on understanding “between me and you” as referring to one who introduces discord between them.) Similarly, “They said to him [elav]: Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9) – the alef in elav is dotted, as they knew where she was but made inquiries about her. Similarly, “He did not know when she lay down and when she arose [uvkuma]” (Genesis 19:33) – the vav in the middle of uvkuma regarding the elder daughter is dotted; he did not know when she lay down, but he knew when she arose. Similarly, “he kissed him [vayishakehu] (Genesis 33:4) (Esau kissed Jacob.) – it is dotted, because he did not kiss him with all his heart. Similarly, “his brothers went to herd et” (Genesis 37:12) – why is it dotted over et? It teaches that they did not go to herd, but rather to eat, drink, and be seduced. Similarly, “or on a distant [reḥoka] journey” (Numbers 9:10) – the ḥet of reḥoka is dotted. (While the midrash here states that there is a dot on the ḥet, the Mishna (Pesaḥim 93b) and other sources state that the dot is on the heh. In our Torah scrolls the dot is on the heh.) It teaches that even if it was not a distant journey, but just outside the threshold of the courtyard of the Temple. Some say, even if it was a near journey, but it (The path which he has to take to reach the Temple (Etz Yosef).) is impure, he would not perform the rite of the paschal offering with them. Similarly, “we laid waste until Nofaḥ that [asher]” (Numbers 21:30) – the reish in asher is dotted, as it was so even beyond there. Some say: It teaches that they did not destroy the entire country, but rather the large cities. Similarly, “You shall offer one-tenth [isaron isaron] for each” (Numbers 29:15) – the first isaron of the first day of the festival is dotted. It teaches that there was only one one-tenth alone. (Namely, there was only a one-tenth measure, and for sacrifices which require two-tenths or three-tenths, each tenth would be measured separately.) Similarly, “The concealed are for the Lord our God, but the revealed are for us and for our children [lanu ulvaneinu] forever [ad olam]” (Deuteronomy 29:28) – why is it dotted over lanu ulvaneinu and the ayin of ad? He said to them: ‘If you perform the revealed, I will inform you of the concealed.’ Some say: Why is it dotted? Rather, this is what Ezra said: If Elijah will come and say: Why did you write them? (I.e., you should not have written them.) I will say to him: I dotted above them. If he will say: You wrote them well, I will erase the dots from above them.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:12

“His brothers envied him; but his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:12). “His brothers envied him; but his father kept [the matter] in mind” – Rabbi Levi said: He took a quill and wrote on which day, at which hour, at what place. (He recorded all the details of Joseph’s recounting of the dream so he could refer back to it. This indicated that he believed in the dream. ) Rabbi Ḥiyya Rabba said: “But his father kept the matter in mind” – the Divine Spirit was saying: Keep these matters in mind because they are destined to occur. Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: This is what our patriarch Jacob believed. He saw that these matters were impending. (Jacob saw that he was in fact destined to bow to Joseph (Matnot Kehuna). ) He said: If his ledger was scrutinized, what can I do? (If my ledger has been scrutinized, meaning if my own record has been scrutinized in heaven and I am destined to bow to my own son as a result of my sins, so be it (Matnot Kehuna). )

Bereshit Rabbah 84:13

“His brothers went to herd their father’s flock in Shekhem” (Genesis 37:12). “His brothers went to herd [lirot et]” – there are dots over the word et, indicating that they went only to herd themselves. (They went to eat and drink for their own pleasure, not primarily to herd the flocks.) “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem? Go, and I will send you to them. He said to him: Here I am” (Genesis 37:13). “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Berekhya: He treated him with deference in accordance with the reverence due a father from the son. (Although Joseph’s relations with his brothers were strained, he agreed to go in order to honor his father.) “He said to him: Here I am” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Jacob our patriarch would remember these words, and his innards would be torn to shreds: You knew that your brothers hated you, and you would say to me: Here I am. “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock and bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shekhem” (Genesis 37:14). “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock” – “the well-being of your brothers,” fine; but what is “the well-being of the flock”? This is [the source of] the saying: A person must inquire after the well-being of an item from which he derives benefit. “And bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron” – but is Hebron not situated in the mountain, yet it is written: “He sent him from the valley of [me’emek] Hebron”? Rav Aḥa said: He went to fulfill that profound [haamuka] counsel that the Holy One blessed be He arranged between Himself and His noble friend who is buried in Hebron: “They will be enslaved to them, and they will oppress them” (Genesis 15:13).

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 14; The Meaning of a Chronological Problem; Connecting Yosef and Yehuda 5

The Yosef narrative is marked by a glaring textual difficulty – the insertion of the Yehuda/Tamar episode at a critical moment in the description of Yosef’s sale into slavery. The events leading up to the sale of Yosef begin in Genesis 37:12. (Please read Genesis 37:12 through Genesis 39:1 for a complete grasp of the midrashic discussion.) Genesis 37:19–28 describes the brothers’ initial plan to kill Yosef and the discussion that leads first to their casting him into the pit, and then to the final decision to sell him. Verses 29–35 describe the aftermath of that decision and its particular effects upon Reuven and Yaakov. Verse 36 ends the passage (Fortuitously for our purposes, in the case of chapters 37–39, there is agreement between the traditional Jewish divisions of the biblical text (according to parasha, indicated by the spacing in the Torah scroll) and the later Christian divisions (indicated by chapter and verse numberings). The Christian numbering of chapters and verses is employed virtually everywhere in the Jewish world as a useful convention for ordering the Tanakh. In these three chapters at least, the chapter divisions reflect the Jewish tradition, which makes it easier to show the interpretive problems posed by the interpolation of the Tamar and Yehuda story into the Yosef narrative.) with the statement: “And the Midianites sold him [Yosef] to Egypt, to Potiphar, Par’oh’s chamberlain, the chief executioner.”

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that the sons of Bilhah were charged to act as messengers to Joseph in Genesis 50:16:1. In Numbers 3:39:1, the dots over Aharon's name indicate that he was not included in the counting of the Levites. In Numbers 9:10:1, the Torah uses the term "distant" to indicate that someone outside the threshold of the courtyard can still offer the Pesach Sheni.

Rashi on Genesis 50:16:1

ויצוו אל יוסף AND THEY COMMANDED SOME TO GO TO JOSEPH — The words ויצוו אל have the same meaning as in (Exodus 6:13) “and He gave them a charge unto (ויצום אל) the children of Israel”, which signifies, “He commanded Moses and Aaron to act as messengers to the children of Israel”, and this verse, too, means they charged the man whom they sent that he should act as their messenger to Joseph to speak to him as follows (the words לומר לו כן correspond to לאמר in the Bible text here). And who was it that they so charged? The sons of Bilhah who had been accustomed to associate with him, as it is said (Genesis 37:12) “When a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah” (Tanchuma Yashan 2:1:2).

Siftei Chakhamim, Numbers 3:39:1

There are dots over ואהרן. Meaning that only Moshe was involved in the counting of the Levites. (The dots imply that the word should not really be there, as if it were erased. See Bereishis, 33:4.) However, since both of them were involved in the count of the Israelites it is the manner of the Torah to write like this. Even though he did not take part in the count of the Levites he was still mentioned along with the count. There are those who explain Rashi’s words “he was not included in the counting of the Levites” to mean that he was not one of those who was counted. This is also implied in Tractate Bechoros 4a. However this raises a difficulty because the verse refers to those who did the counting — “whom Moshe and Aharon counted” — and not to those who were counted (Re’m). It appears to me that the correct explanation is as follows: The dots above Aharon’s name imply that he was not included in those who did the counting nor in those who were counted, because if not so why would the Torah mention Aharon and then place dots over his name. Therefore, so that you do not [mistakenly] say that he was not included in doing the counting, but he was one of those who were counted, there are dots over his name to teach that he was absent from everything, even those who were counted. This explanation is somewhat similar to the explanation that I gave for the words את צאן (Bereishis 37:12) where there are dots over את. Even though this explanation is somewhat forced, it helps to resolve a difficulty so that Rashi’s explanation in Chumash will not contradict his explanation in Tractate Bechoros where he explicitly says that Aharon was not included in the count. Similarly one can understand the statement of Bamidbar Rabbah: “The number of all the Levites whom Moshe and Aharon counted” — there are dots over his name because Aharon was not included in the count. The statement implies that he was not included in those who were counted.

Siftei Chakhamim, Numbers 9:10:1

But that he was outside. You might ask: Then why did the Torah say “distant…”? The answer is that if it had said “on the road” but not said “distant” I would have said that only someone who is distant offers the Pesach Sheni. However if he is outside the threshold of the courtyard, then he would not. Therefore the Torah wrote “distant” and placed a dot over [the word] to expound that it does not mean literally “distant,” as I explained previously regarding “to pasture the flock” (Bereishis 37:12).

Talmud

Ten letters or groups of letters in the Torah are marked with dots, including the beth in "ubeneka," the waw in "ubekumah," the resh in "’asher," and the waw in "we’issaron." These dots indicate various nuances in the text, such as insincerity in actions or specific meanings behind certain words. Additionally, there are eleven instances where the word for "she" is written as "he" but vocalized to mean "she" in the Torah, with examples including "he is Tzur" and "she has disgraced her father."

Avot DeRabbi Natan 34:5

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots. There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).

Tractate Soferim 6:3

Ten [letters or groups of letters] in the Torah are marked by dots: (The dots are placed above the letters. Cf. above, ARN XXXIV, p. 165 where the Rabbinical explanations are given.) In the Lord judge between me and thee (Gen. 16, 5.) there is a dot on the beth (So GRA. V and H ‘the yod’.) of ubeneka (and between thee). In and they said unto him, (ibid. XVIII, 9.) there are dots on alef-yod-waw of ’elaw (unto him). In and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose, (ibid. XIX, 33.) the [second] waw in ubekumah (nor when she arose) is marked with a dot. In and kissed him, (ibid. XXXIII, 4.) the entire word wayyishshaḳehu is marked by dots. In and his brethren went to feed their father’s flock, (ibid. XXXVII, 12.) the letters of ’eth (the mark of the defined accusative) are dotted. In whom Moses and Aaron numbered (Num. 3, 39.) the word Aaron is marked with dots. In or be in a journey afar off, (ibid. IX, 10.) the he in reḥoḳah (afar off) has a dot. In and we have laid waste even unto Nopha, which (ibid. XXI, 30.) the resh in ’asher (which) has a dot. In and a several tenth part, (ibid. XXIX, 15.) in the section dealing with the first day of the festival of Tabernacles, the second waw in we’issaron (and a tenth part) has a dot. In the secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, (Deut. 29, 28. [H more correctly, ‘unto us and to our children and the ‘ayin in עד’. Cf. Sanh. 43b (Sonc. ed., p. 285, n. 4) and ARN above, p. 166.]) the ‘ayin in ‘ad (for) has a dot.

Targum

In Genesis 37:12, both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan mention that Joseph's brothers went to pasture their father's sheep in Shechem.

Onkelos Genesis 37:12

His brothers went off to pasture their father’s sheep in Shechem.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:12

And his brothers went to feed their father's flock in Shekem.

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶל־יוֹסֵ֗ף הֲל֤וֹא אַחֶ֙יךָ֙ רֹעִ֣ים בִּשְׁכֶ֔ם לְכָ֖ה וְאֶשְׁלָחֲךָ֣ אֲלֵיהֶ֑ם וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ל֖וֹ הִנֵּֽנִי׃ 13 E Israel said to Joseph, “Your brothers are pasturing at Shechem. Come, I will send you to them.” He answered, “I am ready.”
Chasidut emphasizes the protective role of tzitzit against immorality, relating to Yosef in SheKheM. Commentary highlights Yosef's obedience to Jacob's command to check on his brothers in Shechem, fulfilling a prophecy about the patriarchs' descendants going to Egypt. Jewish Thought discusses the events in Shechem, the resistance of Dinah, the negotiation with Chamor, the massacre, Jacob's realization of idolatry, and Reuben's actions affecting his status. Midrash focuses on God's desires for love and honor among the people, Joseph's adherence to commandments, Judah's consequences for failing a mitzva, and the benefits of Torah study. Second Temple teachings emphasize the importance of inner beauty and resistance to bodily pleasures. Targum relates Yisrael sending Yosef to Shechem out of concern for the Hivaee attacking his brothers.

Chasidut

Tzitzit serves as protection against immorality, as seen in the reference to SheKheM in Genesis 37:13, symbolizing the importance of guarding the Covenant, specifically for Yosef. This is why Yaakov sent Yosef to his brothers who were shepherding in SheKheM.

Likutei Moharan 7:7:5

Know!… tzitzit protects against immorality… on both their SheKheM (shoulders)… a reference to tzitzit . [See section 4, above.] This is (Genesis 37:13), “Your brothers are shepherding in SheKheM”—an allusion to the tzitzit, which protects against immorality. [The tzitzit] corresponds to guarding the Covenant, which in turn applies to Yosef. Yaakov therefore said to Yosef, “Your brothers are shepherding in Shekhem”—which is your aspect. “Come, let me send you to them.”

Commentary

Jacob asks Joseph to go check on his brothers who are tending sheep in Shechem, a dangerous place due to past events. Joseph responds with humility and readiness, willing to obey his father's command despite knowing his brothers hate him. Jacob's decision to send Joseph was orchestrated by God to fulfill a prophecy about the patriarchs' descendants going to Egypt.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:13:1

?הלא אחיך רועים בשכם, “are your brothers not tending flocks in Sh’chem (a dangerous place?) Seeing that they had killed all the males of that town and looted it (Genesis 34,2529).[It occurs to this editor that the reason they had chosen to do so was to show their father that they were less worried about the local population than about Joseph lording it over them. Ed.]

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:13:1

HERE AM I. I will do as you say. (If Jacob called Joseph then the proper response would be here am I, as in Here am I, for thou didst call me (I Sam. 3:6). However, in our verse it comes as a response to Jacob’s command. Hence I.E.’s point that in our verse it has the meaning of: I am at your service (Filwarg).)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:13:1

לכה ואשלחך אליהם, "come let me send you to them;" The word לכה implied that Joseph should go visit his brothers. In the event he had qualms, however, Jacob added that he would make him a שליח של מצוה, a messenger on a divine mission, i..e fulfilling the commandment of obeying his father. This would protect him against harm (compare Pessachim 8).

Radak on Genesis 37:13:1

ויאמר...הלא אחיך, don’t you know that your brothers are in Shechem, tending flocks?

Radak on Genesis 37:13:2

הנני; he was not afraid of his brothers even though they hated him, for he thought that their awe of their father was greater than their desire to harm him. His father also did not think that the brothers posed a threat to his favourite son. Surely, if he had even entertained the slightest concern about the brothers harming Joseph, he would never have sent him on this mission. This entire matter was engineered by G’d Who knows the evil machinations of man in order that this would become the external cause of the patriarchs, i.e. their descendants to descend to Egypt and to fulfill the prophecy G’d had already told Avraham about in chapter 15.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:13:1

הלא אחיך רועים בשכם, the wording reflects Yaakov's surprise that Joseph’s brothers chose to tend their sheep in a dangerous location such as Shechem where they had killed the local inhabitants not so long ago. (this is what I heard from Rabbi Yoseph Karo our colleague. I enjoyed his interpretation greatly. [this was not original as it is found in Targum Yerushalmi. David Rosin, Ed.]

Rashi on Genesis 37:13:1

הנני HERE AM I — An expression denoting humility and readiness: he was zealous to perform his father’s bidding, although he was aware that his brothers hated him (Genesis Rabbah 84:13).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:13:1

Jakob fühlt den Bruch zwischen Josef und den Brüdern, will ihn sich nicht erweitern lassen und zugleich sein Brudergefühl auf die Probe stellen. Er gibt ihm zuerst keinen Auftrag; sagt vielmehr: es ist besser, daß ich dich zu ihrer Herde schicke, daß du bei ihnen seiest. Josef ist sofort bereit. Sein Gemüt ist ja rein. Sein Herz weiß ja nichts davon, Fürst oder Herrscher sein zu wollen.

Sforno on Genesis 37:13:1

הלא אחיך רועים בשכם?, Yaakov implied that it was not very far from their home to Shechem. [this seems a bit strange as it is about 100km by air, surely quite a distance for an unaccompanied young man of 17 to travel all by himself. Ed.]

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:13:1

A term indicating humility and readiness. You might ask: Why did Rashi not give this explanation on (22:11) אברהם אברהם ויאמר הנני, and on (Shemos 3:4) משה משה ויאמר הנני? The answer is: Here, הנני cannot be a way of answering [when called], as Yaakov was already speaking with him. For it is written, “Yisrael said to Yoseif, ‘Are your brothers not pasturing...’”

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:13

Israel said to Joseph: Aren’t your brothers herding in Shekhem? Go, and I will send you to them. It is normal for a flock to spend weeks or even months outside its pen. Jacob wished to maintain contact with his sons, who had wandered with the flock all the way from Hebron to Shekhem. He, Joseph, said to him: Here I am.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 24

“He answered, I am ready” [37:13]. Jacob said to Joseph: go to your brothers. They are pasturing in Shechem. Joseph responded: I am ready. Even though Joseph knew well that his brothers hated him and it was dangerous for him to go to his brothers, yet he would go, out of respect for his father. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:13.)

Jewish Thought

The city of Shechem mentioned in the books of the prophets is likely not the same as the town near where Dinah was raped, as it would have been unreasonable for Joseph to travel there alone. Dinah's resistance to the rape is emphasized, and the Torah outlines the three indignities suffered by Jacob's family as a result. The brothers deceive Chamor by using clever language to negotiate a compromise regarding Dinah. After the massacre in Shechem, Jacob realizes the prophetic nature of his dream about the ladder and instructs his family to rid themselves of any idolatrous practices. The death of Deborah may have served as atonement for the sons' actions, and Jacob's betrothal with God is symbolized by the erection of a monument. Reuben's status as the firstborn may have been affected by his actions towards Bilhah.

Akeidat Yitzchak 27:1:12

(1) There is no firm evidence that the city of Shechem mentioned in the books of the prophets is identical with the town near which Dinah was raped. There are pointers that suggest that this was not the same city. If the brothers were tending sheep at Shechem while their homes were at Chevron, Shechem must be presumed to have been less than a day's walk away. It is unreasonable to assume that Jacob sent Joseph all by himself on a journey of several days, as would have been the case if Shechem mentioned there were identical with the Nablus of today. In particular, seeing that so much bloodshed had taken place there, it would have been irresponsible to send a seventeen-year old into such hostile country all by himself. Even the brothers themselves were hardly likely to provoke the local population by grazing their flocks in their vicinity. We must assume therefore that Ir Shechem means the city of Shechem in the same sense as Ir David means "the capital of David's kingdom." The author explains how to dispose of apparently contradictory comments by the Talmud in Sanhedrin 102. (2) The reference to Dinah being a daughter of Leah is undoubtedly complimentary. The Torah, by referring to her ancestry, emphasizes that she had nothing but the best of intentions, that her excursion did not indicate a departure from traditional Jewish conduct. The repetition of the three expressions "He took her, he lay with her, he forced her" indicate that she remained uncooperative during all three phases of what is being described; she did not weaken in her resistance in any way. The reason three actions are mentioned is because Jacob's family suffered three indignities: A) The shame suffered by the whole family; B) The damage done to the girl's innocence and the loss of her virginity; C) The physical pain caused Dinah when she had to submit to violence. The punishment for the first of these indignities prescribed by the Torah is boshet, compensation in financial terms. The second indignity which reduced Dinah's value as a prospective bride in the compensation for the victim. It is noteworthy that Dinah did not lose her appeal for Shechem on account of any of the indignities he had heaped upon her. "He cleaved to the daughter of Jacob" (34,3). The family of Jacob had not become sullied in his eyes; he loved her just as before (not like Amnon who lost all his desire for Tamar once he had raped her). Shechem tried to talk softly to Dinah's heart to help her recover from her pain. (3) The order in which the Torah describes the arrival of the sons, after Chamor had already arrived at Jacob's house, is to exonerate Jacob from any implication in his sons' subsequent actions, since there had not been an opportunity for them to consult. That is why Jacob on his deathbed refers to "in their secret counsel let my soul not be involved" (Genesis 49,6). It is to underscore that he had not been a party to their plan. Obviously, the sons could not have heard about the event while being in the field. Therefore, we must understand the sequence of events thus: (34,7) "When the sons came home and heard what a shameful act had been perpetrated against Israel, namely that a daughter of Jacob had been slept with, something that could not be tolerated." (4) Chamor uses the future course of events in order to compensate for an injustice that could no longer be undone. He emphasizes that he does not only want to legitimize his relations with Dinah, but goes far beyond this, and this constitutes a great honor for Jacob. The king offers the freedom of the country to Jacob's family. The sons' reason for deceiving Chamor has already been discussed in the first part of this chapter. (5) When the brothers use the term tame, defiled, when referring to the rape and subsequently suggesting a compromise, they are already using deceit, since they conveyed the impression to Chamor and Shechem that they had calmed down already and that their suggestions therefore could be taken at face value, could be believed. An exact examination of the text reveals that in fact the brothers did not breach any contract, nor did they retract from their original position. This is the reason Onkelos translates the word mirmah, slyness, deceit, simply as chochmah, cleverness, wisdom. They said, "We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man with a foreskin because it is a shame for us to forgive such an act." Chamor understood them to mean that the words "we cannot" refer only to the foreskin, not to the shame they had suffered. Similarly, Chamor understood their statement "if you will become like us," as referring only to the rite of circumcision, whereas the brothers used it in a wider sense meaning that they would have to embrace all aspects of the brothers' lifestyle and religion. Thereby they served notice that they were not going to forgive anything. We note that nowhere did the brothers promise that Dinah would become Shechem's wife. They only spoke in general terms, "our daughters," "your daughters," etc., and threatened to leave the neighborhood with their sister if their demands were not complied with. When Chamor reported in his city on these discussions, he represented the rape episode as having been resolved, and emphasized the future advantages to be gained by intermarrying with Jacob's family. The unexpected acceptance by the townspeople of the terms offered may have convinced the sons of Jacob that heaven had indicated its approval for their plan of revenge. (6) Possibly the "third day" referred to was the third day of the week, i.e. Tuesday, but in reality the first day after the circumcision. This day is under the constellation of Mars, and signals bloodshed. (7) The brothers had to prevent the wives and children from raising an alarm in the neighboring towns after they had killed the males. Therefore, the females and children had to be taken captive. Since abandoning the herds made no sense, and since their undertaking had evidently enjoyed the help of heaven, they felt entitled to acquire the livestock etc. The repeated outcry "May our sister be treated like a harlot?" underscores that to revenge such a misdeed, considerations of personal safety that are normally valid criteria, and which were part of the objections raised by Jacob, were not valid now. (8) Until now Jacob had not been certain that his dream about the ladder had been of a prophetic nature; he only became sure now that G-d spoke to him and identified Himself as having been the One to whom Jacob had made the vow at that time. (9) He was intent to remove any trace of idols that had been part of the loot his sons had taken from the city of Shechem and Chamor, and to remove any impurity acquired through contact with such idols. To this end, he instructed all his people to change their garments. Of course, the exhortation included the order to desist from any idolatrous practices that might have been picked up by his sons due to their contact with the idol worshippers. (12) The death of Deborah, a fine woman, may have been the final chapter in the sons' repentance of the whole Dinah episode, since we have a tradition that the death of righteous people provides atonement for the survivors. Inasmuch as all of Jacob's sons could qualify for the heritage promised to their forefathers, G-d repeats "to your descendants I will give the land," meaning to all of them, not like Esau or Ishmael who did not qualify though they too had been descendants of Isaac and Abraham respectively. (10) Contrary to the normal custom of a pupil departing from his master, in this case G-d departed from Jacob, the latter still remaining in his place. This suggests that Jacob's task had not yet been completed, prompting him to erect the monument and fulfil payment of his vow. It was here that the betrothal of Israel and G-d took place, later to be consummated by chuppah, a wedding ceremony at Mount Sinai. Details of this whole process will be discussed in Chapter forty-eight. (11) At the beginning of Rachel's labor, the midwife encouraged her saying, "Do not worry, this too will be a son for you." This gave rise to Rachel naming the child before she had even seen it. (13) It seems that Jacob had not been home at the time Reuben had rearranged the furnishings in Bilhah's bedroom. Reuben would not have dared to do this otherwise. The statement that the sons of Jacob were twelve may indicate that at that juncture Reuben lost his status as the firstborn, no longer counting as two (since the firstborn normally receives a double portion of the father's estate). More likely however, the Torah may stress that Reuben remained a full member of the Jewish people.

Midrash

God seeks love, honor, and awe among the people of Israel. Joseph's actions align with the commandments, as he did not kill, commit adultery, steal, testify falsely, or covet. Judah's failure to complete a mitzva resulted in burying his wife and children, while Moses' completion of the mitzva of burying Joseph's bones was attributed to the children of Israel. Torah study is considered a remedy for physical ailments and must be recited aloud or shared with others to bring benefits.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:13

“His brothers went to herd their father’s flock in Shekhem” (Genesis 37:12). “His brothers went to herd [lirot et]” – there are dots over the word et, indicating that they went only to herd themselves. (They went to eat and drink for their own pleasure, not primarily to herd the flocks.) “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem? Go, and I will send you to them. He said to him: Here I am” (Genesis 37:13). “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Berekhya: He treated him with deference in accordance with the reverence due a father from the son. (Although Joseph’s relations with his brothers were strained, he agreed to go in order to honor his father.) “He said to him: Here I am” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Jacob our patriarch would remember these words, and his innards would be torn to shreds: You knew that your brothers hated you, and you would say to me: Here I am. “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock and bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shekhem” (Genesis 37:14). “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock” – “the well-being of your brothers,” fine; but what is “the well-being of the flock”? This is [the source of] the saying: A person must inquire after the well-being of an item from which he derives benefit. “And bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron” – but is Hebron not situated in the mountain, yet it is written: “He sent him from the valley of [me’emek] Hebron”? Rav Aḥa said: He went to fulfill that profound [haamuka] counsel that the Holy One blessed be He arranged between Himself and His noble friend who is buried in Hebron: “They will be enslaved to them, and they will oppress them” (Genesis 15:13).

Bereshit Rabbah 85:3

Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon and Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, buries his wife and his children. From whom do you derive this? It is from Judah. “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it [if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?]” (Genesis 37:26). He should have borne him on his shoulder to his father. What did it cause for him? He buried his wife and his children. Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, but another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the second one. That is what is written: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up” (Joshua 24:32). Did Moses not take them up, as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him” (Exodus 13:19)? But since it was decreed upon him that he would not enter the land, and these [the children of Israel] tended to them, it is therefore attributed to them. “Joseph’s bones…” (Joshua 24:32) – they analogize it; to what is the matter comparable? To robbers who entered a certain wine cellar. They took a particular jug and drank. The owner of the cellar peered at them. He said to them: ‘May it be pleasant for you, may it be enjoyable for you, may it be sweet for you. You drank the wine, restore the jug to its place.’ So, the Holy One blessed be He said to the tribes: ‘You sold Joseph. Restore his bones to their place.’ Another matter: Joseph said to them: ‘To the place from which you abducted me, return me’ – “are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). (This proves that the sale of Joseph took place in or around Shekhem. ) That is what the children of Israel did: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32).

Devarim Rabbah 8:4

What the verse said: “For they are life for those who find them…” (Proverbs 4:22) – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: It is a salve for the eye and a remedy for a wound, and a cup of roots for the intestines. A salve for the eyes, as it is written: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, it enlightens the eyes” (Psalms 19:9). A remedy for a wound, as it is written: “It will bring health to your body” (Proverbs 3:8). A cup of roots for the intestines – as it is written: “And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8). Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [lemotzeihem]” – to one who issues them [lemotzian] out of his mouth. (Studies out loud.) There was an incident involving a certain disciple of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who would complete all his learning in one hour. (He did not say the words out loud.) One time, he fell ill and forgot all his learning. What caused this to befall him? It is because he did not recite it with his mouth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov prayed on his behalf and all his learning was restored. Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who imparts it [shemotzian] to others. Alternatively, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who completes [shemamtzi] (This is a variation of the word mematze, which means exhausts or completes.) all the mitzvot. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “All the mitzva” (Deuteronomy 8:1). What is “all the mitzva”? It is until you complete all the mitzvot. "And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8), the 248 limbs that you have. That is "For this mitzva." Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, causes that he will bury his wife and his children. From whom do you derive it? It is from Judah, who began a mitzva but did not complete it. How so? When Joseph came to his brothers and they sought to kill him, as it is stated: “Let us go and kill him” (Genesis 37:20). Judah stood and did not allow them. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “What profit is it if we kill our brother?” (Genesis 37:26). They heeded him because he was king over them. Had he said to them: ‘Let us return him to our father,’ they would have heeded him. Because he began the mitzva but did not complete it, he buried his wife and his children, as it is stated: “Bat Shua, Judah’s wife, died” (Genesis 38:12), and it is written: “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 46:12). Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: Anyone who begins a mitzva but does not complete it, and another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the one who completed it. How so? Moses began the mitzva, as he took Joseph’s bones with him. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him…” (Exodus 13:19). But because he did not take them into the Land of Israel, it is attributed to Israel, who buried him, as it is stated: “The bones of Joseph that the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32). “That Moses took up from Egypt” is not written here, but rather, “that the children of Israel took up.” Why did they bury him in Shekhem? To what is the matter comparable? It is to thieves who stole a barrel of wine. The homeowner was aware of their presence. He said to them: ‘Enjoy it, but, as you live, after you drink the wine, return the barrel to its place.’ So, when the brothers sold Joseph, they sold him from Shekhem, as it is stated: “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). The Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘You sold him from Shekhem, return him to Shekhem.’ Since they completed the mitzva, it is attributed to them. That is, “for this mitzva.”

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Vayehi Beshalach 1:14

In what lies in the other ark it is written (Exodus 20) "I am the L–rd your G–d," and of Joseph it is written (Genesis 50:19) "Am I in the place of G–d?" In what lies in this ark it is written (Exodus 20) "There shall not be before you any other gods," and of Joseph it is written (Genesis 42:18) "It is G–d whom I fear." (Exodus 20) "You shall not take the name of the L–rd your G–d in vain." And of Joseph it is written (Genesis 42:15) "By the life of Pharaoh," (Joseph not swearing by "the life" of the L–rd.) (Exodus 20) "Remember the Sabbath day." Joseph (Genesis 42:16) "slaughter an animal and prepare it," "prepare" alluding to Sabbath eve, it being written here "prepare," and elsewhere (Exodus 16:5) "And it shall be on the sixth day that they shall prepare." (Exodus 20) "Honor your father." Joseph (Genesis 37:13) "And Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not grazing (the sheep) in Shechem? Go, and I will send you to them. And he said to him: Here I am" (at your service). Joseph knew that his brothers hated him, but he would not transgress the words of his father. (Exodus 20) "You shall not kill." He did not kill Potiphar (even though he could have.) (Exodus 20) "You shall not commit adultery." He did not commit adultery with the wife of Potiphar. (Exodus 20) "You shall not steal." He did not rob Pharaoh, viz. (Genesis 47:14) "And Joseph collected all of the money, etc." (Exodus 20) "You shall not testify falsely against your neighbor." Joseph did not tell his father what his brothers had done to him. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If he did not testify (against them) even truthfully, how much more so, falsely! (Exodus 20) "You shall not covet." He did not covet Potiphar's wife. It is written (Leviticus 19:17) "Do not hate your brother in your heart." And of Joseph it is written (Genesis 50:21) "And he counseled them and he spoke to their hearts." It is written (Leviticus 19:18) "You shall not take revenge and you shall not bear a grudge," and (in respect to Joseph, Genesis 50:20) "And you contemplated evil against me, but G–d contemplated it for the good." (Leviticus 25:36) "And let your brother live with you." (Genesis 47:12) "And Joseph sustained his father and his brothers, etc."...

Tanna DeBei Eliyahu Rabbah 26:1

This is what God said to Israel: My children what do I seek from you? I seek no more than that you love one another, and honor one another, and that you have awe for one another

Second Temple

People are sent to learn from those who believe true beauty belongs to the soul, not external or bodily advantages. Those who love virtue carry a burden of resistance to bodily pleasure and external delights.

That the Worse is wont to Attack the Better 4:1

[9] In order, then, that he may be taught better ideas than these, he is sent to men who hold that nothing is a good thing but what has true beauty, and that this is a property belonging to the soul as soul; men who are convinced that advantages pertaining to things outside and to the body are good things in name only, not in reality. For it says “Behold thy brethren tend their flocks,” and govern every irrational element of their being “in Sychem” (Gen. 37:13). “Sychem” means “shoulder,” a symbol of patient toil; for lovers of virtue carry a very great burden, namely resistance to the body and bodily pleasure, and in addition to these resistance to external things and the delights which they afford us.

Targum

Yisrael tells Yoseif that his brothers are pasturing in Shechem and sends him to them, expressing concern about the Hivaee attacking them. Yoseif responds, "Here I am." (Onkelos Genesis 37:13, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:13)

Onkelos Genesis 37:13

Yisrael said to Yoseif, Aren’t your brothers pasturing [the sheep] in Shechem? Come, I will send you to them. He [Yoseif] said to him, Here I am.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:13

And it was at the time of days that Israel said to Joseph, Do not thy brethren feed in Shekem? But I am afraid lest the Hivaee come and smite them, because they smote Hamor and Shekem and the inhabitants of the city. Come now; and I will send thee to them And he said, Behold me.

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֗וֹ לֶךְ־נָ֨א רְאֵ֜ה אֶת־שְׁל֤וֹם אַחֶ֙יךָ֙ וְאֶת־שְׁל֣וֹם הַצֹּ֔אן וַהֲשִׁבֵ֖נִי דָּבָ֑ר וַיִּשְׁלָחֵ֙הוּ֙ מֵעֵ֣מֶק חֶבְר֔וֹן וַיָּבֹ֖א שְׁכֶֽמָה׃ 14 E And he said to him, “Go and see how your brothers are and how the flocks are faring, and bring me back word.” So he sent him from the valley of Hebron. When he reached Shechem,
Joseph was sent by Jacob from Hebron to Shechem to check on his brothers, beginning a cycle of events fulfilling the covenant with Abraham. Peace is crucial for the community's well-being, unity is important for holiness, and Torah completes harmony. Jacob's blessing to Joseph before his death is seen as a prophecy of the future of the tribes of Israel. Joseph accepted his father's mission despite danger, showing obedience to parents unless conflicting with God's commandments. Scripture hints at deeper meanings, such as the body coupling with the soul. The descent of the Jewish people to Egypt began with Joseph's journey to his brothers, and it is advised that a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night.

Commentary

Joseph was sent by Jacob from the valley of Hebron to Shechem to check on his brothers and the flock. Jacob's concern for Joseph's safety was based on the idea that being on a mission from his father would protect him. The location of Shechem was one with a predisposition to misfortunes, as it was where Dinah was raped, Joseph was sold, and the kingdom of David was divided. The act of sending Joseph to his brothers was the beginning of a cycle of events that would fulfill the covenant made with Abraham.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:14:1

לך נא ראה את שלום אחיך, “please go and check whether everything is all right with your brothers!” Whenever the word נא appears in the Torah, it must be understood as a request rather than as an order. Yaakov told Joseph that although he hears every day reports about what the brothers were doing and where, it was no more than good manners that he, Joseph, should go and look them up, seeing that after all he was their brother.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:14:2

ואת שלום הצאן, “and check that everything is all right with the flocks.” From this we learn that should enquire if a person’s business is flourishing.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:14:2-3

ואת שלום הצאן, “and check that everything is all right with the flocks.” From this we learn that should enquire if a person’s business is flourishing. וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he took leave of him in the valley below Chevron.” Seeing that Chevron is situated at the top of a mountain, we learn from here that Yaakov accompanied Joseph on the beginning of his journey, and that this is considered no more than good manners for anyone to copy. Our sages consider it as more than good manners, i.e. as a requirement. The subject of their conversation is supposed to have been the laws about how to deal with an anonymous corpse who had clearly been murdered, so that the people nearest to that location need not feel indirectly responsible (Deuteronomy chapter 21).

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:14:3

וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he took leave of him in the valley below Chevron.” Seeing that Chevron is situated at the top of a mountain, we learn from here that Yaakov accompanied Joseph on the beginning of his journey, and that this is considered no more than good manners for anyone to copy. Our sages consider it as more than good manners, i.e. as a requirement. The subject of their conversation is supposed to have been the laws about how to deal with an anonymous corpse who had clearly been murdered, so that the people nearest to that location need not feel indirectly responsible (Deuteronomy chapter 21).

Malbim on Genesis 37:14:1

From the depths of Chevron. See Rashi. If Yaakov was concerned about the well being of ten grown men and their servants, how could he send the young Yoseif on his own to check up on them? Clearly this was the hand of Hashem.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:14:1

לך נא ראה, "Please go and have a look, etc." Now Jacob spelled out the details of the commandment Joseph was to fulfil including bringing back a report to his father. This would make him his father's messenger both on the outward journey and on the return journey. If the bringing back of the report became a separate commandment this would act as protection for Joseph even according to the view in the Talmud that such messengers are enjoying divine protection only until they reach their destination. Jacob made sure that Joseph had two destinations. Joseph could now rest assured that he would return safely.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:14:2

Jacob believed that despite the fact that the brothers hated Joseph and it was therefore not unlikely that he would be in danger, the מצוה he performed by obeying his father would protect him. He based himself on the following discussion in Pesachim 8. We are taught in a Baraita: When there is a hole in a wall dividing the property of a Jew from that of a Gentile, one needs to search for possible chametz as far as one's arm can reach. Plymo says that one does not have to endanger oneself in order to locate such chametz. The Talmud counters that Rabbi Eleazar has said that when one is engaged in the performance of a מצוה one is not liable to suffer harm. So why should considerations of danger prevent someone from searching for chametz? The Talmud answers that the rule of Rabbi Eleazar holds true only where danger is not likely to be encountered. The other rabbis who disagree with Plymo hold that the two situations are not alike. When danger is apparent, such as certain hornets having their lairs inside the holes of a wall, one endangers one's life frivolously by putting in one's arm searching for chametz. When the danger consists of the Gentile possibly accusing the Jew of engaging in sorcery because he performs an act such as looking for chametz, something that seems non-sensical to the Gentile this is no reason to desist and to rely on miracles instead. The Talmud cites the incident of Samuel enquiring of G'd how he could endanger himself carying out his command to anoint David when there was a price on David's head? G'd told him to pretend to go to Hebron to slaughter an animal for G'd (Samuel I 16,2). Samuel was in very real danger, as the chances that king Saul would hear about his trip to Hebron were close to 100% and he would be very suspect. Such danger could not be compared with that of searching for chametz in a wall and the Gentile neighbour jumping to the wrong conclusion. Joseph's brothers had never been suspected of planning to actually harm him physically. Plymo might also not have considered Joseph's danger at the hands of his brothers as real enough for him not to rely on Rabbi Eleazar's dictum that the performance of the מצוה would act as his shield.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:14:3

In view of the above you may well ask how it was that Joseph wound up being sold as a slave, etc.? The answer is that when Rabbi Eleazar said that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזקין, people on a מצוה mission would not come to harm, he meant permanent harm. Joseph wound up as the ruler of Egypt as a result of having been sent to his brothers. The fact that he experienced degradation on the way was merely a preparation for his eventual elevation.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:14:4

There is another aspect to all this. When Jacob despatched Joseph he was very careful to refer to the location where the brothers were supposed to be tending the sheep. He asked: "are not your brothers tending the flocks at Shechem?" He had therefore made it plain that Joseph was supposed to go to Shechem. When Joseph went to Shechem and failed to find the brothers his mission was completed. If he decided nonetheless to go to Dothan to locate them there he was no longer his father's messenger. This is why he was no longer protected by performing a commandment of his father. Jacob was convinced that no harm would befall Joseph at Shechem. Joseph thought that his father had mentioned Shechem only as a likely place where he would find his brothers but that his mission was not restricted to Shechem.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:14:5

ויבא שכמה, He arrived at Shechem. The place to which his father had sent him; however, he did not find his brothers. He searched for them, something the Torah did not need to spell out as otherwise the first words in the next verse, i.e. "A man found him," would not make sense. By now Joseph was lost.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:14:1

ויבא שכמה, “he came to Shechem.” a place destined for a variety of unhappy events (Tanchuma Vayeshev 2). In Shechem Dinah had been raped; In Shechem they sold Joseph. In Shechem the kingdom of David was divided and the ten tribes elected Jerobam as their king. (Kings I 12,1). After Jerobam had been elected king he built up that city (Kings I 12,25).

Radak on Genesis 37:14:1

ויאמר...ואת שלום הצאן, in Bereshit Rabbah 84,13 the instruction by Yaakov to Joseph that he was to enquire not only about their personal well being, but also about the well being of their property, their flocks, teaches us that one must always display concern not only for the health, etc., of people one meets but also about their economic well being.

Radak on Genesis 37:14:2

מעמק חברון, since when is Chevron in a valley? We always associate it with being located on a mountain! The Torah alludes to a profound understanding between G’d and Avraham who had been interred in Chevron. The Torah now alludes to the prediction by G’d to Avraham, that his descendants would for a long time be strangers in a land not theirs (Genesis 15,13)

Ramban on Genesis 37:14:1

AND HE SENT HIM OUT OF THE VALLEY OF HEBRON. Scripture mentions the place from which Joseph was sent, in order to indicate that there was a great distance between father and son, and that this was the reason why the brothers did him evil: they were distant far from their father. It also serves to relate that Joseph, out of respect for his father, strengthened himself to go after them to a distant place, and he did not say, “How shall I go when they hate me?”. Our Rabbis yet have a Midrash concerning this matter, in which they say, “It was to fulfill the profound thought of the ‘seemly companion’ (Abraham. The Midrash thus explains the word Chevron (Hebron) as if it consisted of the two words: chever na’eh (seemly companion). Thus it refers to Abraham who walked before G-d (above 17:1). The Midrash is in Bereshith Rabbah 84:13.) who was buried in Hebron.” (Reference is to the covenant — which G-d made with Abraham — that his seed will be a stranger in a land that is not their own (above, 15:13). The idea expressed is that Jacob’s act of sending Joseph to his brethren was thus the beginning of a cycle of events which would fulfill the covenant made with Abraham.)

Rashbam on Genesis 37:14:1

ויבא שכמה, when he came to Shechem he did not find them there.

Rashi on Genesis 37:14:1

מעמק חברון FROM THE VALE OF HEBRON — But was not Hebron situated on a hill, as it is said (Numbers 13:22) “And they went up into the South and they came unto Hebron” why then does it state that Jacob sent him from the עמק, (the vale, the deep part) of Hebron? But the meaning is that Jacob sent him in consequence of the necessity of bringing into operation the profound (עמוקה) thought of the righteous man who was buried in Hebron (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 22) — in order that there might be fulfilled that which was spoken to Abraham when the Covenant was made ‘between the parts” (cf. 15:13), “thy seed shall be a stranger etc.”

Rashi on Genesis 37:14:2

ויבא שכמה AND HE CAME TO SHECHEM — A spot foredestined to be the scene of misfortunes: there the sons of Jacob sinned (by selling Joseph), there Dinah was maltreated, there the kingdom of the House of David was divided, as it said (1 Kings 12:1) “And Rehoboam went to Shechem etc.” (Sanhedrin 102a).

Sforno on Genesis 37:14:1

לך נא ראה, “please go and have a first hand look, etc.” Yaakov meant that Joseph should take care of any matters which in his opinion needed to be improved in the managing of the herds.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:14:1

But, is not Chevron on a mountain... Re’m writes: It seems that this verse was not [Chazal’s] proof that Chevron was on a mountain. Although it is written, “Went up,” this could be because Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the lands, as Rashi explains on, “Hurry, go up to my father” (45:9). Rather, Re’m explains, the proof is that Chevron was designated as a burial place. People designate only rocky areas for burial, as it says in Kesubos 112a, and rocky areas are on mountains. An alternate explanation: It is written, “They went up and scouted the land...” (Bamidbar 13:21), and then is written (v. 22), “They went up into the southern part, and came to Chevron.” Why is it written “they went up” twice? Scripture should simply have written, “They went up into the southern part, and scouted the land... and came to Chevron.” Perforce, “they went up” is repeated because it refers to Chevron, which is on a mountain. So it seems to me.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:14:2

A place with a predisposition to misfortunes... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should simply say, “And he came there,” since it is already written, “Pasturing in Shechem.” Perforce, [the name is repeated to imply,] “the notorious Shechem”. [Alternatively, Rashi knows this because] it should simply say, “He sent him from the depths of Chevron, and a man found him...” Perforce, [Shechem is mentioned to imply, “the notorious Shechem”]. (Maharshal)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:14

He said to him: Go now, see the status of your brothers and the status of the flock and bring back word. He sent him from the Valley of Hebron. Although Hebron itself is situated on mountainous terrain, it is possible that Jacob’s family dwelled in the valley below. Alternatively, the family lived in Hebron itself, but Jacob accompanied his son until they reached the valley, at which point Jacob sent Joseph on his own. 4 And he, Joseph, came to Shekhem.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:14:1

וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he sent him on his way after having accompanied him to the valley of Chevron.” Although, according to all our records, Chevron is situated on a mountain, as we know also from the route taken by the spies (Deuteronomy 1,24), his father accompanied him all the way down to the valley. Only after reaching the lowlands did Yaakov send Joseph alone on his fateful journey. The Torah makes a point of letting us know from where Joseph was sent on this mission (presumably on foot), so that we realize how far he had to travel, i.e. how much distance the brothers had put between themselves and their father. They had done so precisely to discourage their father from sending Joseph, assuming also that if their father would want to send him, he might demur, citing both the distance and the fact that the brothers hated him.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 25

“He sent him from the valley of Hebron” [37:14]. If you want to ask, what was Jacob thinking to send Joseph to his brothers, who hated him very much? The explanation is that the Holy One had commanded this, so that through this, Israel would come to the exile of Egypt. So had the Holy One said to Abraham who was buried in Hebron. Your children will be in Egypt for four hundred years. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:14.)

Jewish Thought

Peace is not just the restoration of balance, but the unifying thread that binds people together into a harmonious whole, as seen in the name of G'd "Shalom." Without Torah, harmony is incomplete, as shown by Moses' interaction with G'd on Mount Sinai. Hillel's advice to strive for peace and not separate from the community reflects the importance of unity for the holiness and existence of the community. Peace is crucial for the community's well-being, as shown in the blessing of peace pronounced when the tabernacle was put into service. (Akeidat Yitzchak 74:1:4)

Akeidat Yitzchak 74:1:4

It is commonly supposed that "peace" is the restoration of harmony between parties that have been at odds with one another. People who conceive of "peace" as being merely that, deprive the concept of much of its value. If "peace" does nothing more than restore a balance where there had previously been an imbalance, it can hardly be considered a blessing. Shame is not a virtue, since it presupposes that an unworthy act had been committed which the perpetrator is now ashamed of. Actually, peace is more like the silver thread that joins two people or two entities combining them into a unified whole. Why is one of the names of G'd shalom, peace? Because He ties together worlds, keeps them united and preserves their appearance and format. (Midrash Chazit chapter 1) When we read in Samuel II 11,7, "David enquired after the "peace" of Yoav, the "peace" of the people, and the "peace" of the "war," there is certainly no reference intended to the cessation of the war. This war was still very much in progress. David merely asked Uriah whether these people or affairs were all well and proceeding according to plan. The word "peace" in that context describes that there was a common bond between the people or the animals described. A city of people who do not quarrel with one another, who tolerate each other's idiosyncrasies, cannot be said to be at peace with each other as long as they do not share a common purpose or goal. Furthermore, when there is no bond joining people, there is a degree of separateness which may eventually lead to disintegration, decay etc. Isaiah 45,7, has this in mind when he contrasts "fashions light, or creates darkness, makes peace or creates evil, I the Lord do all these." The relationship of ra, evil, to shalom, peace, is like the relationship between darkness and light. Peace, i.e harmony, is the fruitful interaction of the various energies of different bodies, elements. It was Aaron's special talent to have understood that it is the task of a leader to weave that thread, the fabric that binds people to one another, and thus help them to establish harmony by desiring for them what one desires for oneself. Moses, on the other hand, was concerned primarily with the intellectual approach. He believed that without the benefit of Torah, whatever man does is of insufficient value to prolong our days on this earth. Without Torah, no degree of harmony can be achieved that would be capable of overcoming the dichotomy due to the fact that this physical universe has been made up of four distinctly different elements. The Talmud Shabbat 89, illustrates this line of thinking when it describes Moses' arrival on Mount Sinai before he had received the Torah. Moses is described as finding G'd "tying crowns to the letters." G'd asks him: "Moses, is there no "peace" in your city?" (are you people not in the habit of extending greetings of "peace be with you" where you come from?) Moses replies: "how can a slave contribute to the "peace"' of his Master?" G'd replies: "at any rate you should have assisted Me." Immediately, Moses said "now let the strength of the Lord become great as You have said." The lesson contained in that Midrash is, that even without the benefit of Torah, man's effort to weave the thread of togetherness, i.e. civilisation, is sufficient to improve his lot down here on earth. This is shalom; peace. When Hillel advised people to emulate the virtue of Aaron, namely to strive for peace, he was quite correct, inasmuch as this is a most positive character trait. Similarly, when Hillel said "do not separate yourself from the community," he was merely describing the other side of the coin. Tzibbur, community, after all, is what has been united by shalom, peace. The holiness of G'd depends on the community. Venikdashti betoch beney Yisrael, I will be sanctified within the community of Israel. When the community sins, one must abandon it. (Jeremiah 9,1) When only an individual sins, the community must see to it that the individual repents, or they must place him outside the tzibbur, into cherem quarantine. Since peace therefore is of vital importance to the existence of the community, it is clear that precisely at the time the tabernacle was put into service, G'd would pronounce the blessing of peace, as we have noted in our opening Midrash.

Midrash

Jacob's blessing to Joseph before his death is seen as a prophecy of the future of the tribes of Israel. Judah is paired with Babylon, likened to a lion, while Benjamin is paired with Media, likened to a wolf. Levi is paired with Greece, with each having three letters in Hebrew. Joseph is paired with Edom, both having horns, symbolizing their respective characteristics. The fall of these kingdoms is seen as a result of the blessings of Moses and Rachel's descendants.

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bamidbar Rabbah 9:24

It is taught: Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that in accordance with the measure that a person metes out for others it is meted out for him? (The retribution is commensurate with the action.) It is as it is stated: “In measure [besasse’a] (This is expounded as bise’a se’a, measure for measure.) in sending it away, You contend with it” (Isaiah 27:8). I have derived only a matter that is a se’a. From where is it derived regarding one who measures a tarkav, half a tarkav, a kav, half a kav, a rova, half a rova, toman, and ukhela; (These are all smaller measures.) from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “For all boots [seon] stomp [so’en] noisily” (Isaiah 9:4) – it includes here many se’a. I have derived only a matter that comes by measure, from where is it derived that even perutot (A peruta is the smallest coin.) accumulate to a large account? The verse states: “One to one to find the account” (Ecclesiastes 7:27). The way of the world is that if a person stumbles by performing a transgression for which one incurs liability for death at the hand of Heaven, his ox dies, his hen is lost, his jug is lost, his finger is injured, and the account is settled. One event follows another and the account is settled. To what extent is the settling of the account? It is until the last one. Likewise you find regarding the sota that in accordance with the measure that she meted out it is meted out for her. She stood before him so she would be beautiful in his eyes; therefore, the priest has her stand before all to display her shame, as it is stated: “The priest shall have the woman stand before the Lord” (Numbers 5:18) – this is the Nikanor Gate. She wrapped beautiful scarves on her head; therefore the priest removes the covering from upon her head and places it under the soles of her feet. She adorned her face for him; therefore, her face turns sallow. She applied makeup to her eyes for him; therefore, her eyes bulge. She plaited her hair for him; therefore, the priest dishevels her hair. She signaled to him with her fingers; therefore, her fingernails fall off. She wore a fine belt for him; therefore, the priest brings a rope crafted from trees and ties it above her breasts. She extended her thigh to him; therefore, her thigh falls. She received him on her belly; therefore, her belly distends. She fed him delicacies of the world; therefore, her offering is animal feed. She gave him fine wine to drink in fine goblets; therefore the priest gives her bitter water to drink in an earthenware vessel. She acted clandestinely [baseter]; therefore, He who dwells in the shelter [beseter] of the Most High directs His glance at her, as it is stated: “The eye of the adulterer awaits the night, saying: No eye will behold me; and he masks [veseter panav] his face” (Job 24:15). Another matter: She acted clandestinely and the Omnipresent publicized her in the open, as it is stated: “Hatred will be concealed by darkness; his wickedness will be revealed in public.” (Proverbs 26:26). The Sages taught: The members of the generation of the Flood became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the goodness that He bestowed upon them, as it is stated: “Their houses are peaceful without fear.… his bull breeds.… they send out their youngsters like a flock.… They sing to the drum and harp [and rejoice at the sound of the pipe.] They will end their days in prosperity…” (Job 21:9–13). That caused them: “They say to God: Turn away from us.… What is the Almighty, that we should serve Him…” (Job 21:14–15). The members of the generation of the Flood said: Since the only exertion he does for us is these two drops of water, we do not need it. We have springs and rivers from which we take our supply in the summer and in the rainy season, as it is stated: “And a mist would rise from the earth [and water the entire surface of the ground]” (Genesis 2:6). The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘With the goodness that I bestowed upon you, you become haughty before Me? With it, I will exact retribution against you,’ as it is stated: “On that day, [all the wellsprings of the great depths] were breached [and the windows of the heavens were opened]…” (Genesis 7:11); “He obliterated all existence…” (Genesis 7:23). Rabbi Yosei ben Dormaskit says: They became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the eyeball, which is similar to water, as it is stated: “And the sons of the prominent saw the daughters of men, that they were fair” (Genesis 6:2). The Omnipresent, too, exacted retribution from them only with the water wheel, which is similar to an eyeball [ha’ayin], as it is stated: “On that day [all the wellsprings [ma’ayanot] of the great depths] were breached” (Genesis 7:11). The people of the tower became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the goodness that He bestowed upon them, as it is stated: “The entire earth was of [one] language.… When they migrated from the east…[and settled [vayeshvu] there]” (Genesis 11:1–2). Yeshiva is nothing other than eating and drinking, as it is stated: “The people sat [vayeshev] to eat and drink” (Exodus 32:6). That caused them: “They said: Come let us build us [a city]” (Genesis 11:4). With it, (By means of the language that had been part of the original goodness. ) He exacted retribution against them, as it is stated: “The Lord dispersed them from there…That is why one called it Babylonia, [because there the Lord confounded [balal] the world’s language]” (Genesis 11:8–9). The people of Sodom became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the goodness that He bestowed upon them. What is stated in their regard? “Earth, from which bread emerges.… the source of sapphires.… a path unknown by birds of prey.… wild beasts have not trodden it…” (Job 28:5–8). (The reference is to the city of Sodom, which was later overturned, as it is stated thereafter: “He extends his hand to the flinty rock; He overturns mountains from the root” (Job 28:9).) Sodom said: Since food emerges from our land, silver and gold emerge from our land, jewels and gems emerge from our land, we do not need people coming to us, as they come only to cause us loss. Let us stand and cause passersby to be forgotten from our midst. The Omnipresent said to them: With the goodness that I bestowed upon you, you seek to cause passersby to be forgotten from your midst? “He drives a shaft away from habitation, [which is forgotten by foot traffic, removed from humanity]” (Job 28:4). “A calamity that brings contempt to complacent composure.… The tents are tranquil…” (Job 12:5–6). It caused them: “As the hand of God engenders” (Job 12:6). Likewise it says: “As I live, the utterance of the Lord God, Sodom, your sister, she and her daughters surely did not do as you have done, you and your daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom…” (Ezekiel 16:48–49). Why [was Sodom punished] to that extent? “But she did not support the hand of the poor and indigent…” (Ezekiel 16:49). Egypt became haughty before the Omnipresent only with water, as it is stated: “Pharaoh commanded all his people [saying:] every son who is born, [into the Nile you shall cast him]” (Exodus 1:22). The Omnipresent, too, exacted retribution against them only with water, as it is stated: “Pharaoh’s chariots [and his army, He cast in the sea]” (Exodus 15:4). Sisera became haughty before the Omnipresent only due to the legions that do not receive wages, as it is stated: “Kings came, they waged war, then [the kings of Canaan] waged war…[they took no monetary gain]” (Judges 5:19). The Holy One blessed be He, too, exacted retribution against them with legions that do not receive wages, as it is stated: “From the heavens, they made war; [the stars from their courses made war with Sisera]” (Judges 5:20). They did not move from there and did not show him respect, because he is an underling. (He was a general in the army of the king.) Samson rebelled with his eyes, as it is stated: “Samson said to his father: Take her for me, as she is fitting in my eyes” (Judges 14:3). He too was stricken in his eyes, as it is stated: “The Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes” (Judges 16:21). One verse says: “Samson descended to Timna” (Judges 14:1), and one verse says: “Behold your father-in-law is ascending to Timna” (Genesis 38:13). Rav said: There are two Timnas, one of Judah and one of Samson. Rabbi Aivu bar Nagari said: It is like this Beit Maon that one descends to it from Pelugta and ascends to it from Tiberias. Rabbi Simon says: There was one Timna. Why is ascent and descent written in its regard? It is, rather, that the one of Judah, that was for the sake of Heaven; (This is a reference to the behavior of Tamar in the story in Genesis, chapter 38. See Yalkut Shimoni, Vayeshev 144.) therefore, ascent is written in its regard. The one of Samson, that was not for the sake of Heaven; therefore, descent is written in its regard. It is written: “They came to the vineyards of Timna” (Judges 14:5) – Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: It teaches that his father and his mother would show him the vineyards of Timna sown with diverse kinds and say to him: ‘Just as their vineyards are sown with diverse kinds, so their daughters are sown with diverse kinds.’ (The Philistines did not observe the laws of family purity.) “His father and his mother did not know that it was from the Lord” (Judges 14:4) – Rabbi Elazar said: In seven places, (See Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4, and the commentators there who give different explanations for the phrase "seven places.") it is written: “Do not marry them” (Deuteronomy 7:3), to prohibit the seven nations, (This is a reference to the seven nations mentioned in Deuteronomy 7:1.) and here, this is what it says? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “If it is to scoffers, He will scoff, but to the humble He gives favor” (Proverbs 3:34). (When one seeks to sin, God enables the sinner to do as he wishes.) It is taught: Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says: The beginning of his corruption was in Gaza; therefore, he was stricken in Gaza. The beginning of his corruption was in Gaza, as it is written: “Samson went to Gaza, and he saw a harlot there, and he consorted with her” (Judges 16:1). Therefore, he was stricken in Gaza, as it is written: “They took him down to Gaza and bound him with bronze shackles; he became a grinder in the prison” (Judges 16:21). They raised an objection: But is it not written: “Samson descended to Timna” (Judges 14:1)? Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: The one in Timna was through marriage, but the beginning of his corruption was in Gaza. (Sota 9b.) “It was after that that he fell in love with a woman in Sorek Stream, [and her name was Delilah]” (Judges 16:4). What is the Sorek Stream? He became like a tree that does not bear fruit. (Such a tree is known as an etz serak.) So, since he sinned three times he became a habitual sinner. “And her name was Delilah” – Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says: Had her name not been called Delilah, it would have been appropriate that she be called that; she depleted [dildela] his strength, she depleted his actions, she depleted his heart. It is written: “Delilah saw that he had told her his whole heart…” (Judges 16:18). How did she know? Rabbi Ḥanan said: Truth is apparent. Naḥmani said: She knew regarding that righteous one that he would not express the Name of Heaven for naught. When he said: “I am a nazirite of God” (Judges 16:17), she said: Now it is certain that he has spoken the truth. She depleted his strength, as it is written: “His strength left him.” (Judges 16:19). “He became a grinder [toḥen] in the prison” (Judges 16:21) – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Teḥina is nothing other than an expression of transgression. Likewise it says: “Let my wife grind [titḥan] for another…” (Job 31:10). It teaches that each and every one would bring his wife to the prison so she would be impregnated by him. That is what people say: Before one who drinks wine, wine; before a cultivator of the ground, scrapings of wild onions. (Samson was accustomed to consorting with women, so they brought him women.) Rabbi Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami said: Because Samson desired an impure matter, his life depended on an impure matter, as it is stated: “God split the hollow that was in the jawbone, (It was the jawbone of a donkey.) and [water] emerged [from it; he drank, and his spirit returned, and he was revived]” (Judges 15:19). “Samson called to the Lord and said: Lord God, please remember me [and please strengthen me]” (Judges 16:28) – what remembrance does he have with the Holy One blessed be He, while he desires licentiousness? Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Samson said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, remember for me the twenty years during which I judged Israel and I did not say to one of them: Move this staff from place to place.’ “God, that I will take vengeance from the Philistines for one of my two eyes” (Judges 16:28) – Rav Aḥa said: He said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, give me reward for one of my eyes in this world, and let reward for one of my eyes be prepared for me for the future.’ Avshalom rebelled with his hair, as he was haughty in its regard, as it is stated: “There was no man in all of Israel so…beautiful as Avshalom.… When he would cut the hair of his head, it was at the end of every year that he would cut his hair…[he would weigh the hair of his head]” (II Samuel 14:25–26). That is why he was suspended by his hair, as it is stated: “His head was caught in the terebinth, and he was suspended between the heavens [and the earth]” (II Samuel 18:9). It is taught: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Avshalom was an eternal nazirite. Once every twelve months, he would cut his hair, as it is stated: “It was at the end of forty years, and Avshalom said to the king: Please let me go and pay my vow.… for your servant took a vow…” (II Samuel 15:7–8). He would shave once every twelve months, as it is stated: “It was at the end yamim leyamim that he would cut his hair” (II Samuel 14:26). One derives “yamim,” “yamim” from houses of a walled city. As it is written: “Its redemption shall be a year [yamim]” (Leviticus 25:29). Just as there it is twelve months, so too here it is twelve months. Rabbi Nehorai says: He would cut his hair once every thirty days. One derives it from the priests, in whose regard it is stated: “They shall not shave their heads, nor shall they allow their hair to grow wild [ufera]” (Ezekiel 44:20), and more than thirty days is pera. Regarding priests, what is the reason that they are not permitted to grow pera? It is due to honor. Here too there is honor. Rabbi Yosei says: From Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve, as we find that the residents of Tiberias and the residents of Tzippori cut their hair from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve. (See Nazir 4b–5a.) “He would weigh the hair of his head; it was two hundred shekels…” (II Samuel 14:26) – Avshalom. Rabbi Ḥanina said: He was like a large carob tree. Was it like a javelin? (Did his hair descend straight down?) Rabbi Beivai said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It was styled curls upon curls. Rabbi Ḥanina said: When I ascended to here, (From Babylonia to the Land of Israel.) I took my belt, my son’s belt, and the belt of the donkey driver and wrapped it around a Land of Israel carob tree, and it did not reach. I cut one carob and a handful of honey oozed out. Abba Shaul says: I was a gravedigger. Once a burial cave opened beneath me, and I was standing in the eye socket of a corpse until my nose. When I went back, they said to me: It was the eye of Avshalom. Perhaps you will say that Abba Shaul was a midget. That is not the case, but rather, Abba Shaul was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi Tarfon reached his shoulders. Rabbi Tarfon was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi Akiva reached his shoulders. Rabbi Akiva was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi Meir reached his shoulders. Rabbi Meir was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] reached his shoulders. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] was the tallest in his generation, and Rav reached his shoulders. Rav was the tallest in his generation, and Rav Yehuda reached his shoulders. Rav Yehuda was the tallest in his generation, and Ada the attendant reached his shoulders. Pashtivena of Pumbedita reached the midsection of Ada the attendant. Everyone reached the midsection of Pashtivena of Pumbedita. It is written: “There was no man in all of Israel so very remarkably beautiful as Avshalom” (II Samuel 14:25). Is it, perhaps, in all aspects? The verse states: From the sole of his foot to the top of his head there was no blemish in him” (II Samuel 14:25). Similarly, “he had a son, and his name was Saul, a distinguished and fine person” (I Samuel 9:2). Is it, perhaps, in all aspects? The verse states: “From his shoulders upward he was taller than all the people” (I Samuel 9:2). It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: When Avshalom was suspended from the terebinth, he took a sword and sought to cut himself loose. At that moment, the netherworld was breached beneath him. Because he consorted with his father’s ten concubines, as it is stated: “The king left ten [concubine] women [to keep the house]” (II Samuel 15:16), and it says: “Avshalom consorted with his father's concubines” (II Samuel 16:22), that is why ten spears were stuck in him, as it is stated: “Ten lads, [bearers of Yoav’s armor], circled around [and smote Avshalom and put him to death]” (II Samuel 18:15). It is written: “Avshalom had acquired and raised in his lifetime” (II Samuel 18:18) – what did he acquire? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He acquired a bad acquisition for himself. “The monument that is in the valley [be’emek] of the king [hamelekh]” (II Samuel 18:18) – Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: In the profound [amuka] counsel of the King [malko] of the world, as it is stated: “So said the Lord: Behold, I will arouse harm against you from your house, and I will take your wives [before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun]” (II Samuel 12:11). Similarly, “he sent him from the valley of [me’emek] Hebron” (Genesis 37:14) – Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: In the profound [amuka] counsel of that righteous man who is buried in Hebron: “Know, that you’re your seed will be a stranger [in a land that is not theirs, and they shall be enslaved to them and they shall oppress them, four hundred years]” (Genesis 15:13). “As he said: I do not have a son” (II Samuel 18:18), but another verse says: “To Avshalom were born three sons and one daughter, and her name was Tamar” (II Samuel 14:27). Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: It is that he did not have a son fit for kingship. Because Avshalom committed three thefts: His father’s heart, the court’s heart, and the heart of the men of Israel; therefore, three staves were fixed in his heart. “[He took three staves in his hand], and he thrust them into the heart of Avshalom, while he was still alive in the heart of the terebinth” (II Samuel 18:14). His father’s heart, from where is it derived? “It was at the end of forty years, and Avshalom said to the king…” (II Samuel 15:7). All the days that David reigned totaled only forty years, and this is what it says here? It is, rather, from the time that Israel requested a king. “For your servant took a vow [while I lived in Geshur in Aram, saying]” (II Samuel 15:8) – he [David] said to him: What are you requesting now? He said to him: Write for me one note that two men will accompany me. He said to him: Tell me whom you want. He said to him: Write it for me without specification, and I will take whom I want. He wrote it for him without specification. He went and gathered several pairs of men until he had gathered two hundred men. That is what is written: “With Avshalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem, who were invited and went innocently; they did not know anything” (II Samuel 15:11). They “were invited” by David, “and went innocently” of Avshalom; “they did not know anything” of Aḥitofel’s counsel. Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: They were all heads of the Sanhedrin. When they saw that matters were going to the contrary, they said: Master of the universe, please let us fall into the hand of David and let David not fall into our hands, as if we fall into the hand of David, he will have mercy upon us, but if David falls into our hands, we (This refers to Avshalom and his supporters.) will not have mercy upon him, as it is stated: “He redeemed me unharmed…[for there were many with me]” (Psalms 55:19). That is, he stole his father’s heart. The court’s heart: “Avshalom would say: If only I were appointed judge in the of Israel” (II Samuel 15:6). Likewise Sennacherib became haughty before the Omnipresent only by means of an emissary [malakh], as it is stated: “By means of your servants you blasphemed the Lord…and I arrived at its highest edge…” (Isaiah 37:24). The Holy One blessed be He, too, exacted retribution from him only by means of an angel [malakh], as it is stated: “An angel of the Lord emerged and smote in the Assyrian camp [one hundred eighty-five thousand]” (II Kings 19:35). All of them [the people killed] were kings who tied crowns on their heads. Nebuchadnezzar said: All those who have entered the world are not worthy [for me] to dwell in their midst. He crafted for himself a small cloud and resided in it, as it is stated: “I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will be comparable to the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14). The Holy One blessed be He said to him: “You said in your heart: To the heavens, I will ascend…” (Isaiah 14:13); I will cause you to descend to the netherworld. That is what is written: “However, you will be lowered to the netherworld” (Isaiah 14:15). You said: All those who have entered the world are not worthy [for me] to dwell in their midst; you are not worthy to dwell in their midst, “You will be driven from men, and your dwelling will be with the beasts of the field” (Daniel 4:29). “At that moment, the matter was determined [for Nebuchadnezzar, and he was driven away from men, and would eat grass like oxen]” (Daniel 4:30). “At the end of twelve months [he was walking upon the royal palace of Babylon. The king spoke, saying: Is this not this great Babylon, which I built as a royal residence, with the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?” (Daniel 4:26–27). (For this haughtiness he was punished.)

Bereshit Rabbah 84:13

“His brothers went to herd their father’s flock in Shekhem” (Genesis 37:12). “His brothers went to herd [lirot et]” – there are dots over the word et, indicating that they went only to herd themselves. (They went to eat and drink for their own pleasure, not primarily to herd the flocks.) “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem? Go, and I will send you to them. He said to him: Here I am” (Genesis 37:13). “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Berekhya: He treated him with deference in accordance with the reverence due a father from the son. (Although Joseph’s relations with his brothers were strained, he agreed to go in order to honor his father.) “He said to him: Here I am” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Jacob our patriarch would remember these words, and his innards would be torn to shreds: You knew that your brothers hated you, and you would say to me: Here I am. “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock and bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shekhem” (Genesis 37:14). “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock” – “the well-being of your brothers,” fine; but what is “the well-being of the flock”? This is [the source of] the saying: A person must inquire after the well-being of an item from which he derives benefit. “And bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron” – but is Hebron not situated in the mountain, yet it is written: “He sent him from the valley of [me’emek] Hebron”? Rav Aḥa said: He went to fulfill that profound [haamuka] counsel that the Holy One blessed be He arranged between Himself and His noble friend who is buried in Hebron: “They will be enslaved to them, and they will oppress them” (Genesis 15:13).

Bereshit Rabbah 97:6

“Israel said to Joseph: Behold, I am dying, and God will be with you, and He will restore you to the land of your fathers” (Genesis 48:21). “Israel said to Joseph: Behold, I [anokhi] am dying, and God will be with you, and He will restore…” – the son of Rabbi Yosei’s brother [said]: The elder gave them three signs: One who comes [to redeem] with the term anokhi, who will appoint elders from among you, and will say to you pakod, he is the redeemer. (These were Jacob’s signs as to the identity of the future redeemer of the Israelites. Moses fulfilled all three signs; see, e.g., Exodus 3:11, 3:16, 4:29. ) Rabbi Ḥunya removes anokhi, and inserts the ineffable Name in its place. (See Exodus 3:13–14. ) “And I have given to you one portion [shekhem] beyond your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Emorite with my sword and with my bow” (Genesis 48:22). “And I have given to you” a son who was vigilant [shehishkim], and you did not act in accordance with their actions; therefore, the portion will be in your territory. (The midrash interprets the additional portion promised here to Joseph to be the city of Shekhem. This was granted to Joseph, because he did not act as his brothers did in Shekhem, where they sold Joseph into slavery (see Genesis 37:14; Sanhedrin 102a). Alternatively, he did not act as did Shekhem, who raped Dina (Genesis 34:2). Joseph refrained from acting on his desires even when approached by the wife of Potifar (Matnot Kehuna). ) Rabbi Pinḥas said: In Shekhem there was breach in the area of licentiousness, and you repaired it; therefore, it will be in your portion. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya: Rabbi Yehuda said: “I have given to you [one] shekhem” – this is the birthright and the garment of Adam the first man. “Which I took from the hand of the Emorite” – this is Esau. Was Esau, in fact, an Emorite? It is, rather, that he performed the actions of the Emorite. “With my sword and with my bow” – with mitzvot and good deeds. Rabbi Neḥemya said: “I have given to you one shekhem” – this is literally [the city of] Shekhem. “Which I took from the hand of the Emorite” – this is Ḥamor father of Shekhem. Was he, in fact, an Emorite? It is that the Hivite are included in the Emorite. (The Emorites were a larger group surrounding the Hivites, and therefore the Hivites were sometimes called Emorites (see Etz Yosef). ) “With my sword and with my bow” – Jacob did not want his sons to perform that act. (But when his sons performed that act, he said: What, will I allow my sons to fall at the hand of the nations of the world? What did he do? He took his sword and his bow, stood at the entrance of Shekhem, and said: If the nations of the world come to confront my sons, I will battle against them. See Bereshit Rabba 80:10.) But when…

Bereshit Rabbah 99:2

“For the Lord God will not do anything, [unless He has revealed His secret to His servants the prophets]” (Amos 3:7) – Jacob paired two with two, and Moses paired two with two. (They paired two of the tribes against two of the kingdoms that will conquer Israel.) Judah opposite the kingdom of Babylon – this one was likened to a lion and that one was likened to a lion. This one was likened to a lion: “Judah is a lion cub” (Genesis 49:9); and that one was likened to a lion: “The first was like a lion” (Daniel 7:4). Into the hands of whom would the kingdom of Babylon fall? Into the hands of Daniel, who descended from Judah. Benjamin opposite the kingdom of Media – this one was likened to a wolf, and that one was likened to a wolf. This one was likened to a wolf: “Benjamin is a wolf that mauls” (Genesis 49:27); and that one was likened to a wolf: “Behold another, a second beast, resembling a bear [ledov]” (Daniel 7:5) – Rabbi Ḥanina said: Ledov is written, but it was called dev. (The word dov, bear, is sometimes written with a vav. In this instance it is written without a vav, such that it can be read dev, which is Aramaic for ze’ev, wolf. Thus, the midrash is saying that Media is compared to a wolf. ) This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Therefore, a lion from the forest smote them” (Jeremiah 5:6) – this is Babylon; “a wolf of the deserts will plunder them” (Jeremiah 5:6) – this is Media. Into the hands of whom did the kingdom of Media fall? Into the hands of Mordekhai, who descended from Benjamin. Levi opposite the kingdom of Greece – this one is the third tribe, and that one is the third kingdom. (The third of the four kingdoms in the vision of Daniel (Daniel, ch. 7). ) This one has three letters, and that one has three letters. (Levi and Greece [Yavan] are each spelled with three letters in Hebrew. ) These sound horns, (The priests, from the tribe of Levi, would sound the shofar when sacrificing offerings.) and those sound trumpets. (The Greeks would sound trumpets when going out to war.) These wear hats, (The reference is to the headdresses that were part of the priestly vestments.) and those wear helmets. These wear trousers, and those wear knee breeches. Those (The Greeks) are many in number, and these are few in number. The many came and fell into the hand of the few. By what merit? It was due to the blessing of Moses, who said: “Crush the loins of those who rise against him” (Deuteronomy 33:11). Into whose hands did the kingdom of Greece fall? Into the hands of the Hasmoneans, who were from Levi. Joseph opposite the kingdom of Edom – this one has horns, and that one has horns. This one has horns – “the firstborn bull is his majesty” (Deuteronomy 33:17); and that one has horns – “and concerning the ten horns that were on its head” (Daniel 7:20). This one forsook licentiousness, and that one cleaves to licentiousness. This one was scrupulous regarding his father’s honor, and that one demeaned his father’s honor. (Joseph heeded his father and went to check on his brothers even though he knew they hated him (Genesis 37:13–14). The nation of Edom descends from Esau, who said: “The days of mourning for my father will approach, and I will kill my brother Jacob” (Genesis 27:41). Thus, Esau was looking forward to his father dying so that he could kill Jacob. ) Of this one it is stated: “I fear God” (Genesis 42:18); of that one it is stated: “And he did not fear God” (Deuteronomy 25:18). (This is stated in reference to Amalek, who descended from Esau.) Into whose hands will the kingdom [of Edom] fall? Into the hands of the one anointed for war, who comes from Joseph. (The messiah, son of Joseph. ) Rabbi Pinḥas in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: There is a tradition that Esau will fall only into the hands of Rachel’s descendants. That is what is written: “[Therefore, hear the schemes of the Lord that He has devised against Edom…] will the young of the flock not drag them?” (Jeremiah 49:20). Why does he call them the young of the flock? Because they are the youngest of the tribes.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 1:31

"Abshalom exalted himself with his hair," etc. Our Rabbis were taught Abshalom rebelled [against his father] through his hair, as it is said (II. Sam. 14, 25) And like Abshalom there was no man as handsome in all Israel, so that he was greatly praised. From the sole of his foot up to the crown of his head, there was no blemish on him. And when he shaved off [the hair of his head], and it was at the end of every year that he shaved it off because it was too heavy on him, he weiged the hair of his head at two hundred shekels by the king's weight. We are taught that this means, the weight was as one of those used among the Tiberians and Ziporians. Therefore was he hung by his hair, as it is said (Ib. 15, 9) And Abshalom happened to come before the servants of David. And Abshalom was riding upon a mule, and the mule came under the thick boughs of a big oak, and his head caught hold of the oak. It was taught in the school of R. Ishmael that he took his scissors and wanted to cut off his hair, but he at that moment saw Gehenna open under him [which frightened him] (Ib. 19, 1) And the king was much moved and he went up to the upper chamber of the gate and wept; and thus he said as he went, 'Oh, my son Abshalom, my son, my son Abshalom! I had died for thee. Oh, Abshalom, my son, my son!' But the king covered his face and the king cried with a loud voice. Oh, my son Abshalom, Oh! Abshalom, my son, my son!' These eight times, in which is mentioned My son for what purpose? Seven times it was for the purpose of bringing him forth from seven fires of Gehenna, the eighth one, was, according to some, for the purpose of connecting the head of Abshalom [which was cut off] to the body, and according to others it was for the purpose of bringing him into the future world. (Ib. 18, 18) Now Abshalom in his life-time had taken and reared up for himself the pillar, which is in the king's dale, for he said: 'I have no son to keep my name in remembrance; and he called the pillar after his own name; and it was called Abshalom's Monument, even until this day! What is the meaning of Abshalom has taken. Said Resh Lakish: "He purchased a bad bargain for himself." The pillar, which is in the king's vale. Said R. Chanina b. Papa: This [the word Aimek (vale)] means that if was caused by the deep council of the Universal King (Fol. 11) who said (Ib. 12, 11) I will raise up again this evil out of thy own house." Similarly is the following explained: (Gen. 37, 14) So he sent him out of the vale (aimek) of Hebron. Said R. Chanina b. Papa: "This was caused by the deep counsel of the Universal King, who said (Ib. 15, 13) Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land which is not theirs." (II Sam. 18, 18) For he said: 'I have no son.' Did he indeed not have a son? Behold, the passage says (Ib. 14, 27) And there were born unto Abshalom three sons and one daughter, whose name was Thamor. Said R. Isaac b. Abdimi: "The former passage means that he did not have a son fit to the royalty." R. Chisda said: "We have a tradition that whoever sets on fire his neighbor's crop, will not leave a son to inherit him, and Abshalom caused to set on fire the crop of Jo'ab, as it is written (Ib., ib., 30) He thereupon said unto his servants, 'See, Jo'ab's field is alongside of mine, and he hath barley there; go and set it on fire."

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:1

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.] What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 37:14)? PLEASE GO AND SEE [ABOUT YOUR BROTHERS' WELFARE AND ABOUT THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK]. Would the flock know what WELFARE was when he told him < to see about > THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK? (“What is your welfare” corresponds to the English greeting “How do you do.” How could animals respond to such a greeting?) R. Ayyevu said: A person must pray for whoever is beneficial to him. (The Buber text, which reads “shatters him,” makes little sense. The emendation adopted here is slight. It has been accepted by Jastrow, in his lexicon under SKR, and suggested in Midrash Tanhuma (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.), vol. 1, appendix, p. 74, n. 2. See Gen. R. 84:13.) Because Jacob was benefiting from his flock by consuming the milk and wearing the shorn wool, for that reason he had to ask about their welfare. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 37:14): YOUR BROTHERS' WELFARE AND THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK. (Ibid., cont,:) AND BRING BACK WORD TO ME. They said (in vs. 33): JOSEPH HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS. (According to the biblical context, these words were spoken by Jacob.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:2

(Gen. 37:14, cont.:) SO HE SENT HIM AWAY FROM THE HEBRON VALLEY. Is there a valley in Hebron? And is not all of it highland, as stated (in Numb. 13:22): THEN THEY WENT UP INTO THE NEGEB AND CAME TO HEBRON? And so it says (in vs. 17): GO UP THERE INTO THE NEGEB, AND GO UP INTO THE HILL COUNTRY. But here it says: FROM THE HEBRON VALLEY ('MQ)! (Gen. R. 37:13; see Sot. 11a.) R. Johanan said: < The following events issue > out of a profound (rt.: 'MQ) (well) [counsel] which the Holy One has placed between him (I.e., Abraham, who was buried in Hebron.) and himself < in the covenant with Abraham between the < sacrificial > pieces (of Gen. 15:10ff.).

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayishlach 3:1

(Gen. 32:4:) THEN JACOB SENT ANGELS. (In Hebrew the same word may be translated either as “angels” or as “messengers.”) This text is related (to Ps. 91:11): FOR HE WILL CHARGE HIS ANGELS TO PROTECT YOU IN ALL YOUR WAYS. (Cf. Matthew 4:6.) When? When one is in the land of Israel, angels who are in the land of Israel protect him. (So below, 9:2.) And from whom do you learn this? From Jacob; for, when he desired to go abroad, what is written (in Gen. 28:12)? THEN HE DREAMED THAT HERE WAS A LADDER…. AND BEHOLD, THE ANGELS OF GOD WERE ASCENDING AND DESCENDING ON IT. < The verse > should not have said < this > but "descending and ascending." After one descends, he ascends. Yet < here > it says: ASCENDING AND DESCENDING! It said to him: Those angels who had been protecting him in the land of Israel had ascended while others descended to protect him while abroad. He did not stay. So, when he came from Paddan-aram, those angels who had protected him in the land of Israel descended. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 32:3 [2]): WHEN JACOB SAW THEM (i.e., the angels), HE SAID: < THIS IS THE CAMP (mahaneh) OF GOD >, AND CALLED THE NAME OF THAT PLACE MAHANAIM (i.e., two camps). "Mahaneh" (i.e., "camp" in the singular) is not written here but MAHANAIM, < a dual form which means > "two camps," the former < which had kept him when abroad > and the latter < to protect him in the land of Israel >. What did Jacob do? When he wanted to send < messengers > to Esau, he took < them > from the one < camp > and from the other, and sent < them >, as stated (in vs. 4 [3]): THEN JACOB SENT ANGELS. And do not be surprised; for behold, the youngest of his house spoke with the angel. Who was this? This was Joseph; for, when he said to him (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE < HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING >…. < Then > what is written (in vs. 15): THEN A MAN FOUND HIM…. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:14.) What did he say to him (in vs. 17)? THEN THE MAN SAID: THEY HAVE MOVED ON FROM HERE; < FOR I HEARD THEM SAYING: LET US GO TO DOTHAN >. What is the meaning of DOTHAN (DTYNH)? That he was the same angel who protects the religion (DT) of the Lord (YH). So neither be surprised about Jacob sending angels nor about Joseph. Yes, even Hagar had the angels speak with her. What is written (in Gen. 21:17)? AND AN ANGEL OF {THE LORD} [GOD] CALLED UNTO HAGAR. How many angels spoke with her? R. Levi said: < Five >, (The figure comes from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34.) but our masters have said three. (Cf. Gen. R. 45:7.) Now surely, if the slave woman talks with the angels, do not be surprised at Jacob having sent out angels. It is therefore written (in Gen. 32:4 [3]): THEN JACOB SENT ANGELS.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Musar

The second category of wine causes drunkenness and evil, not containing knowledge, with women's minds being treated with suspicion due to Eve's creation of forbidden wine. Adam's separation from Eve for 130 years led to Jewish enslavement in Egypt, chosen by Abraham as a form of atonement. Joseph accepted his father's mission despite danger, following the prophecy of Abraham, showing obedience to parents unless it conflicts with God's commandments.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Derekh Chayim, Vayeshev 10

Joseph accepted his father's mission with alacrity as we know from his immediate response: הנני, "I am ready!" Although Joseph had known intellectually that he faced deathly danger, he did not demur by saying to his father:"my brothers hate me, who knows what will happen when they merely see me." His father, who did not entertain such concerns, felt in a way that he complied with something decreed already since the time of Abraham. When the Torah describes Joseph as parting from his father in the valley of Hebron, (Genesis 37,14), the Talmud in Sotah 11 comments that the reason that detail is mentioned is to show us that this mission was the first step in the fulfillment of the prophecy which Abraham (who is buried in Hebron) had received that his descendants would be strangers and slaves in a land not theirs (15,13). Joseph obeyed his father's instructions despite the danger he knew himself to be in. Our sages have said in Yevamot 5 that when one is commanded by one's father to desecrate the Sabbath, one must not obey such an instruction, the reason being that both father and son are under G–d's orders to keep the Sabbath holy and thereby to honor G–d Himself. Such exceptions to the requirement to obey father or mother apply only when commandments between man and G–d are involved. When the father's command may jeopardize the son's life without, however, infringing on one of G–d's commandments, the son is not free to disobey his father.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 23

The second category of wine causes drunkenness, is the cause of evil in our world. It certainly does not contain or confer דעת, knowledge. We have a tradition that דעתן של נשים קלות, "the minds of women are fickle" (Shabbat 33 et al.). The "woman" who serves as the role model for this statement in the Talmud is Eve. She had squeezed the cluster of grapes [according to the opinion that the tree of knowledge was a grape vine. Ed.], converted it into wine, and by spoiling it (spiritually) made יין נסך, forbidden wine out of it. The halachic status of such wine is that it is considered as originating in a polluted environment, and the touch of a Gentile makes it unfit for Jews to drink. Women's minds are treated as suspect because the first woman was guilty of creating this category of wine. The Hebrew expression קל, for women's state of mind, is alluded to in the 130 years, i.e. the numerical value of קל, that Adam did not have marital relations with Eve after their expulsion from גן עדן (Rashi on Genesis 5, 3, quoting Bereshit Rabbah). During the 130 years that Adam lived apart from Eve, he emitted קרי, semen which did not fertilize an ovum. This was frivolous and demanded rectification as we shall explain later. The Jewish people suffered 130 years of enslavement in Egypt to make up for those years that Adam separated from his wife. These 130 years were the ones before their redeemer Moses was born. Yocheved, Moses' mother, had been born when Jacob and his clan arrived in Egypt; she was 130 years old at the time she gave birth to Moses (cf. Rashi on 46, 26). Exile itself was a solution chosen by Abraham whom G–d had shown Torah, Gehinnom, sacrifices and exile as possible venues for atonement. Abraham chose exile for his descendants as preferable to purgatory, as explained in Shemot Rabbah 51, 7. The same subject is treated in the Midrash in Parshat Lech Lecha. The main reason Abraham chose exile over purgatory was to prevent his descendants from being within the domain which is full of the spiritual pollution resulting from Adam's sin. The exile experience would serve as a refining process, after which the Jews would merit the proximity of the Divine. They would then merit this יין ישן, the aged wine, which would benefit their spiritual and intellectual development instead of the wine that represented דעת ק"ל.

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that Joseph was kidnapped from Shechem and buried there, as seen in Bereishis 37:14. The Haggadah has different versions of why Jacob's family went to Egypt, with Abarbanel suggesting it was to be purified. Koresh's actions were influenced by both Hashem and his fear of Belshatzar's fate. The brothers sold Joseph for a token pittance, showing their coldness towards him. The Israelites do not eat the thigh muscle as a reminder of Jacob's injury, with different interpretations given by Da'at Zekenim and Chizkuni. Joseph made his brothers swear to bring his remains back to Shechem, as seen in Exodus 13:19.

Chizkuni, Exodus 13:19:1

כי השבע השביע, the repetition of the words “he made swear repeatedly,” was that Joseph did not know which generation would experience the Exodus. Joseph had told his brothers that by committing them to this oath he was not asking them for a favour: they who had been instrumental in his being dragged to Egypt as a slave if they wanted to complete the act of repentance,must ensure that he would be brought to burial in the land of his forefathers from where he had been kidnapped. He had performed a mission on his father’s behalf when he came to Sh’chem (Genesis 37,14) and this is why he expected to be buried near there. This is where he was interred eventually, as we know from Joshua 24,32.

Chizkuni, Genesis 32:33:1

על כן לא יאכלו, “therefore it is appropriate that the Israelites do not eat, etc.;” this construction is parallel to Isaiah 10,7: והוא לא כן ידמה, “but it does not seem like this to him;” in other words: it would be right and proper to punish the Israelites not to eat that particular sinew as they should not have allowed their founding father to be exposed to hostile forces at night. Yaakov’s sons were physically strong, and they should have been at hand to assist their father if the need arose to do so. Seeing that they failed to do this, the blame for the injury sustained by their father was theirs. From now on they would have learned their lesson and would practice the commandment to accompany their father, or for that matter, any older and wiser person, especially at night. Yaakov himself set an example when he accompanied his son Joseph part of the way on a mission which he had sent him on, and which was potentially dangerous. (Genesis 37,14) A different approach to the verse above: as a result of their father Yaakov having stood up to the protective celestial force of Esau, his sons stopped eating the part of the body that the angel had been able to injure. They did this out of a feeling of pride in their founding father. A third approach to this verse: due to their father Yaakov having sustained an injury, his descendants voluntarily decided not to eat the part of the body of an animal that had been injured in their father’s body. This has to be understood better by the use of a parable; a person suffered from a headache or from pains in a different part of his body. As a reminder of that pain he decides not to eat that part of the body of an animal as a symbol of his having been healed from that pain, so that it (abstention) would serve as a remedy for them (preventive medicine) in the future. We have a Baraitah in Chulin 101 which relates that people came to Rabbi Yehudah who had expressed the opinion that the prohibition not to eat that part of an animal also applied to animals that were altogether forbidden to be eaten, questioning his interpretation by citing the fact that only the descendants of Israel were forbidden to eat this part of an animal, and that the Jews had never been called “Children of Israel” until they had been given the Torah at Mount Sinai. He answered them that it is true that this custom did not become law until the Torah was given, but it had been observed already earlier. It was recorded here only in order for us to understand the reason behind this prohibition. Prior to the legislation of dietary laws at Mount Sinai, Yaakov’s descendants were allowed to eat also the meat of animals that were outlawed at Mount Sinai.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 32:33:1

על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל, “therefore the Children of Israel to this day do not eat the thigh muscle, etc.” the words על כן here mean: ”as a permanent reminder of” the miracle that had saved their founding father in his contest with the angel who had only been able to inflict a minor injury on him, instead of killing him as he had intended. The undertaking is similar to a person who after suffering for long periods from headaches or and pains in the region of his heart, vows not to eat the head or the heart of an animal forthwith, as a sign of gratitude for having been healed. An alternate interpretation. The words על כן, mean: “as a result of this,” i.e. as a result of having narrowly escaped death as a result of having remained exposed to danger alone during the night, the Israelites learned that this is not the correct way to behave at night and alone. Abstaining from eating the thigh muscle is the visible reminder of the fact that this lesson had been internalised by the people as an inadmissible way to behave. Yaakov’s wives and children accepted part of the responsibility for their leader’s injury by having allowed him to cross the river alone at night and thus having exposed him to danger. This is why G–d forbade them (his descendants the Jewish people) to eat this part of the animal. They should be meticulous in observing the commandment to give people safe conduct. This is why already Yaakov was commanded to give Joseph safe conduct on his fateful mission. (Genesis 37,14) [where he accompanied him part of the way where he might be exposed to danger by the Canaanites. Ed.]

Rashi on Joshua 24:32:1

They buried in Shechem. From Shechem he was stolen [kidnapped] (See Bereishis 37:14.) and to Shechem they returned him.

Sefer Daniel; Opportunity in Exile, Perek 5, Menei Menei, Tekal UFarsin 11

While Eitan makes a compelling point, one may respond that there are two factors influencing Koresh. One is Hashem and another is his fear of Belshatzar’s fate (We must also consider the fact that Koresh/Cyrus permitted other nations to return to their lands from which the Babylonians expelled them and rebuild their temples. This is evident from the famous artifact called “the Cyrus Cylinder” that is housed at the British Museum. Perhaps Cyrus, as was typical of ancient pagans, foolishly believed in multiple gods and he wanted to appease, or at least avoid angering, each of them.) . The Tanach is replete with examples of what many refer to as “dual causality”, referring to events influenced by both divine manipulation and humans exercising their free will. The sale of Yosef is a classic example. While the brothers had their motivations, Hashem guided events to execute the Brit Bein HaBetarim (see Rashi to Bereishit 37:14 s.v. Meieimek Chevron). Many understand the Mishna 3:15 “HaKol Tzafui VeReshut Netunah”, all is foreseen yet we retain free will, as expressing this idea (Similarly, American President Harry Truman was most likely influenced by Hashem to ignore his cabinet (including his eminent Secretary of State George Marshall) and encourage the establishment of Medinat Yisrael. Yet, he likely also had his own calculations such as courting the Jewish vote in 1948, an election year.) .

Tribal Lands, Chapter 12; Yosef 19

The brothers preferred a businesslike transaction to having to confront Joseph personally. The coldness of their dismissal, their utter indifference to the warmth that Joseph was trying to nurture among them, (Seforno on Genesis 37:14, 17.) was underscored by the midrash that the brothers agreed to sell him for a token pittance – the price of a pair of shoes for each of them. (Tan. VaYeshev, 2. Rabbi Ari Kahn comments on the curiosity of this detail in the context of Judah’s central role in mekhirat Yosef. He points out that immediately after this episode, Judah engaged in relationships with abandon, investing none of them with special meaning or care. The nadir of this descent is when he refused his yibum responsibility with Tamar. An almost inexplicable halakhah of ĥalitzah, the ceremony of divesting oneself of yibum obligation, was to have the scorned widow remove the shoe of her late husband’s kin who would not fulfill his levirate duties. This act demonstrated that the yabam showed a lack of care, a lack of sense of familial responsibility – he callously left his dead brother bereft of a future. Echoes, Bereishit, 258–69.)

Zevach Pesach on Pesach Haggadah, Magid, First Fruits Declaration 3:1

He went down to Egypt – Compelled by the Divine Word. There are different versions of this statement in the Haggadah. There are texts that appear similar to the version I have included and others that (omit it and) continue with, “And he resided there…” Rambam in the Mishnah Torah (Sefer Zemanim) offers such a version. It states “And he resided there – He only went down to dwell there temporarily;” It does not include, “Compelled by the Divine Word.” There is no question that the various versions are based on the different opinions which I mentioned above as the reason for the exile to Egypt. (In between the commentary on “Originally our ancestors worshipped idols” and “It is the promise that stood for our ancestors and for us” Abarbanel offers a lengthy analysis on the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen. 15). It is given a separate name, Kuntras B’inyan Brit Bein HaBetarim, “A Pamphlet Regarding the Covenant between the Pieces.” This essay is a literary unit unto itself. As he does in the Haggadah, Abarbanel begins with a series of questions and then answer them. In his commentary, he suggests three reasons why Jacob’s family was compelled to go down to Egypt: They were punished for selling Joseph into slavery. They went down to Egypt so that they would be purified and improved by their experience. They went down to Egypt simply because of the free will choices they made for themselves. Abarbanel now suggests that the different versions of the Haggadah may be determined by these different reasons for the exile.) According to the first approach (it was punishment for the sale of Joseph) and according to the third approach (because of the bad choices they made) it doesn’t make sense to say that they went down to Egypt “compelled by the Divine Word.” Jacob and his sons had free will in the matter and were not forced to go down to Egypt. According to the second reason (So they would be purified and improved by their experience) that they went down to Egypt because of a divine decree, one should include the statement in the text, “He went down to Egypt – Compelled by the Divine Word.” After all, Jacob was afraid to go down to Egypt but God forced him to go. This is similar to what was expounded, “So he sent him from the valley (emek) Hebron and he came to Sh’chem. (Gen. 37:14) From the deep (amukka) counsel of that righteous individual who is interred in Hebron, i.e., Abraham, as it is written: “And He said unto Abram: “Know that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.” (Gen. 15:13) It was as if the Cause of all Causes, who made Jacob to go down to Egypt. This is what the Haggadah means when it says, “Compelled by the Divine Word.”

Second Temple

The text discusses how Scripture hints at a deeper meaning by mentioning the place from which the worse attacks the better as "out of the vale of Hebron," symbolizing the body as a coupling with the soul and organs of sense that flood the understanding with qualities of things.

That the Worse is wont to Attack the Better 6:1

[15] Now you notice that Scripture goes out of its way to record even the place from which he dispatches him, all but giving the reader a plain hint to avoid the literal interpretation. For it says “out of the vale of Hebron” (Gen. 37:14). Now “Hebron,” a “coupling” and “comradeship,” is a figurative title for our body, because it is “coupled” with a soul, and has established a friendship and “comradeship” with it. As “vales” it has organs of sense, great receivers of all objects of sense outside it. These pump over the understanding the countless qualities of things, and pour them in upon it through the receivers, flooding it and totally submerging it.

Talmud

The prophecy of raising evil from one's own house was fulfilled through Absalom, as seen in II Samuel 12:11. Joseph's journey to his brothers, as sent by Jacob from Hebron, initiated the descent of the Jewish people to Egypt. It is advised that a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night, as indicated by Jacob sending Joseph to his brothers during the day in Genesis 37:14.

Chullin 91b:3

And the Rabbis say that the source is from here, the verse that describes when Jacob sent Joseph to his brothers: “And he said to him: Go now, see whether it is well with you brothers and well with the flock; and bring me back word. So he sent him out of the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem” (Genesis 37:14). The verse indicates that Jacob sent Joseph at a time when he could see his brothers, i.e., during the day. This shows that a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night.

Sotah 11a:1

This is as it is written there: “Thus said the Lord: Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house” (II Samuel 12:11), and this prophecy was fulfilled through Absalom. Similarly, you can say about Joseph, who was sent by his father to inquire as to the well-being of his brothers, where the verse states: “And he sent him from the valley [emek] of Hebron” (Genesis 37:14). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says: From the deep [amukka] counsel of that righteous individual who is interred in Hebron, i.e., Abraham, as it is written: “And He said unto Abram: Know that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13). The journey Joseph took to his brothers set in motion the descent of the Jewish people to Egypt.

Targum

Yisrael instructed Yoseif to check on his brothers and the flock, sending him from Chevron to Shechem. The deep counsel given to Abraham in Hebron marked the beginning of the Egyptian captivity, and Joseph followed this counsel when he went to Shekem.

Onkelos Genesis 37:14

He [Yisrael] said to him, Go please [now], see after the well-being of your brothers, and the welfare of the sheep, and bring me a report. He sent [Yoseif] from the depths [plain] of Chevron, and he came to Shechem.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:14

And he said, Go, see the welfare of Your brethren, and the welfare of the flock, and return me word to the deep Counsel. But he sent him according to the deep counsel which was spoken to Abraham in Hebron; for on that day began the cativity of Mizraim. And Joseph arose, and came to Shekem.

וַיִּמְצָאֵ֣הוּ אִ֔ישׁ וְהִנֵּ֥ה תֹעֶ֖ה בַּשָּׂדֶ֑ה וַיִּשְׁאָלֵ֧הוּ הָאִ֛ישׁ לֵאמֹ֖ר מַה־תְּבַקֵּֽשׁ׃ 15 E a man came upon him (a man came upon him Or “an agent located him,” i.e., this figure could be construed as acting in God’s behalf. For this verb’s use to describe a mission, see 16.7; 37.17; 38.22. On “man” and “agent,” see notes at 18.2, 24.21, and the Dictionary under ’ish; Agent.) wandering in the fields. The man asked him, “What are you looking for?”
Various commentaries and texts discuss the significance of spiritual beings appearing in human form, such as angels guiding Joseph to his brothers and Eliezer's mission to find a wife for Isaac. The Midrash Tanchuma notes the theme of punishment in Shechem, while the Second Temple text emphasizes the importance of being open to better teaching and avoiding negative traits. The distinction between earthly servants and angels is highlighted in the Musar commentary on Eliezer and Mattatron, with references to specific terms indicating their roles. Additionally, the Targum texts mention a man or possibly Gabriel finding Joseph in the field and inquiring about his intentions.

Commentary

The verse describes Joseph wandering in the field, looking for his brothers, enduring hardships patiently for his father's honor, with the Divine decree guiding him to his brothers through a man, possibly an angel. Some commentators suggest that the man who found Joseph was an angel, specifically Gabriel, who was guiding Joseph to his brothers to fulfill a divine decree. The encounter with the man in the field is seen as significant in terms of Joseph's journey and the future of the Jewish people, with hints of the exiles they would endure.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:15:1

וימצאהו איש והנה תעה בשדה, “a man found him while he was lost in the field;” this (the three letters in the word תעה) is where the Angel Gavriel gave Joseph a hint of three exiles the Jewish people would endure. ת=400 years of exile in Egypt; ע=70 years of exile in Babylon; ה=5, till the end of the exile commonly known as the Roman exile, till the coming of the Messiah. [The author attributes this to his father of blessed memory. Ed.] He adds that he had heard something along the same lines in the name of Rabbi Binyamin Gozel, but from Genesis 32,5, using the letters of word עתה as the hint.

Haamek Davar on Genesis 37:15:1

My brothers. And from where would he know who he [Joseph] was and who his brothers were? And furthermore, what is this question "tell me please where they are pasturing"? From where would he know? Rather, [it must be] one of the two these possibilities: Either he was a well-known man to them in his importance, or, he recognized him as an angel or prophet that knew everything to do with his brothers. And in truth, the Torah should have said "and he [Joseph] found a man", for it was Joseph that was wandering alone searching and found the man, not the man who was walking on his way. Rather, the text comes to teach that the man was a messenger from Heaven, to encounter Joseph and bring him to such, and the man went and found him in that place.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:15:1

AND A CERTAIN MAN FOUND HIM. According to the plain meaning of the text a passer by found him. (According to the Midrash it was an angel. Some Midrashim identify the angel as Gabriel. Cf. Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, Chap. 38; Targum Jonathan, and Rashi.)

Kli Yakar on Genesis 37:15:1

A man found him, and, see, he was lost in the field. This is Gabriel. From what is said, 'A man found him,' understand that this man had been seeking Joseph. He had been looking around for him, and he found him. But Joseph didn't find the man. The man intended to warn Joseph that he should be wary of his brothers. He saw that he was wandering in the field, mistaken in his opinion that he had gone towards peace, but there would be no peace for him and his brothers. Thus this must be an angel - he knew what was in Joseph's heart. If this is not the case, then how would he know who this other man was, or that he was walking this way in error. Maybe this is his path? Obviously Joseph must have been walking on some road or pathway!

Kli Yakar on Genesis 37:15:2

Its midrashic interpretation is that he erred regarding the matter of the field, as is written of Cain and Abel. It would have been reasonable for Joseph to take to heart what had happened to Abel with Cain. Out of jealousy, Cain had killed his brother. Now Joseph thought: "Cain killed his brother ('when they were in the field') over a field. He said, 'This field that you are standing on belongs to me.' That is the reason for why he did what he did. However, why would my brothers kill me for nothing? Jealousy over a multicolored cloak does not resemble jealousy over a field!" This is the meaning of 'He was lost in (=mistaken about) the field.' The field referenced in the Cain story misled him. He did not realize that the nature of jealousy is volatile - for some little thing a man might rise against his fellow and murder him.

Radak on Genesis 37:15:1

וימצאהו איש , after arriving in Shechem and not finding any trace of his brothers, Joseph went in all directions to see if he could find them, and in the process he lost his way.

Ramban on Genesis 37:15:1

AND A MAN FOUND HIM, AND BEHOLD, HE WAS STRAYING IN THE FIELD. The verse is stating that Joseph was straying from the road, not knowing where to go, and he entered a field since he was looking for them in a place of pasture. Scripture mentions this at length in order to relate that many events befell him which could properly have caused him to return, but he endured everything patiently for the honor of his father. It also informs us that the Divine decree is true and man’s industry is worthless. The Holy One, blessed be He, sent him a guide without his knowledge in order to bring him into their hands. It is this that our Rabbis intended when they said (Bereshith Rabbah 84:13.) that these men (And ‘a man’ found him … and ‘the man’ asked him … And ‘the man’ said … (Verses 15, 17).) were angels, for these events did not occur without purpose, but rather to inform us that It is the counsel of the Eternal that shall stand. (Proverbs 19:21.)

Rashbam on Genesis 37:15:1

'וימצאהו איש והנה תועה וגו, this paragraph has been written in order to demonstrate the reliability and eagerness of Joseph to comply with his father’s wishes; he did not use the fact that the brothers were no longer in Shechem as an excuse to abort his mission and to return home, but kept searching for them until, in the end, he located them. He remembered that part of his father’s instructions had been השיבני דבר, “bring me back a report!”

Rashi on Genesis 37:15:1

וימצאהו איש AND A MAN FOUND HIM — This was the angel Gabriel (Genesis Rabbah 84:14) as it is said, (Daniel 9:21) and the man (והאיש) Gabriel” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2:3).

Sforno on Genesis 37:15:1

תועה בשדה, walking in every direction to find where they were tending the flocks.

Sforno on Genesis 37:15:2

מה תבקש, what are you looking for seeing that you do not keep to the known paths?

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:15:1

This refers to Gavriel... Yoseif did not say to the man, “Do you know my brothers, and where they are pasturing?” Rather, he said [straight away], “Tell me please, where are they pasturing?” This shows it was an angel, [who assumedly knows]. And since Scripture refers to him as איש, this shows it was specifically Gavriel. [Furthermore,] if it was not an angel, why did the Torah recount the whole story of Yoseif going astray? What does it matter if he went straight there, or strayed? Perforce, it was an angel sent by Hashem to bring him to his brothers, in order to fulfill His decree. For Yoseif otherwise would have turned back from Shechem, as he could not find them. (Gur Aryeh)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:15

A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. Despite the fact that Joseph was seeking an entire group of shepherds herding a large flock, he could not locate them. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek?

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:15:1

והנה תועה בשדה, ”and here he was lost in the field.” He had departed from the road and entered a field, knowing that his brothers would choose the best looking pasture available.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 26-27

“A man came upon him” [37:15]. An angel named Gabriel found Joseph. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:15.) Toldot Yizhak writes. The custom was that when a person was going to a field, he would ask people to show him the right path, but the people did not ask him, what are you looking for? Here it was the opposite. A man came to Joseph and said, what are you looking for? This was certainly an angel who wanted to lead Joseph to his brothers, in the expectation that he would come to Egypt. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:15.) Another explanation is that it had to be an angel, since Joseph said to the man, “could you tell me where they are pasturing?” [37:16]. Tell me where my brothers are pasturing. One can ask: Joseph should have asked the man if he knew where his brothers were pasturing and then he should have asked, tell me where they are pasturing? The explanation is that Joseph understood that this is an angel. Therefore, he asked him, tell me where they are pasturing. That is to say, you are an angel. Tell me where are my brothers? If you want to ask, who tells us that this is Gabriel? You could say, it was another angel? The explanation is that the angel Gabriel is the one called “the man Gabriel” [Daniel, 9:21], and here it is written, “a man came upon him” [37:15]. (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 38.)

Jewish Thought

The text discusses how spiritual beings appear in human form in encounters with humans, citing examples from the Torah and the books of Prophets. It also explains the story of Lot and the angels in Sodom, highlighting the reasons for the destruction of the city and the importance of Abraham's prayer. Additionally, it delves into the interaction between Avimelech and Abraham regarding Sarah, emphasizing the importance of honesty and G-d's intervention in preventing adultery.

Akeidat Yitzchak 20:1:7

(1) When Lot faced the people of Sodom, he had shut the door so that the angels would not overhear the negotiations and the indecencies that the Sodomites planned to perpetrate on them. Their objective was to reinforce their image as being anti-strangers, so that this kind of news would make others shun their city. Lot's argument was that the townspeople's quarrel was only with him, not with them, since it had been he who had breached the town's regulations. His guests could not have known about these regulations. He offered his daughters as expiation for his own disloyal conduct, not as substitute for the strangers. The reference "that is why the men came to my house for shelter" means they did not know that the laws of Sodom forbade visitors; they are not guilty therefore. (2) In their reply gesh hal-ah, "out of our way," the townspeople refused to accept this argument, and threatened to deal more harshly with Lot than with the strangers, since he, Lot, had dared put his own interpretation on the rights and wrongs of the case. Lot had classified the strangers as not subject to the town's jurisdiction. Therein lay his sin, in the eyes of the townspeople. The old man in Givah however, had not used his daughter and the concubine to atone for his mistakes as Lot did, thereby acknowledging the town's laws as proper and just. He had done so simply to relieve the pressure and the threat of death to himself and his guest. (3) When the angels saw that the whole town was of one mind, and that even Lot's sons-in-law considered the idea of heavenly retribution as absurd-- believing that no such retribution was called for-- they realized that G-d’s criteria, "if I see that what is happening is as bad as what I have heard, that is the end," had been met. Destruction was called for. The pressure on Lot was designed to make him pray for the survival of Tzoar, since there were an insufficient number of good people there who could have insured the town's survival. The arrival of Lot in Tzoar would augment that meager number of good people there. All this was to show Abraham that G-d had not only met the conditions Abraham's prayer had called for, but that G-d had done His best to engineer things in such a way that the right conditions would be created. (4) Because He remembered Abraham and his prayer, He sent Lot away in such a manner. For a similar reason, on the morrow, when Abraham would return to that spot, Sodom would be gone. (5) Lot's daughters thought that Tzoar had been spared only for the sake of their family, and that upon their departure, it too would be destroyed, as in fact they thought that the whole earth would be laid waste like at the time of the deluge. The entire story is told to put misdeeds perpetrated against Israel by nations who owed their entire existence to the prayer of Israel's first ancestor Abraham into perspective. At the same time, it also explains how two "pearls" in Jewish history, Ruth and Naamah, respectively, came out of those two nations and made their magnificent contribution to Jewish history by becoming ancestors of the ultimate redeemer, the Messiah, so that David as well as Rechavam both had blood from those nations flowing in their veins. (6) Concerning Abraham's migration to the South after this catastrophe, the sages in the Midrash offer a variety of insights. Some say that Abraham was afraid that the neighborhood would henceforth be shunned by travellers, thus limiting his opportunities to proselytize. Others believe that Abraham wanted to put some physical distance between himself and the bastards born to Lot by his daughters. I believe the reason is to be found in Abraham's new destiny, acquired simultaneously with his name having been changed. To become the founder of a variety of nations requires physical exposure to different societies. He had to move to areas where he was not yet well known, in order to be able to continue his life's work. Abraham's again asking Sarah to claim that she was his sister, despite his experiences in Egypt, proves that she had indeed regained a youthful appearance as a result of the angel's blessing. Her desirability once again posed a problem to both herself and Abraham, as proved by the prompt action of Avimelech seizing her. (7) If G-d did not immediately restrain Avimelech, it may have been in order to help Abraham's economic progress while in the land of the Philistines, and to demonstrate that a G-d-fearing man could enjoy great material prosperity. G-d had to communicate with Avimelech for two reasons: 1) His own personal standard of morality was superior to that of Pharaoh. 2) In the years that had elapsed since his stay in Egypt, Abraham had attained a much higher spiritual level, and as a result he qualified for more prompt Divine assistance. While in Egypt, Abraham had not yet been able to appreciate the personal intervention in his affairs that G-d would demonstrate; now however, he was well aware of that. For that reason, Pharaoh was alerted to his wrongdoing only through the plagues inflicted upon him and his household. In the case of Avimelech, however, G-d communicated with Avimelech by spelling out his complaint to him in a dream. (8) Since beney Noach, i.e. ordinary non Jews, are automatically guilty of the death penalty if they transgress those laws that apply to them-- of which adultery is one-- the Torah has to mention the fact that an adulterous relationship had not yet taken place. Therefore, G-d could confirm to Avimelech that indeed he was not yet guilty of death. Avimelech countered that since whatever he had been about to do had been the result of being misled by both Abraham and Sarah, such an act should not have been considered a crime even if he had committed it, and that therefore no question of guilt could arise. G-d replied to Avimelech that it was true that vis a vis his countrymen he had not sinned, but that He, G-d, knew that vis a vis Him a sin had been committed, since it had only been due to G-d’s interference, i.e. making him impotent, that he had not yet committed adultery. (9) He should not think, however, that since he had begun in innocence, he could now keep the lady and consider himself free from guilt as a result of Abraham and Sarah having tricked him. He would have to restore Sarah to Abraham, who, being a prophet, was aware that Sarah had not been touched due to G-d’s intervention. Abraham would pray for the king, allowing for the fact that he had not intended to commit adultery. Avimelech was warned not to become an intentional sinner at this stage. (10) Avimelech now wanted to know from Abraham why he had felt the need to go to such lengths of deception to protect himself. Abraham replied that since the fear of G-d would not act as a restraining influence on Avimelech's subjects, he had had to look for other deterrents. Being afraid that Avimelech would say now-- just as Pharaoh had done-- "You could at least have told me that she is your wife," Abraham could not very well tell him that such a revelation might not have been deterrent enough. Therefore, he mentioned that Sarah was indeed kind of a sister to him. Since it had been legal at that time to marry blood relations of such a category as Abraham and Sarah, i.e. a niece, a lie had in fact never been uttered. Avimelech had simply failed to ascertain whether there was an additional relationship that existed between Abraham and Sarah beyond their being brother and sister. Hence he had only himself to blame for the complications that had arisen. Abraham explained that it had long been his practice to describe Sarah as his sister, ever since they had started to wander and had not yet reached the site of a permanent settlement. The expression hittu, is used on numerous ocasions in the same sense as hiflig, i.e. to cause to depart (compare Genesis 21,14;37,15; Psalms 107,4). In presenting gifts to Abraham, Avimelech behaved in an appropriate manner. Inasmuch as he had contravened the principle of "What is yours is yours" by appropriating Sarah without asking Abraham whether she also happened to be his wife, he atoned now by using the "What is mine is yours" principle. (11) Also, of course, he was interested in Abraham praying for his impotence to be cured. To Sarah, he remarked reprovingly that the thousand pieces of silver he had given to Abraham as her dowry had served as an eye cover to let everyone think that she had been free to marry, and that though G-d knew well enough that she had not had marital relations, no one else would know about this. He told her to mend her ways and not again practice this kind of deception. The Torah merely reports that Sarah accepted the rebuke gracefully, and indicated her being prepared to avoid creating such a misleading impression in the future. Another meaning could be that Avimelech meant "although I have paid a thousand pieces of silver to your brother, you should not have accepted this and caused suspicion about your status amongst all the people around you." Abraham's prayer, recorded at this juncture, was the first prayer that Abraham offered that had not been triggered or prompted by someone else, but was offered completely of his own initiative. It seems, according to Bereshit Rabbah 52 that "something that had kept him tied up, had now been released." This refers to another step forward in Abraham's development toward the complete and perfect personality. By announcing beforehand that Abraham would pray, the Torah further underlined this landmark in Abraham's development. "G-d remembered Sarah as He had said," by making her pregnant. "He did for Sarah as He had said," He timed the event as promised. Sarah's exclamation means, "Let anyone who wants to mock do so, I am willing to bear it, even if G-d has made people mock me; the important thing is "He made a laughter, a joy for me." (12) The words mi millel, who would have foretold, seem an added expression of thanksgiving, such as "how wonderful he who foretold Abraham that Sarah would nurse children,” for I have indeed born a son in his old age. There are numerous examples of the use of the word mi in this sense. Compare Isaiah 49,21 "Who has born me these?" (masculine usage of the verb yalad, gave birth), or Isaiah 63,1 "Who is this that comes from Edom"? (13) The display of excessive joy at the meal celebrating the weaning of Isaac, may have caused Ishmael to become concerned lest he lose part of his heritage, and he may have mocked Sarah and her having given birth in her old age. This may have angered Sarah sufficiently to ask that both Hagar and Ishmael be expelled from the household. Associating Ishmael's behavior with his mother was meant to convey Sarah's opinion that Ishmael had acted as he did only because he was Hagar's son, not because Abraham was his father. Abraham was naturally disturbed for his son's sake, but G-d intervened by telling him to give Sarah carte blanche in the matter.

Akeidat Yitzchak 65:1:22

We propose to proceed along two premises in answering all the questions raised. First of all, it is clear from Torah, the books of Prophets and the holy scriptures, that whenever beings that are purely spiritual appear to someone in our world, such beings appear garbed in human clothes. Hagar, Manoach, Gideon, all had encounters with angels dressed in human garb, and on that very account had doubts as to the identity of the party that addressed them. Similarly, whenever our sages speak of malachim mamash, such as the angels that Jacob sent to divine if Esau had hostile intentions towards him, what are meant by that expression are spiritual beings appearing in human form. Since we are not equipped to behold pure spirits, it is necessary to provide these beings with a shell, so that they can become visible to our eyes. The appearance of the prophet Elijah, with whom innumerable encounters are described, is then also an encounter with a spirit in human garb. Samuel's appearance then is bound to be of the same kind, and he would have to appear in human form. (The story in Ketuvot 105, further supports our theory) All of this is part of G'ds kindness in arranging for communication with the spiritual world for those who deserve it in varying degrees. The appearance of Samuel, dressed in a cloak, such as he used to wear while still on earth, is no surprising phenomenon then.

Midrash

In the Midrash Tanchuma, it is noted that Shechem was a place of punishment where Dinah was dishonored, Joseph was sold, and David's kingdom was divided. Reuben tried to rescue Joseph from a pit filled with snakes and scorpions, while the other brothers planned to kill him. In other commentaries, it is mentioned that Joseph was guided by angels, recognized his brothers in Egypt, and ultimately showed them mercy despite their previous actions.

Aggadat Bereshit 73:3

[3] Another interpretation:"And El Shaddai did not need to say 'grant you mercy' but rather 'grant you mercy before the king,' or 'before the ruler,' just as it is written, 'and Joseph was the ruler, etc.'" (Genesis 42:6) Why does it say "before the man"? It could have just said to give you mercy before the king, or before the ruler, as it is written "and Joseph was the ruler, etc." (Genesis 42:6). And why did his mother call him by his name Joseph, as it is written "And she called his name Joseph" (Genesis 30:24), while Pharaoh called him Zaphenath-paneah ["treasury of the glorious rest"] (Genesis 41:45) and the Egyptians called him Avrech [father in wisdom.] (Genesis 41:43)? Jacob omitted all of these names and only said "And El Shaddai, etc." before the man. Why, when his father sent him to his brothers, did the angel who was assigned by God to watch over him find him wandering and ask him what he was looking for? As it is written "And a man found him, and behold he was wandering in the field" (Genesis 37:15), and he said to him "What are you looking for?" and he answered "I am looking for my brothers." Once he arrived there, they threw him into a pit, then took off his coat, and then sold him four times, as it is written "Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away" (Amos 2:6). And when the tribes went down to Egypt, as soon as he saw them, he had compassion on them." As it is written, "And Joseph recognized them" (Genesis 42:8). "And he turned himself away from them and wept" (Genesis 42:24). Immediately, the angel descended and appeared to Joseph in the form of a man, and he said to him, "Why do you have mercy on these people? Don't you know how much they have troubled you? They threw you into a pit and sold you four times. He began to accuse them and said to Joseph, "Immediately he revealed himself to them" (Genesis 45:1). He said to them, "Don't you know that I am a magician? I take the cup, smell it, and make myself a magician. He said to them, "I know that you are spies, but if you are honest, then you are finished." (Genesis 42:19). When they came to Jacob and said to him, "What do you think the king of Egypt said to us? He is not merciful to us." Only one person knows where he sent us from, and he stands and accuses us before him, as it is written, "The man said, 'Your servant, our lord, has asked us about our family'" (Genesis 43:7). For the man said, "You are spies" (Genesis 42:14). He said to them, "There is a man who accuses you, so be kind to him, as it is written, 'And Almighty God will give you mercy before the man' (Genesis 43:14), and not only before this man, but before all nations, as it is written, 'give them compassion before those who carried them captive.' (I Kings 8:50)"

Bereshit Rabbah 75:4

“Messengers [malakhim]” – these were flesh and blood messengers. The Rabbis say: Actual angels. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Hagar was Sarah’s maidservant and five angels happened upon her, (See Genesis 16:7–12.) this one who is the beloved of the household, all the more so. If several angels escorted Eliezer, (See Genesis 24:7 and Bereshit Rabba 59:10.) who was a slave of the household, this one, who was the beloved of the household, all the more so. Rabbi Yosei said: Joseph was the youngest of the tribes and three angels escorted him; that is what is written: “A man found him” (Since the “man” is unidentified and appears by chance, and also plays a crucial role in the story, the midrash understands that the mysterious man was, in fact, an angel.) (Genesis 37:15), “the man asked him” (Genesis 37:15), “the man said to him” (Genesis 37:17); this one, who was the father of them all, all the more so. “Before him” – before the one whose time to assume kingship was before his. (See Genesis 36:31.) Rabbi Yehoshua said: He removed his royal purple garment and cast it before him. He said to him: ‘Two starlings cannot sleep on one board.’ (Our kingdoms cannot overlap.) “To Esau his brother” – although he is Esau, he is his brother. “To the land of Se’ir, the field of Edom” – he is ruddy, his cooked food is red, his land is red, his mighty are red, his garment is red, and a red one will exact retribution from him in red garments. He is ruddy – “the first emerged ruddy” (Genesis 25:25); “his cooked food is red” – “feed me please from that red, red dish” (Genesis 25:30); “his land is red” – “to the land of Se’ir, the field of Edom” (Red, adom, is similar to Edom. See Genesis 25:30.) ; “his mighty are red” – “mighty ones are colored scarlet…” (Nahum 2:4); and a red [adom] one will exact retribution from him – “my beloved is clear and ruddy [adom]” (Song of Songs 5:10); in red garments – “why is there red on your garments?” (Isaiah 63:2).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:14

“A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek? He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. The man said: They traveled from here, for I heard them saying: We shall go to Dotan. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan” (Genesis 37:15–17). “A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field” – Rabbi Yannai said: Three angels came to his assistance: “A man found him”; “the man asked him”; “the man said.” “They traveled from here” – from the attributes of the Omnipresent. (They abandoned the traits of mercy, grace, kindness, and the like.) “They saw him from afar, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). “They saw him from afar” – they said: Come let us sic the dogs on him. “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer is coming” (Genesis 37:19). “Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: A savage beast devoured him; and we will see what will become of his dreams” (Genesis 37:20). “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer [baal haḥalomot]” – The Rabbis said: Here he is coming, bearing his dreams. Rabbi Levi said: This one is destined to mislead them to follow the Baal. (Joseph’s descendant Yerovam will incite them to engage in idol worship.) “Now let us go and kill him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You say: “And we will see” and I say: We will see – now we will see “whose word will stand” (Jeremiah 44:28), mine or yours.’

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Kaspa 2:26

"straying": "straying" in all instances connotes outside of the boundary. Though there is no proof for this, there is support for it in (Genesis 37:15) "and, behold, he was straying in the field."

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:3

(Gen. 37:15:) THEN A MAN FOUND HIM, < i.e., > an angel. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:14.)

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2:3

And Jacob said to him: “Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren … and he came to Shechem (ibid. 37:14). (B. Sanhedrin 10:29.) This place had previously been designated for punishment. Dinah was dishonored in Shechem, Joseph was sold in Shechem, (Dothan, the place where Joseph was sold, was in the vicinity of Shechem; in addition, tradition maintains that he was buried in Shechem.) and David’s kingdom was divided at Shechem: Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim (I Kings 12:25). And a certain man found him (Gen. 37:15). The man referred to is none other than (the angel) Gabriel, as it is said: The man Gabriel (Dan. 9:21). And they saw him from afar … and they took him, and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:18, 24). The pit was empty of water, but it contained snakes and scorpions. What did Reuben do? He remained upon one of the hills nearby in order to rescue Joseph during the night. However, the nine other brothers stayed together in another place, all in agreement that he should die.

Midrash Tehillim 25:12

Another man, who is he? This is Joseph, as it says (Genesis 37:15), "And a man found him, and behold! he was wandering in the field, so the man asked him, saying, 'What do you seek?'" He feared the Lord, as it says (Genesis 42:18), "On the third day, Joseph said to them, 'Do this and you will live, for I fear God.'" He will guide us in the way to choose, as he did not sin with his master's wife. His soul leaned toward good. He is buried in the cave, and his descendants will inherit the land, as it says (Numbers 32:33), "So Moses gave to them, to the sons of Gad and to the sons of Reuben and to half the tribe of Manasseh the son of Joseph, the kingdom of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, and the kingdom of Og, the king of Bashan, the entire land with its cities and the territory surrounding them."

Musar

In the narrative of Eliezer's mission to find a wife for Isaac, the Torah distinguishes between Eliezer the earthly servant and the angel Mattatron. References to "עבד" indicate Eliezer, while mentions of "האיש" refer to Mattatron. This distinction is also seen in other instances in the Torah, where angels are referred to as "איש." In Genesis 24:17, Eliezer is depicted as reflecting on the success of his mission based on heavenly signs, with the word "לדעת" hinting at the tree of knowledge.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Chayei Sara, Torah Ohr 53

We perceive Eliezer setting out on his mission with Mattaron hovering over him, invisibly. Whenever the Torah employs the word עבד in this narrative, the reference is to Eliezer the earthly עבד. Whenever the Torah mentions the word האיש in the narrative, the reference is to the עבד עברי של מעלה, to Mattatron. We have other examples when such an angel is referred to by the Torah as איש, and our sages have defined such an איש as מלאך, an angel. One such example is Genesis 37,15. Rashi, quoting Midrash Tanchuma, says that this was the angel Gabriel. In 24,17, we find “וירץ העבד לקראתה, followed in verse 21 by והאיש משתאה לה.” Onkelos translates this latter verse as meaning that Eliezer remained standing looking on silently. He was reflecting on whether the Heavenly input indicated that his mission was succesful or not. The word לדעת, to know, in verse 21 is a veiled reference to the tree of knowledge.

Quoting Commentary

Or HaChaim suggests that Moses went out to meet Yitro alone to show honor to him, as evidenced by Moses prostrating himself before Yitro. The title "איש" used in the text indicates a person of breeding and nobility, highlighting Yitro's status as an honorable individual deserving of respect. The Torah's omission of both individuals prostrating themselves suggests that only Moses prostrated before Yitro, emphasizing Yitro's esteemed position.

Or HaChaim on Exodus 18:7:1

ויצא משה לקראת חתנו, Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, etc. Seeing that Yitro had pleaded that Moses welcome either his wife or his sons or both, the Torah is at pains to tell us that Moses considered Yitro as deserving to be welcomed by him in his own right, hence the emphasis on לקראת חתנו. Perhaps Moses even went so far as to demonstrate this point by going only to Yitro's tent at this point, ignoring his wife and children till somewhat later. Mechilta makes the additional point that seeing that Moses prostrated himself in front of Yitro this is proof that he went out in order to honour Yitro. Our sages say that Moses honoured Yitro greatly. If the Torah had not stressed that Moses went to meet his father-in-law, how would I have known that he did not go out in order to welcome his wife and sons specifically?

Or HaChaim on Exodus 18:7:2

וישתחו וישק לו, He prostrated himself and kissed him, etc. Our rabbis in the Mechilta say that it was not clear who prostrated himself before whom and who kissed whom. When the Torah wrote איש in "they asked each other how they were," it became clear that Moses prostrated himself as he qualified for the description איש. The fact that the Torah does not mention that two people prostrated themselves makes it plain that only one of the two prostrated himself before the other. Should you argue that Yitro too has been referred to as איש in Exodus 2,21 where Moses is reported as agreeing to stay with Yitro, there is a subtle difference when Moses is called איש and when Yitro is called איש. Let me first explain the precise nature of the title איש, seeing that every male adult is called איש, if only to distinguish him from his female mate. We even find the term איש applied to animals such as in Genesis 7,2 where the Torah speaks of the pure animals which Noach is to take into the ark with him. The meaning of the word איש undergoes a change when it is used together with the name of the person concerned. In such instances it describes that person as someone of breeding and nobility. We find an example of the word איש or אנשים being used as a complimentary description in Numbers 13,3 where the people whom Moses had selected as spies were described as all being אנשים after we had already been told their names. On the other hand, when the word איש is used in lieu of a name it does not denote exceptional qualities such as Genesis 37,15 the man who found Joseph unable to locate his brothers in Shechem. The same applies in Genesis 24,21 where Eliezer is referred to as האיש. We are told in Bamidbar Rabbah 16, that the use of the word אנשים is complimentary only when the actual names of these people are recorded also. When G'd asked Bileam who the אנשים were who had come to him that night, (Numbers 22,9), clearly no compliment was intended. On the other hand, in Exodus 11,3, when Moses is described as האיש משה גדול מאד the word האיש is clearly highly complimentary. The same is true even of Exodus 32,23 when the mixed multitude refer to the fact that Moses had not returned from the Mountain. These people described Moses as the most perfect human being they had ever encountered. In the case of Yitro we do not find that the word איש is applied to him by the Torah in conjunction with his name, only in lieu of his name. When he is referred to in that context, the word האיש, (i.e. a pronoun) has neither a complimentary nor a derogatary meaning. The word is simply one used to describe a male.

Ramban on Genesis 18:1:1

AND HE APPEARED TO HIM. Rashi comments: “To visit the sick man. Said Rabbi Chama the son of Chanina, ‘It was the third day after his circumcision, and the Holy One, blessed be He, came and inquired after him.’ (“After him.” In our text of Rashi: “after the state of his health.”) And, lo, three men: (Verse 2 here.) angels who came to him in the form of men. Three: one to announce to Sarah that she would bear a son, one to heal Abraham, and one to overthrow Sodom. Raphael who healed Abraham went from there to rescue Lot” for these do not constitute two commissions. (“One angel does not carry out two commissions.” (Bereshith Rabbah 50:2 and mentioned in Rashi here.) But, continues Ramban, these two missions given to the angel Raphael—healing Abraham and rescuing Lot from Sodom—do not violate the principle. See text.) This is because the second mission was in another place, and he was commanded thereon after [he had completed his first mission]. (It is as if he was sent on a new mission in another place after he had completed his mission in a different place. For it is clear that the principle of one angel not carrying out two commissions applies only to two simultaneous commissions, as explained in Mizrachi’s commentary on Rashi.) Perhaps it is because the two missions had rescue as their common goal. (Since healing and rescue are missions with a common purpose, one angel could be charged with both missions.) “And they did eat: (Verse 8 here.) they appeared to be eating.” In the book Moreh Nebuchim (Ibn Tibbon’s translation, II, 42: in Al Charizi, Chapter 43.) it is said that this portion of Scripture consists of a general statement followed by a detailed description. Thus Scripture first says that the Eternal appeared to Abraham in the form of prophetic visions, and then explains in what manner this vision took place, namely, that he [Abraham] lifted up his eyes in the vision, and lo, three men stood by him, (Verse 2 here.) and he said, if now I have found favor in thy eyes. (Verse 3 here.) This is the account of what he said in the prophetic vision to one of them, namely, their chief. Now if in the vision there appeared to Abraham only men partaking of food, how then does Scripture say, And the Eternal appeared to him, as G-d did not appear to him in vision or in thought? (In other words, why does Scripture begin the chapter with the statement, And the Eternal appeared to him, when in the detailed account of the vision it is explained that he saw only angels?) Such is not found with respect to all the prophecies. And according to his (The author of the Moreh Nebuchim.) words, Sarah did not knead cakes, nor did Abraham prepare a bullock, and also, Sarah did not laugh. It was all a vision! If so, this dream came through a multitude of business, (See Ecclesiastes 5:2.) like dreams of falsehood, for what is the purpose of showing him all this! (Since the vision concerning the preparation and the eating of the meal were not relevant to the prophecy of the birth of Isaac.) Similarly did the author of the Moreh Nebuchim say (Ibn Tibbon’s translation, II, 42: in Al Charizi, Chapter 43.) in the case of the verse, And a man wrestled with him, (Further, 32:25. The reference deals with Jacob wrestling with the angel.) that it was all a prophetic vision. But if this be the case, I do not know why Jacob limped on his thigh when he awoke! And why did Jacob say, For I have seen an angel face to face, and my life is preserved? (Ibid., Verse 31.) The prophets did not fear that they might die on account of having experienced prophetic visions. Jacob, moreover, had already seen a greater and more distinguished vision than this since many times, in prophetic visions, he had also seen the Revered Divinity. (Ibid., 28:13.) Now according to this author’s opinion, he will find it necessary for the sake of consistency to say similarly in the affair of Lot that the angels did not come to his house, nor did he bake for them unleavened bread and they did eat. (Ibid., 19:3.) Rather, it was all a vision! But if Lot could ascend to the height of a prophetic vision, how did the wicked and sinful people of Sodom become prophets? Who told them that men had come into Lot’s house? And if all these [i.e., the actions of the inhabitants of Sodom], were part of prophetic visions, then it follows that the account related in the verses, And the angels hastened Lot, saying: Arise take thy wife. …And he said, Escape for thy life… See, I have accepted thee, (Ibid., Verses 17-21.) as well as the entire chapter is but a vision, and if so, Lot could have remained in Sodom! But the author of the Moreh Nebuchim thinks that the events took place of themselves, but the conversations relating to all matters were in a vision! But such words contradict Scripture. It is forbidden to listen to them, all the more to believe in them! In truth, (Ramban partially agrees with Rambam’s position. He says that wherever seeing or hearing an angel is mentioned in Scripture, it refers to a vision since the human senses can not perceive an angel. However, wherever Scripture ascribes human appearances to the angels, as in the case of Abraham, then their presence is sensually perceived. Other differences of opinion between Ramban and Rambam regarding prophecy are mentioned further on in the text.) wherever Scripture mentions an angel being seen or heard speaking it is in a vision or in a dream for the human senses cannot perceive the angels. But these are not visions of prophecy since he who attains the vision of an angel or the hearing of his speech is not yet a prophet. For the matter is not as the Rabbi (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). See Seder Bereshith, Note 139.) pronounced, (Moreh Nebuchim, II, 41.) i.e., that every prophet, Moses our teacher excepted, received his prophecy through the medium of an angel. The Sages have already said (Megillah 3a.) concerning Daniel: “They (Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi—three prophets who lived at the beginning of the second Temple.) were greater than he for they were prophets and he was not a prophet.” His book, likewise, was not grouped together (The Men of the Great Assembly redacted the books of the Bible. See Baba Bathra 15a. They placed the book of Daniel in the section of the Writings. (Ibid., 14 b).) with the books of the prophets since his affair was with the angel Gabriel, even though he appeared to him and spoke with him when he was awake, as it is said in the vision concerning the second Temple: Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel,etc. (Daniel 9:1.) The vision concerning the ultimate redemption (From the beginning of Chapter 10 there.) also occurred when Daniel was awake as he walked with his friends beside the Tigris River. (Ibid., 10:4. As for his friends, see ibid., Verse 7. Tradition specifies that these were Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. (Megillah 3a.)) Hagar the Egyptian (She was not a prophetess even though angels appeared to her. (Above, 16: 7.) Ramban thus differs with Rambam, who had said that all prophets received the prophecy through the medium of an angel. Rambam’s position is defended as follows: Rambam’s intent was not that whenever an angel is seen it is an instance of prophecy. Rather his intent was that whenever prophecy comes to any of the prophets it comes through an angel. However, it is possible that an angel may appear for the purpose of conveying information to one who is not a prophet. This was the case with Daniel and Hagar.) is not included in the group of prophetesses. (In Megillah 14 a, the Rabbis list seven prophetesses who arose in Israel: Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah and Esther. Hagar however was not listed among them. See Note 103 further.) It is also clear that hers was not a case of the bath kol (prophetic echo), (Guide of the Perplexed, II, 42. See Friedlander’s note on bath kol, p. 199, n.2.) as the Rabbi (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). See Seder Bereshith, Note 139.) would have it. Scripture, furthermore, sets apart the prophecy of Moses our teacher from that of the patriarchs, as it is said, And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] G-d Almighty, (Exodus 6:3.) this name being one of the sacred names for the Creator, and not a designation for an angel. Our Rabbis also taught concerning the difference in the degree of prophecy between Moses and the other prophets, and they said: (Vayikra Rabbah 1:14.) “What is the difference between Moses and all the prophets? The Rabbis say that all prophets saw through unclear vision. It is to this matter that Scripture refers in saying, And I have multiplied visions, and by the ministry of the prophets have I used similitudes. (Hosea 12:11.) Moses saw through a clear vision. It is to this matter that Scripture refers in saying, And the similitudes of the Eternal doth he behold,” (Numbers 12:8.) as is explained in Vayikra Rabbah (Vayikra Rabbah 1:14.) and other places. But in no place did the Sages attribute the prophecy of the prophets to an angel. Do not expose yourself to argument by quoting the verse, I also am a prophet as thou art; and an angel spoke unto me by the word of the Eternal, saying, (I Kings 13:18. From this you might argue that the prophets themselves attributed their prophecy to an angel. This is not correct, as is explained in the text.) since its meaning is as follows: “I also am a prophet as thou art, and I know that the angel who spoke to me was by word of G-d, this being one of the degrees of prophecy, as the man of G-d said, For so was it charged me by the word of the Eternal, (Ibid., Verse 9.) and he further said, For it was said to me by the word of the Eternal. (Ibid., Verse 17.) Our Rabbis have further stated (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:13.) in the matter of Balaam, who said, Now, therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back, (Numbers 22:34.) [that is as if Balaam commented]: “I did not go [with the messengers of Balak] until the Holy One, blessed be He, told me, Rise up, go with them, (Ibid., 22:20.) and you [i.e., an angel], tell me that I should return. Such is His conduct! Did He not tell Abraham to sacrifice his son, after which the angel of the Eternal called to Abraham, And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad. (Further, 22:12.) He is accustomed to saying something and to have an angel revoke it, etc.” Thus the Sages were prompted to say that the prophecy comprising the first charge where G-d is mentioned is not like the second charge of which it is said that it was through an angel, only this was not unusual, for it is customary with the prophets that He would command by a prophecy and revoke the command through an angel since the prophet knew that the revocation was the word of G-d. In the beginning of Vayikra Rabbah (1:9.) the Sages have said: “And He called to Moses, (Leviticus 1:1.) unlike Abraham. Concerning Abraham it is written, And the angel of the Eternal called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven. (Further, 22:15.) The angel called, and G-d spoke the word, but here with respect to Moses, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘It is I Who called, and it is I Who spoke the word.’” That is to say, Abraham did not attain prophecy until he prepared his soul first to perceive an angel, and from that degree he ascended to attain the word of prophecy, but Moses was prepared for prophecy at all times. Thus the Sages were prompted to inform us everywhere that seeing an angel is not prophecy, and those who see angels and speak with them are not included among the prophets, as I have mentioned concerning Daniel. Rather, this is only a vision called “opening of eyes,” as in the verse: And the Eternal opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Eternal; (Numbers 22:31.) similarly: And Elisha prayed, and said, O Eternal, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. (II Kings 6:17.) But where Scripture mentions the angels as men, as is the case in this portion, and the portion concerning Lot — likewise, And a man wrestled with him, (Further, 32:25. The reference deals with Jacob wrestling with the angel.) And a certain man found him, (Further, 37:15.) in the opinion of our Rabbis (According to the Sages the man who wrestled with Jacob was the angel of Esau (Bereshith Rabbah 77:2), and the man who found Joseph was the angel Gabriel (Tanchuma Vayeshev 2).) — in all these cases there was a special glory created in the angels, called among those who know the mysteries of the Torah “a garment,” perceptible to the human vision of such pure persons as the pious and the disciples of the prophets, and I cannot explain any further. And in those places in Scripture where you find the sight of G-d and the speech of an angel, or the sight of an angel and the speech of G-d, as is written concerning Moses at the outset of his prophecy, (Exodus 3:2.) and in the words of Zechariah, (Zechariah 1:14, etc.) I will yet disclose words of the living G-d in allusions. Concerning on the matter of the verse, And they did eat, (Verse 8 here.) the Usages have said: (Bereshith Rabbah 48:16.) “One course after the other disappeared.” (That is, the angels really did not eat. Rather as soon as a dish of food was brought, it was consumed by fire.) The matter of “disappearance” you will understand from the account about Manoah, (Judges 13:19.) if you will be worthy to attain it. Now here is the interpretation of this portion of Scripture. After it says that In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, (Above, 17:26.) Scripture says that G-d appeared to him while he was sick from the circumcision as he was sitting and cooling himself in his tent door on account of the heat of the day which weakened him. Scripture mentions this in order to inform us that Abraham had no intention for prophecy. He had neither fallen on his face nor prayed, yet this vision did come to him.

Second Temple

The text from the Second Temple discusses the idea that the worse is prone to attack the better, urging individuals to be open to receiving better teaching and to not delude themselves about their readiness to learn. It emphasizes the importance of combining toil with skill, highlights the significance of recognizing the proper name that describes the real man as simply "man," and warns against following paths that lead to cunning, stinginess, rashness, or superstition.

That the Worse is wont to Attack the Better 4:2

[10] “Come then let me send thee to them,” (ibid.), that is, ‘submit to be summoned elsewhere, and draw nigh and entertain in thine understanding a ready eagerness for the receiving of better teaching. Up to the present time thou deludest thyself with the idea that thou hast welcomed the true education. For thou professest to be ready to be taught otherwise, though thou hast not yet in thine own heart acknowledged thy need of this. Thy cry “Here am I” seems to me to convict thee of rash and reckless compliance, rather than to indicate readiness to learn. A proof of this is that soon afterwards the real man will find thee wandering in the way (Gen. 37:15), whereas thou never wouldst have lost the way hadst thou with a healthy resolve come to be trained.

That the Worse is wont to Attack the Better 7:1

[17] Seeing, therefore, that Joseph has utterly sunk into the hollows of the body and the senses, he challenges him to quit his lurking-place and go forward and draw a free draught of the spirit of stedfastness by resorting to those who were once aspirants after it, and are now teachers of it. But he, though he fancied that he had made a move forward, is found wandering: for he says, “a man found him wandering in the plain” (Gen. 37:15), showing that toil by itself is not good, but toil accompanied by skill.

That the Worse is wont to Attack the Better 8:1

[22] Some say that the proper name of the man who found him wandering on the plain has not been mentioned (Gen. 37:15). Those who say so are themselves, too, in some sort astray, owing to their inability to see clearly the right way in matters generally. For had they not been smitten with partial blindness of the soul’s eye, they would have recognized that the name which most correctly describes the real man and most thoroughly belongs to him is simply “man,” the most proper title of a mind endowed with reason and articulate utterance.

That the Worse is wont to Attack the Better 8:3

[24] This challenger inquired of the soul when he saw it wandering, “What seekest thou?” (Gen. 37:15). ‘Is it sound sense thou art seeking? Why then dost thou walk upon the path of cunning? Is it self-mastery? But this road leads to stinginess. Is it courage? Rashness meets thee by this way. Is it piety thou art in quest of? This road is that of superstition.’

Targum

In Onkelos Genesis 37:15, a man found Joseph going astray in the field and asked him what he was seeking. In Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:15, it is mentioned that Gabriel, in the likeness of a man, found Joseph wandering in the field and asked him the same question.

Onkelos Genesis 37:15

A man found him going astray in the field. The man asked him, What are you seeking?

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:15

And Gabriel in the likeness of a man found him wandering field. And the man asked him, saying, What seekest thou?

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אֶת־אַחַ֖י אָנֹכִ֣י מְבַקֵּ֑שׁ הַגִּֽידָה־נָּ֣א לִ֔י אֵיפֹ֖ה הֵ֥ם רֹעִֽים׃ 16 E He answered, “I am looking for my brothers. Could you tell me where they are pasturing?”
Yosef represents severities and benevolences, seeking Divine inspiration in the Diaspora where help is available despite the Shechina not dwelling there. Strengthening oneself and showing kindness to the Shechina can make one a throne for the attribute of Loving-Kindness, similar to Abraham's time. Joseph, seeking his brothers, asks a stranger for their location, Gabriel led Joseph to his brothers, who planned to kill him but sold him instead to Ishmaelites to hide their actions from Jacob. Sforno explains the use of איפוא and איה in Genesis, while the Gemara suggests Job may have lived in the time of Isaac, Jacob, or Joseph based on the word "eifo" in the respective verses. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan convey that Joseph is looking for his brothers and asks where they are pasturing.

Chasidut

Yosef represents the element of severities and benevolences, seeking his brothers symbolizes seeking Divine inspiration in the Diaspora where special help is available despite the Shechina not dwelling there. In exile, it is easier to come to a perception of G-d, as preparing actions for the sake of heaven can make one a "throne" for the Shechina, even higher than those of earlier generations. Strengthening oneself and showing kindness to the Shechina can make one a throne for the attribute of Loving-Kindness, similar to Abraham's time.

Ba'al Shem Tov, Vayeshev 4:1

And he said, I am seeking my brothers… (37:16) The Zohar says: Rabbi Yehuda commented on the verse: “O, were you like my brother, who nursed from the breasts of my mother. When I would find you outside, I would kiss you.” (Song of Songs 8:1). I would find You outside – meaning, in the exile, in other lands.” (Zohar I:184a, on Genesis 37:16.) In this piece of Zohar, one can find the words of the Baal Shem Tov, that in the Diaspora, special help is available to a person seeking Divine inspiration, (Ruach HaKodesh.) despite the fact that the Shechina does not dwell in exile. (Zohar II:5a, 82a.) Even if a person is not entirely worthy, heaven is still not so particular with him, as in the Land of Israel. For when a king is on the road, he must sleep in inns and hotels that are not as clean and beautiful as befitting his honor; yet, the king is not disgraced, because everyone knows that he is traveling. Understand this well. (The Baal Shem Tov means that because the Divine Presence is in exile in the world, and no longer focused in the land of Israel and the Holy Temple, it is actually easier to come to a perception of G-d than in the past. On this idea, Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye writes (Toldos Yaakov Yosef, Ekev, 181b): “Especially in our time, when the Divine Presence is in exile and finds no place to rest, as soon as a person prepares all of his actions for the sake of heaven, he immediately becomes a “throne” for the Shechina, which rests upon him. He is even considered higher than those of earlier generations, when there were many Tzaddikim in the world; whereas today, “the pious man ceases” (Psalms 12:2) – that is, those who are pious before their Creator (Zohar III:281b). A person should strengthen himself like a warrior, and show kindness to the Shechina, so that he becomes a throne for the attribute of Loving-Kindness (Chesed). Just as in Abraham’s time, when there was no one to help the Shechina but him, now too, besides a very few individuals, no one thinks about how to help and support the Shechina in this bitter exile. Thus, a person who is willing to sacrifice will certainly become a throne for the Divine Presence with the trait of loving-kindness.”) Igra d’Pirka 148

Likutei Moharan 80:1:5

Therefore, of Yosef it is said: “Yosef brought bad reports of them [to their father]” (Genesis 37:2). This is the element of severities, since the left hand pushes away (Sotah 47a). , “I am seeking my brothers” (Genesis 37:16). This is the element of benevolences, since the right hand brings close (Sotah, ibid .) .

Commentary

Joseph, seeking his brothers, asks a stranger where they are herding their flocks, assuming the man knows based on his use of the word "לאמור" indicating useful information.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:16:1

WHERE THEY ARE FEEDING THE FLOCK. If you know. (If you know either is implied or was actually said by Joseph and is left out of the text, our verse being abridged. The above has to be the case because otherwise why did Joseph asssume the man knew where his brothers were keeping the sheep?)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:16:1

הגידה נא לי, "PLease tell me!" How did Joseph know that the stranger knew where his brothers were to be found? He did not ask the man if he knew; he only asked him to reveal his knowledge! Perhaps Joseph concluded from the word לאמור which the stranger used that he had some information that was useful for Joseph. Since there was no one else around, why would the stranger have used the word לאמור, to say, before asking "what do you seek?"

Radak on Genesis 37:16:1

הגידה נא לי, if you know where they are tending their flocks.

Sforno on Genesis 37:16:1

איפה הם רועים, in which section of this region.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:16

He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. Joseph undoubtedly described their appearances to the man.

Midrash

Gabriel led Joseph to his brothers, who sought to kill him but Reuben convinced them to spare his life by suggesting they throw him into a pit. Reuben planned to rescue Joseph later, while the other brothers agreed to sell him to Ishmaelites instead, so Jacob would not find out what happened to him (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 38:10).

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 38:10

And (Gabriel) said to him: What seekest thou? He said to him: I seek my brethren, as it is said, "And he said, I seek my brethren" (Gen. 37:16). And he led him to || his brethren, and they saw him and sought to slay him, as it is said, "And they saw him afar off" (Gen. 37:18). Reuben said to them: Do not shed his blood, as it is said, "And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness" (Gen. 37:22). And his brethren listened to him, and they took Joseph and cast him into the pit, as it is said, "And they took him, and cast him into the pit" (Gen. 37:24). What did Reuben do? He went and stayed on one of the mountains, so as to go down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit. And his nine brethren were sitting down in one place, all of them like one man, with one heart and one plan. Ishmaelites passed by them, and (the brethren) said: Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they will lead him to the end of the wilderness, and Jacob will not hear any further report concerning him.

Quoting Commentary

Sforno explains that in Genesis 27:33, the word איפוא with the letter א at the end is an alternative for אם כן, meaning "if so." Conversely, when spelled with the letter ה at the end, as in Genesis 37:16, איפה הם רועים?, it means the same as איה, "where?"

Sforno on Genesis 27:33:1

?מי איפוא הוא, if it is indeed true that you are Esau, who was the one who served me venison? When the word איפוא appears with the letter א at the end, the word is an alternative for the two words אם כן, “if so.” When the same word (phonetically speaking) is spelled with the letter ה at the end, as for instance, in Genesis 37,16 איפה הם רועים?, the word means the same as איה, “where?”

Talmud

The Gemara suggests that Job may have lived in the time of Isaac, Jacob, or Joseph based on the use of the word "eifo" in the respective verses in Genesis 27:33, 43:11, and 37:16.

Bava Batra 15a:12

The Gemara comments: But if that is the proof, say that Job lived in the time of Isaac, as it is written in connection with Isaac: “Who then [eifo] is he that has taken venison” (Genesis 27:33). Or say that he lived in the time of Jacob, as it is written with respect to Jacob: “If it must be so now [eifo], do this” (Genesis 43:11). Or say that he lived in the time of Joseph, as it is written with respect to Joseph: “Tell me, I pray you, where [eifo] are they feeding their flocks?” (Genesis 37:16).

Targum

In Genesis 37:16, Onkelos states that Joseph is looking for his brothers and asks where they are pasturing. Targum Jonathan also conveys the same message, with Joseph seeking his brothers and asking where they feed.

Onkelos Genesis 37:16

He said, I am looking for my brothers, tell me please [now], where are they pasturing?

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:16

And he said, I seek my brothers; show me, pray, where they feed.

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר הָאִישׁ֙ נָסְע֣וּ מִזֶּ֔ה כִּ֤י שָׁמַ֙עְתִּי֙ אֹֽמְרִ֔ים נֵלְכָ֖ה דֹּתָ֑יְנָה וַיֵּ֤לֶךְ יוֹסֵף֙ אַחַ֣ר אֶחָ֔יו וַיִּמְצָאֵ֖ם בְּדֹתָֽן׃ 17 E The man said, “They have gone from here, for I heard them say: Let us go to Dothan.” So Joseph followed his brothers and found them at Dothan.
The angel warned Joseph that his brothers had departed from brotherhood and were seeking legal pretexts to harm him in Dothan, leading Joseph to ultimately find them there. The mention of Dothan symbolizes the brothers' abandonment of brotherliness and their plot to kill Joseph through legal means. Quoting Rashi's commentary on Genesis 37:17, Joseph's journey to Dothan is a pivotal moment in the narrative of his betrayal by his brothers, as indicated in various Midrashim and Targums.

Commentary

The angel warned Joseph that his brothers had departed from brotherhood and were seeking legal pretexts to kill him by going to Dothan, a warning Joseph did not fully understand, leading him to search for his brothers in Dothan where he ultimately found them. The mention of Dothan in the Torah is interpreted both literally as a place and symbolically as a location where the brothers had abandoned brotherliness and sought to kill Joseph through legal means. The angel's warning was veiled, with the intention of increasing Joseph's merit by persisting in seeking brotherliness, ultimately leading him to fulfill his destiny as the ruler of Egypt.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:17:1

נסעו מזה 'they have moved on from here.” They had been grazing their flocks there until recently.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:17:1

נסעו מזה, “they have moved away from here; they have said that they are no longer interested as being 12 tribes”. The numerical value of the letters in the word זה is 12.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:17:1

TO DOTHAN. Dothan is spelled both with and without a yod in our verse. In either case it refers to one and the same place.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:17:1

נסעו מזה, כי שמעתי אומרים, "They have moved away from here, for I have heard them say, etc." Why did the stranger have to preface his information by saying: "they have moved away from here?" It would have sufficed for him to say: "I have heard them say: 'let us go to Dothan!'" Rashi explains that the words mean that the brothers had abandoned the path of brotherliness (and devised legal schemes to kill him). If so, why was Joseph not worried enough to turn around and to return to his father's home? What greater degree of danger could there be? In fact, was Joseph not guilty of almost committing suicide by continuing to search for his brothers?

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:17:2

Perhaps Joseph did not understand the warning properly. Our sages who had the benefit of hindsight were able to interpret the words of the "man" as a warning. Joseph who was not blessed with such hindsight had no reason to see a dire warning in these harmless sounding words. He merely understood that his brothers had not only left Shechem but the whole district. The reason the "man" added "I have heard the brothers say: 'let us go to Dothan,' was to explain what he meant by "they have moved from here.'" He could not say with certainty that the brothers had actually arrived at Dothan. He only had knowledge of their intention. It did not occur to Joseph that the man with whom he talked was an angel; therefore he did not try to read any more into the man's words than appeared obvious. When the Torah writes: "Joseph went after his brothers and he found them in Dothan," this is in order then. Had Joseph understood the veiled warning of the "man," the Torah should have written: "Joseph followed his brothers to Dothan and found them." Joseph searched for his brothers seeing that the man had not been precise about their present location. As a result of his search, Joseph found his brothers in Dothan. Our sages' interpretation of what occurred is perfectly in order, i.e. that the Torah reveals that the angel who spoke to Joseph had given him a veiled warning.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:17:3

Proof that Joseph had not understood this is that the Torah reports Joseph as searching for his brothers. He was under the impression that they still considered him their brother.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:17:4

The question we must all ask is that if the angel remained deliberately so vague that Joseph did not understand his warning, why did he direct him to a location which was so fraught with danger for Joseph? Perhaps, after having become aware that Joseph's intention was to find brotherliness, i.e. את אחי אנכי מבקש, the angel wanted to increase the merit Joseph would accumulate by persisting in such a worthwhile endeavour. For all we know this is how Joseph acquired the merit necessary to qualify ultimately as the ruler of Egypt and the provider for his family.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:17:1

כי שמעתי אומרים, “for I have heard (them) say, etc.” The word אותם is missing in the text. נלכה דותינה , “let us go to Dotan.” Our sages (Rashi) suggested that this wording was meant to alert Joseph to danger. The words: “they moved away from here” were something that Joseph did not need to be told because he already had found out. These words were the clue to the angel’s warning. In other words, when Joseph indicated that he sought a brotherly relationship with them, the angel cautioned him that they were no longer open to such advances. [Joseph did not understand this oblique warning. Ed.] The sages speak of נכלי דתות, “contriving legislation,” instead of נלכה דותינה. If we take this at face value Dotan was not the name of a location. At any rate, Joseph did not “read between the lines” and understood the meaning of his words to be simply that they had moved to a place called Dotan and went in search of that location. He found the brothers in Dotan, something which the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 84,14 describes as the natural conclusion of the angel’s piece of warning “they have moved from here,” i.e. they have changed their attitude. When the Torah continues that the brothers plotted to kill him by using the word ויתנכלו, this is confirmation of the expression found in the Midrash that they contrived to find a legal opening for disposing of Joseph. Some of our sages claim that as soon as Joseph approached close enough to be identified, his brother set dogs upon him. [In this fashion they would not have become guilty of laying a hand on him. Ed.] The dogs, however did not harm Joseph (Nachmanides). As a last resort, when Joseph insisted on going to them instead of realising that the brothers themselves had set the dogs on him, they decided that they had to kill him directly, with their own hands. This is the meaning of verses 19-20, “let us go and kill him.”

Radak on Genesis 37:17:1

מזה, from this area. We find the expression used in a similar meaning in 38,21 לא היתה בזה, “there was no (prostitute) in this location.”

Radak on Genesis 37:17:2

כי שמעתי אומרים, “that they were saying, etc.”

Ramban on Genesis 37:17:1

THEY HAVE JOURNEYED HENCE. “They have departed from any feeling of brotherhood. ‘Let us go to Dothan, that is, let us go to seek pretexts of dathoth (laws) with which to put you to death.’ According to the literal sense, however, Dothan is the name of a place, and Scripture never sheds its literal sense.” This is Rabbi Shlomo’s [Rashi’s] language. Now it was not the intent of our Rabbis to say that the man expressly told him, “They have departed hence from any feeling of brotherhood, and they have gone to stir up charges and pretexts against you,” for if so, he would have avoided going there and would not have endangered himself. Instead, their intent is to say that “the man” — Gabriel (So identified in Rashi (Verse 15), and the source thereof is Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 38.) — who told it to him told the truth, but he spoke words having a double meaning, both of them true. Joseph, however, did not grasp the hidden meaning therein, and he followed the obvious. He thus followed his brothers and found them in Dothan, as he had told him. The Rabbis expounded this on the basis of the fact that the “man” referred to was an angel, and if so, he knew where the brothers were. Why then did he not say, “They are in Dothan,” instead of speaking as if he was in doubt, i.e., that he heard from them that they were going to Dothan but he does not know where they are at present. It is for this reason that they expounded the above Midrash concerning his words.

Ramban on Genesis 37:17:2

FOR I HEARD THEY ARE SAYING. “I heard that they were saying.” (Ramban’s intent is to explain that the Hebrew shamati omrim, literally, “I heard they are saying,” is as if it were written, shamati shehayu omrim, “I heard that they were saying,” thus referring to a past event.) Similarly the expression, Rebekah hears, (Above, 27:5.) means that she heard. It is possible that he is saying: “The shepherds have gone from here for I heard people saying, (According to this interpretation, Gabriel spoke concerning people in general as if he did not recognize that these shepherds were his brothers.) ‘Let us go to Dothan.’ Perhaps they were your brothers.” The man thus spoke with him as if he were avoiding the subject.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:17:1

בדותן, according to the plain meaning this was the name of a town, and the town is also mentioned in the Book of Kings II 6,13.

Rashi on Genesis 37:17:1

נסעו מזה THEY HAVE JOURNEYED HENCE — they have departed from all feeling of brotherhood.

Rashi on Genesis 37:17:2

נלכה דתינה LET US GO TO DOTHAN — “let us go to seek some legal (דתות) pretexts” to put you to death. According to the literal sense, however, it is the name of place, and Scripture never really loses its literal sense (Shabbat 63a).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:17:1

Ob sich an Dotan eine Erinnerung knüpfte, die ihrer Stimmung und ihren Absichten noch mehr als Sichem zusagte, ob Sichem von anderer Seite doch auch das Brudergefühl zu sehr wach rief, dem gegenüber דותן eine Erinnerung brachte, die, wie der Name דת ahnen lässt, das Rechtsgefühl mehr emporstachelte — wissen wir nicht.

Sforno on Genesis 37:17:1

נסעו מזה, there is no question that they have departed from this grazing area, there is no point in searching any part of this region.

Sforno on Genesis 37:17:2

כי שמעתי אומרים, the reason why I said that they certainly no longer are in this region is because I myself overheard them saying “lets move on.”

Sforno on Genesis 37:17:3

אחר אחיו, even though he had not been able to locate them in Shechem as his father had asked him to do, he went to more trouble than he was required to, in order to fulfill the wishes of his father.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:17:1

They have removed themselves from brotherhood. Rashi is answering the question: How does the angel’s reply pertain to Yoseif’s inquiry? Yoseif only requested to be told where they were, while the angel replied, “They have traveled from here.” Furthermore, Yoseif already knew they traveled from there, since he did not find them there. Thus Rashi explains, “They have removed themselves from brotherhood.” I.e., they want to kill you — do not go there. [You might ask:] how does Rashi know it means [specifically] this? The answer is: זה in gematria is twelve. Thus, it means they have moved away from twelve. I.e., they do not want there to be twelve [brothers], rather they want to kill you, and there will be only eleven. Alternatively, Rashi’s proof is that it says, “From this.” In other words, they have moved away “from this” which you say, “I am looking for my brothers.” They, however, have removed themselves from brotherhood.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:17:2

To seek lawful pretexts concerning you... Rashi is answering the question: The angel said to him נסעו מזה, meaning: “They have removed themselves from brotherhood.” If so, what is the meaning of, “Because (כי) I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Doson’”? The word כי always comes to give a reason. What reason is given here? Thus Rashi explains: lawful pretexts concerning how to kill you.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:17

The man said: They traveled from here; for I heard them saying to each other: We shall go to Dotan, and it is likely that they arrived there. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:17:1

נסעו מזה, “they have moved away from here quite some time ago.” Rashi interprets the expression as not referring to physical distance, but as referring to the bonds of brotherliness. The man (angel Gavriel) did not tell him this in so many words, for had he done so Joseph certainly would not have continued on his way. The angel used a double entendre, which could be interpreted in one of two ways. Both interpretations would correspond to the truth. The principal reason our sages interpret this is that all the angel had to say was: ”they went to Dotan.” The introductory words: “they have moved away from here,” were quite irrelevant, and therefore must be intended to teach us something additional.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 28-29

“The man said, they have gone from here” [37:17]. Rashi asks a question here. Why did the angel respond that the brothers had left here, since Joseph had asked, where are my brothers? The angel should have answered briefly; they have gone to the city of Dothan. The explanation is that the angel did not say to him go to your brothers. They will kill you. This is the meaning of the verse “gone from here.” That is to say, your brothers no longer consider you as a brother. They have renounced their brotherhood. Therefore, the verse says, “from here.” The word “here” [zeh] has the numerical value of twelve. That is to say, your brothers are saying that there should not be twelve brothers, but eleven brothers, since we will not consider Joseph a brother. Joseph did not turn away, but still went to his brothers, out of respect for his father, which would protect him. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:17.) Here one asks a question. If Jacob did accompany Joseph on his way, why was Joseph harmed on the way. The accompaniment did not protect him. The explanation is that Jacob had intended that Joseph should only go to the city of Shechem. It was for this purpose that Jacob accompanied Joseph, but Joseph went further and that is why the accompaniment did not help beyond that. Why did Jacob only intend that he should go to Shechem and no further? The explanation is that the Holy One wanted it to happen in this way, so that Joseph should come to Egypt.

Midrash

In the Midrash Tanchuma Buber, it is explained that the angel was watching out for the Law of the Lord in Dothan, Joseph was a mile away from his brothers when they saw him, and the angel warned Joseph that his brothers had moved on from brotherhood. In Bereshit Rabbah, it is mentioned that three angels came to Joseph's assistance, his brothers conspired to kill him, and the Holy One challenged whose word would stand regarding Joseph's fate.

Bereshit Rabbah 75:4

“Messengers [malakhim]” – these were flesh and blood messengers. The Rabbis say: Actual angels. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Hagar was Sarah’s maidservant and five angels happened upon her, (See Genesis 16:7–12.) this one who is the beloved of the household, all the more so. If several angels escorted Eliezer, (See Genesis 24:7 and Bereshit Rabba 59:10.) who was a slave of the household, this one, who was the beloved of the household, all the more so. Rabbi Yosei said: Joseph was the youngest of the tribes and three angels escorted him; that is what is written: “A man found him” (Since the “man” is unidentified and appears by chance, and also plays a crucial role in the story, the midrash understands that the mysterious man was, in fact, an angel.) (Genesis 37:15), “the man asked him” (Genesis 37:15), “the man said to him” (Genesis 37:17); this one, who was the father of them all, all the more so. “Before him” – before the one whose time to assume kingship was before his. (See Genesis 36:31.) Rabbi Yehoshua said: He removed his royal purple garment and cast it before him. He said to him: ‘Two starlings cannot sleep on one board.’ (Our kingdoms cannot overlap.) “To Esau his brother” – although he is Esau, he is his brother. “To the land of Se’ir, the field of Edom” – he is ruddy, his cooked food is red, his land is red, his mighty are red, his garment is red, and a red one will exact retribution from him in red garments. He is ruddy – “the first emerged ruddy” (Genesis 25:25); “his cooked food is red” – “feed me please from that red, red dish” (Genesis 25:30); “his land is red” – “to the land of Se’ir, the field of Edom” (Red, adom, is similar to Edom. See Genesis 25:30.) ; “his mighty are red” – “mighty ones are colored scarlet…” (Nahum 2:4); and a red [adom] one will exact retribution from him – “my beloved is clear and ruddy [adom]” (Song of Songs 5:10); in red garments – “why is there red on your garments?” (Isaiah 63:2).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:14

“A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek? He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. The man said: They traveled from here, for I heard them saying: We shall go to Dotan. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan” (Genesis 37:15–17). “A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field” – Rabbi Yannai said: Three angels came to his assistance: “A man found him”; “the man asked him”; “the man said.” “They traveled from here” – from the attributes of the Omnipresent. (They abandoned the traits of mercy, grace, kindness, and the like.) “They saw him from afar, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). “They saw him from afar” – they said: Come let us sic the dogs on him. “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer is coming” (Genesis 37:19). “Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: A savage beast devoured him; and we will see what will become of his dreams” (Genesis 37:20). “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer [baal haḥalomot]” – The Rabbis said: Here he is coming, bearing his dreams. Rabbi Levi said: This one is destined to mislead them to follow the Baal. (Joseph’s descendant Yerovam will incite them to engage in idol worship.) “Now let us go and kill him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You say: “And we will see” and I say: We will see – now we will see “whose word will stand” (Jeremiah 44:28), mine or yours.’

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:4

(Ibid., cont.:) AND HERE HE WAS WANDERING < IN A FIELD >. The angel said to him: Do you not know that you are going astray? He said to him (in vss. 16-17): I AM SEEKING MY BROTHERS…. THEN THE MAN SAID: THEY HAVE MOVED ON FROM HERE. What is the meaning of FROM HERE? When they see you they become cruel. (Rashi, on Gen. 37:17, explains that FROM HERE means “from brotherhood.”)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:5

(Gen. 37:17, cont.:) FOR I HEARD THEM SAYING: LET US GO TO DOTHAN. What is the meaning of TO DOTHAN (DTYNH)? Our masters have said that the angel was watching out for the Law of the Lord (DT YH).

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:6

(Gen. 37:17-18:) SO JOSEPH WENT AFTER HIS BROTHERS…. NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR, while he was a mile (Lat.: mille.) away.

Quoting Commentary

Joseph, looking for his brothers, is directed to Dothan by a man he encounters in the fields. This journey to Dothan is seen as a sign that the brothers are seeking legal ways to harm Joseph, as indicated by Rashi's commentary on Genesis 37:17. This event is a pivotal moment in the narrative of Joseph's betrayal by his brothers.

I Believe; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayeshev; The Angel Who Did Not Know He Was an Angel 5

A man found [ Joseph] wandering around in the fields and asked him, “What are you looking for?” He replied, “I’m looking for my brothers. Can you tell me where they are grazing their flocks?” “They have moved on from here,” the man answered. “I heard them say, ‘Let’s go to Dothan.’” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them near Dothan. (Gen. 37:15–17)

Or HaChaim on Deuteronomy 33:16:1

ורצון שכני סנה, "and the goodwill of the One who allotted me a place at the burning bush." Moses refers to the time when he found favour in G'd's eyes who appointed him to release the Jewish people from their painful bondage. This is the reference to his having stood in front of the burning bush.

Or HaChaim on Deuteronomy 33:16:2

תבאתה לראש יוסף ולקדקוד, "may these rest on the head of Joseph, etc." Moses speaks in respect of two outstanding virtues of Joseph. 1) Although he had been exiled to Egypt and had experienced many temptations and injustices he remained loyal to his father's upbringing. (Compare what Midrash Rabbah 1,7 writes on Exodus 1,5, i.e. "although Joseph was in Egypt.") Moses alluded to this when speaking of ראש יוסף. 2) The second virtue of Joseph deserving special mention is the fact that he repaid the evil his brothers had done to him by doing good for them. Tanchuma explains this on Genesis 37,17 נסעו מזה. In spite of the brothers having severed their connection with Joseph at that time, he provided for them as we know from Genesis 47,12.

Or HaChaim on Exodus 13:19:2

מזה אתכם, "with you from this place." The word מזה does not mean "from here," i.e. that Joseph thought the brothers would have to locate his remains exactly in the place where he made them swear this oath. Joseph used the expression as the reason he asked the brothers to swear such an oath. He considered it as a small repayment of all the favours he had done for the brothers during their stay in Egypt. He went so far as to hint that taking his bones out of Egypt for burial in the Holy Land would compensate for the time when they had separated themselves from their brotherhood with him; the angel had told Joseph in Genesis 37,17 that the brothers נסעו מזה "had departed from זה" (the number 12, symbol for the 12 brothers, compare Bereshit Rabbah 84). Joseph used the words מזה אתכם to indicate that if the brothers would fulfil their oath he would consider them as having re-instated him in their midst. The sin they had committed against him at that time would then have been wiped out. In other words, Joseph would forgive the brothers posthumously, for simply swearing the oath.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 24:15:1

ויהי הוא טרם כלה לדבר, “and it was before he had finished speaking, etc.” We need to understand the need for the apparently extraneous word הוא in this verse. All the Torah had to write to tell us that Rivkah appeared before Eliezer had completed his prayer was ויהי ככלותו לדברו, “as soon as he had finished speaking, etc.” Actually, the word הוא in this verse is not a personal pronoun, i.e. “he,” but a name of G-d. (compare Genesis 19,33 where we encountered this word in that context) We have numerous examples of the word הוא being a reference to a name of G-d, such as Psalms 100, 3 הוא עשנו ולו אנחנו, “He has made us and we belong to Him;” Numbers 18,23 ועבד הלוי הוא, ”and the Levite will serve G-d, etc.;” the word הוא in that verse means that Eliezer enjoyed G-d’s special assistance in his mission by means of the angel concerning whom Avraham had prayed to G-d that He should make Eliezer’s mission successful (verse 7).The angel, was at hand already before Eliezer had completed praying and he arranged for Rivkah to be the maiden whom Eliezer would address first with his request for water. This is why the Torah wrote: והנה רבקה יוצאת, “and here Rivkah was already in the process of coming out, etc.” The word והנה means that what follows was the result of a special arrangement, invitation. If the servant immediately ran towards her (verse 17) it was because he had noticed the water of the well rising to meet Rivkah on her descent. This is what our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,5 have derived from the wording in our verses here. At that moment Eliezer already understood what Avraham had meant when he had said to him that G-d would send His angel ahead. This is also what he related once he was in Bethuel’s house when he told the family that Avraham had assured him already before he set out on his journey that G-d would send His angel ahead and that he would succeed (verse 40). In view of this it is easy to understand that from the moment that Eliezer had become aware that the angel was supporting him the Torah refers to him no longer as עבד, servant, but as איש, a man of stature. Up until then we read about וישם העבד, “the servant placed;” ויקח העבד, “the servant took;” וירץ העבד, “the servant ran.” From this point on the Torah keeps referring to Eliezer as האיש until he leaves the house of Bethuel with Rivkah. The expressionהאיש is applied to the angel Gavriel in Daniel 9,21. It is also applied to the angel who told Joseph that his brothers had moved away from Shechem, (Genesis 37,17) and that they had been overheard as planning to move to Dothan. In other words, as of the time the angel joined Eliezer in his quest, he himself assumed the role of the angel in an executive manner. The words והאיש משתאה לה (verse 21) which appear to be somewhat problematical if we assume Eliezer and the angel to have become as one, must be understood as “he was waiting for her;” he did so as he had become aware that his mission was about to be crowned with success. Having done so, the Torah from now on refers to him constantly as האיש, such as when we read (verse 22) ויקח האש, or (verse 26) ויקוד האיש, or (verse 30) כה דבר אלי האיש, etc. When, a little while later, Lavan and Bethuel gave their consent for Eliezer to take Rivkah (verse 51) and they said הנה רבקה לפניך קח ולך, “here Rivkah is in your presence, take her and go,” at which point Eliezer’s mission had been completed, the Torah reverts to describe Eliezer as עבד instead of as האיש. In verse 53 when Eliezer is reported as sharing out gifts, as well as in every subsequent move of his, the Torah speaks of העבד, “the servant,” seeing that the angel’s assistance was no longer required for that part of his activity. Avraham’s prayer which invoked the assistance of an angel had been answered in full. If you were to ask that when Lavan and his mother asked Rivkah if she were willing to go עם האיש הזה, “with this man,” and this occurred only in verse 58, after verse 51 which we described as the point at which Eliezer’s mission had basically been completed, the answer is simple. The words reported in verse 58 were not spoken by the Torah but by Lavan and his mother. They certainly were not bound by the considerations we described before. How could they be expected to refer to someone as “this slave,” when the person in question was distributing lavish gifts to every member of their household, not to mention to Rivkah herself? Would it not have been a gross insult to their sister to ask her is she were willing to leave her parental home in order to travel to a distant land “with this slave?” Concerning verse 61 in which both Rivkah and her maids are reported as traveling אחרי האיש, which appears to contradict the explanation I have offered that Eliezer had reverted to being an עבד the moment consent had been obtained for her to become Yitzchak’s bride, this wording was chosen by the Torah in honour of Rivkah. It would not have looked respectful if she had been described as riding “behind the slave.” Another approach to the words והאיש משתאה לה. It is an allusion to the angel who had tarried and waited at the well until the arrival there of Rivkah. From that moment on Eliezer took over the task of the angel; hence he is referred to as האיש from that moment on. Support for this theory is found in the text near the end of the episode where the Torah said (verse 61) “they walked behind האיש, “and the עבד took Rivkah and he went.” This verse makes it crystal clear that the subjects איש and עבד respectively could not have been one and the same.

Tribal Lands, Chapter 12; Yosef 17

The man said, “They’ve moved on from here, for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan’” (Genesis 37:17). Rashi: They’ve moved away from brotherhood. Their journey to Dothan indicates that they seek against you legal pretexts (nikhlei datot) to kill you.

Tribal Lands, Chapter 13; Menasheh 62

When he reached Shechem, a man came upon him wandering in the fields. The man asked him, “What are you looking for?” He answered, “I am looking for my brothers. Could you tell me where they are pasturing?” The man said, “They have gone from here, for I heard them say: Let us go to Dothan.” So Joseph followed his brothers and found them at Dothan. Genesis 37:14–17

Second Temple

Laban is not on Joseph's side because God is with him, and those who value the outward object of sense as supreme lack excellent reason. Joseph was sent to find his brothers in Sychem but found them in Dothan after being directed by a man in the plain. The man's response to Joseph's inquiry about his brothers is that they have departed, indicating deceit.

On Flight and Finding 23:4

[127] For we are told that “a man found Joseph wandering in the plain, and asked him, ‘What art thou seeking?’ and he said ‘I am seeking my brethren; tell me, where are they feeding their flocks?’ And the man said to him, ‘They have departed hence, for I heard them saying, Let us go to Dothan.’ And Joseph went his way after his brethren, and found them in Dothan” (Gen. 37:15–17).

That the Worse is wont to Attack the Better 2:3

[5] ‘The reason,’ I should be inclined to say, ‘that Laban is not on thy side, is that God is with thee; for in a soul in which the outward object of sense is valued as a supreme good, in that soul excellent reason is not found: but in one in which God walks, the outward object of sense is not regarded as a good thing: and it is to this that the conception and name of Laban corresponds.’ And such men as order themselves by the principle of gradual progress in accordance with their father’s rule, have chosen the plain as a suitable place for their task of teaching the soul’s irrational impulses a better way. For the words addressed to Joseph are: “Do not thy brethren tend their flocks in Sychem? Come let me send thee to them.” And he said “Here am I.” And he said to him “Go see, whether thy brethren are in good health and the sheep, and bring me word.” And he sent him out of the valley of Hebron, and he came to Sychem. And a man found him wandering in the plain: and the man asked him “What seekest thou?” And he said “I seek my brethren, tell me where they feed their flocks.” And the man said to him “They have departed hence, for I heard them saying ‘Let us go to Dothaim.’ ” (Gen. 37:13–17).

That the Worse is wont to Attack the Better 9:1

So it is a right answer that the man gives who has seen the deceit: “they have departed hence” (Gen. 37:17).

Tanakh

Yosef is found wandering in the fields and looking for his brothers by a man who directs him to where they are grazing their flocks near Dotan (Bereshit 37:15-17).

Covenant and Conversation Family Edition, Vayeshev, I; The Angel Who Did Not Know He Was an Angel 4

“A man found [Yosef] wandering around in the fields and asked him, ‘What are you looking for?’ He replied, ‘I’m looking for my brothers. Can you tell me where they are grazing their flocks?’ ‘They have moved on from here,’ the man answered. ‘I heard them say, “Let’s go to Dotan.”’ So Yosef went after his brothers and found them near Dotan” (Bereshit 37:15–17).

Targum

Onkelos states that Joseph found his brothers in Doson after they had left, while Targum Jonathan adds that the brothers were heading to Dothan because they had heard a prophecy about their future servitude in Egypt and potential battles.

Onkelos Genesis 37:17

The man said, They have traveled on from here, for I heard them say, Let us go to Doson. Yoseif went after his brothers and found them in Doson.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:17

And the man said, They have journeyed hence: for I heard beyond the Veil, that behold from today would begin the servitude to the Mizraee; and it was said to them in prophecy, Hivaee would seek to set battle in array against them. Therefore said they, we will go unto Dothan.

וַיִּרְא֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ מֵרָחֹ֑ק וּבְטֶ֙רֶם֙ יִקְרַ֣ב אֲלֵיהֶ֔ם וַיִּֽתְנַכְּל֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ לַהֲמִיתֽוֹ׃ 18 E They saw him from afar, and before he came close to them they conspired to kill him.
Joseph's brothers conspired to kill him, filled with devious thoughts and intense hatred towards him, ultimately deciding to take his life themselves. Rabbi Yehudah highlights the importance of exhausting all means for success in encounters, while the Midrash draws parallels between Joseph's experiences and those of Zion. The Kabbalists believe that the Heavenly objective was to wipe out the brothers' residual guilt for selling Joseph, with allusions to the Ten Martyrs' deaths. Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Targum provide interpretations linking conspiracy, evil thoughts, and wiles to the actions taken against Joseph.

Commentary

Joseph's brothers conspired to kill him, initially attempting to do so with arrows or by setting dogs on him from afar, but ultimately deciding to kill him themselves when he approached them. The verb "ויתנכלו" indicates that they were filled with devious and nefarious thoughts, planning evil against Joseph in their hearts. Their intense hatred of Joseph led them to plot against him, considering him a threat to their existence, justifying their extreme defensive actions. The Hithpael form of the verb signifies that they became filled with plots and craft directed towards him.

Chomat Anakh on Torah, Genesis 37:18:1

"They saw him from a distance." The explanation is that they foresaw Joseph in the distant future, distanced from the service of God due to the calves of Jeroboam. Before he approaches, they will revolt against him. The great Rabbi, Rabbi Yedidya El-Farchi, may his memory be a blessing, explained that it has been many years since I, the poor one, have directed my attention more to the knowledge of the Almighty, in an expanded sense, with the help of God.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:18:1

THEY CONSPIRED. Va-yitnakkelu (they conspired) means they had evil designs. Nokhel (dealeth craftily) in But cursed be he that dealeth craftily (nokhel) (Mal. 1:14) is similar.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:18:1

"And they saw him afar off" It is necessary to know, when saying "and before" (Gen. 37:18), whether it applies to what was before it, as follows: 'And they saw him afar off before he came near to them' or if it [namely, the word "before"] is the beginning of what comes afterwards, as follows: 'Before he came near to them they conspired regarding him...' Both interpretations are difficult: if it applies to what was before it, it should have said 'before he came near' [not AND before he came near], and if it is the beginning of what comes afterwards, it should have said 'and before...they conspired' [not AND they conspired]. Maybe the addition of the vav was meant to increase distance, meaning that you shouldn't say that the distance implies that he [Joseph] has not yet approached them [his brothers], rather "and before he came near to them" means they saw him at an exaggerated distance.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:18:2

We could say further that "and they saw him from afar off" refers to the distance of their hearts, because they did not see him as brothers see their brothers, rather, they saw him like a man distant from them; "and before he came near..." means that this seeing was also "before..." and if it hadn't said "And before" with a vav it would have implied the reading of distance above [namely that they saw Joseph at a great physical distance], therefore the vav was added, to show that the matter was different [namely that the distance was emotional]. One could also offer a different explanation of the text, but it appears that this is the best reading.

Radak on Genesis 37:18:1

ויתנכלו אותו, the word אותו here means the same as the preposition בו, “against him.” We find other instances where this preposition is used in connection with this root, as in Psalms 105,25 להתנכל בעבדיו, “to plot against His servants.” The root also occurs in connection with the preposition ל, as in Numbers 25,18 אשר נכלו לכם, “which they conspired against you.” The word basically refers to scheming against someone in one’s heart.

Ramban on Genesis 37:18:1

AND THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO SLAY HIM. They thought to kill him with their subtle intrigues by which they had conspired against him before he drew near to them (According to Tur this refers to attempting to kill him with arrows.) so that they would not have to spill his blood with their own hands. Thus did the Rabbis say in Bereshith Rabbah: (84:13.) “Let us set the dogs against him.” And perhaps they did so but did not succeed. Now, when they saw that he was approaching them and they could not kill him with their intrigues, they said to each other, “Behold, he has come to us, so let us kill him ourselves.”

Rashbam on Genesis 37:18:1

ויתנכלו אותו, they were full of devious and nefarious thoughts. The word occurs in this sense in Maleachi 1,24: וארור נוכל, “cursed the person who plots deviously.”

Rashi on Genesis 37:18:1

ויתנכלו AND THEY CONSPIRED — The Hithpael form denotes that they became filled with plots and craft.

Rashi on Genesis 37:18:2

אֹתוֹ is here the same as אִתּוֹ which means “with him” — meaning אליו: they became filled with plots and craft directed towards him (אליו).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:18:1

ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו. Siporno erinnert mit Recht, daß: wider jemanden einen Plan schmieden, nicht heißen könne ויתנכלו אותו, sondern — יתנכלו בו. Der Hitpael mit את, wie והתנהלתם אותם, verwandelt das im Reflerixum liegende Objekt zum Terminativ und das einheitliche Objekt ist das mit את eingeleitete: והתנהלתם אותם, ihr sollt sie euch (dat.) vererben. וכל בגד וכל כלי עור וגוי תתחטאו: und jedes Kleid und jedes Geräte usw. sollt ihr euch (dat.) entsündigen. ויתנכלו אותו ist daher eben so viel als: וַיְַנְכלו אותו להם. Der Piel גַדֵל ,צַדֵק usw. heißt ebensowohl: jemanden für gerecht, groß halten und erklären, als ihn dazu machen. So kann וינכלו אותו להם sehr wohl heißen: sie hielten ihn sich für einen נוכל, sie stellten ihn sich als נוכל vor. In בנכליהם אשר נכלו לכם erscheint (Bamidbar 25, 18) נכל als Bezeichnung eines Verfahrens, durch welches dem sittlichen Leben unseres Volkes das höchste Verderben bereitet wurde. Ebenso ארור נוכל (Maleachi 1, 14): wehe dem, der unter dem Scheine, das Heiligste zu begehen, gerade dieses Heilige in seinem Innern aufs tiefste höhnend verletzt. Er hat Würdiges und weiht Gott absichtlich einen נכל .בעל מום heißt somit: auf versteckte Weise die höchsten Interessen des andern gefährden. Als er zu ihnen herankam, stellten sie ihn sich als einen, ihre heiligsten und edelsten Interessen aufs tiefste gefährdenden Menschen in einem solchen Grade vor: להמיתו, daß man ihn töten dürfe, daß, zur Selbstverteidigung ihn zu töten, ihnen gerechtfertigt erschien.

Sforno on Genesis 37:18:1

ויתנכלו אותו להמיתו, the root נכל always means to plan to do something evil. One example of the use of this word in this sense is found in Numbers 25,18 אשר נכלו אתכם, “who plotted against you.” The brothers had entertained the thought of causing Joseph’s death while they saw him from a distance. They did not think that he had come to make peace with them but that he was spying on them to either cause them to commit a sin which would bring their father’s curses on them or which would cause G’d to punish them. As a result of this, Joseph imagined he alone would survive as blessed of all of Yaakov’s sons. The expression ויתנכל in the reflexive conjugation described what a person fantasizes about in his mind, what imaginary scenarios he entertains in his head. You find the expression in Samuel I 28,9 אתה מתנקש בנפשי, “(the witch of Endor speaking to King Sha-ul who had disguised himself) “you are trying to trap me into forfeiting my life, trying to get me killed! The word להמיתו in our verse refers to Joseph causing the death of his brothers. [While it is true that the word is separated from the word אותו preceding it by the tone sign tipcha which refers to what came before, in the opinion of this Editor it should then have read להמיתם to cause their death,” instead of “to cause his death.” Ed.] We find the expression used in a similar sense in Deuteronomy 4,14 לעשותכם אותם, “so that you will fulfill them.” [the author describes the function of the transitive conjugation of the root נכל and עשה respectively, not any similarity of the subject matter under discussion in the two verses mentioned. Ed.] If we understand the thoughts described in our verse in this vein, we can solve the riddle of how the stones on the breastplate of the High Priest could have been inscribed with the names of all these brothers, if instead of being as righteous as such models ought to have been in order to serve as inspiration for us, they had indeed harboured such murderous thoughts without justification. Even if the brothers’ intention to sell Joseph had been based on mere hatred, how could such brothers qualify as inspiration for the Jewish people of the breastplate of the High Priest? We must therefore endeavour to understand the collective feelings of the brothers as being that they actually felt themselves threatened by Joseph’s aspirations and they were convinced that when one feels threatened one is entitled or even obliged to take measures to neutralise the source of the danger. This is even a halachic principle clearly spelled out in Sanhedrin 72. If we needed any proof for the truth of the brothers’ feelings, it is best provided by their conversation among themselves while in jail (42,21) when they felt that G’d had repaid them for their misdeeds. They did not regret selling Joseph, nor even having planned to kill him; the only thing they regretted and considered themselves guilty of was that they had not responded to Joseph’s pleas for mercy. In other words, even over 20 years after the event they were still convinced that Joseph had posed the sort of threat to their existence which entitled them to take extreme defensive action against him.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:18:1

Similar to אתו, with him, meaning toward him. Rashi is answering the question: How does אוֹתוֹ fit with ויתנכלו? The verb ויתנכלו is reflexive, and means: “They became filled with conspiracies,” thus it does not connect with אוֹתוֹ. If Scripture had written וַיְנַכְלו, [a transitive verb,] אוֹתוֹ would fit. But with ויתנכלו, the fitting word is אליו. Thus Rashi explains that אוֹתוֹ is similar to אִתּוֹ. Rashi is saying that if we follow how it is written [rather than how it is pronounced,] we would read it אִתּוֹ, since it is written missing a ו. Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because אוֹתָנו sometimes means אִתָנו. Thus, אוֹתוֹ can mean אִתּוֹ. And אִתּוֹ means עמו. And Rashi says, “עמו, meaning אליו,” because Onkelos translates אליו as עמו; see Rashi on 24:7. Consequently, it is as if the verse said אליו. (Re’m) The Maharshal explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו, rather than simply ויתנכלו להמיתו? Perforce, אוֹתוֹ is like אִתּוֹ, “with him.” Thus it means, “They were plotting with him,” i.e., also Yoseif had in mind that they should kill him. And lest we think it means that he and they had in mind to kill someone else, Rashi says that אותו also implies אליו, “toward him” — toward Yoseif. He and they had in mind to kill Yoseif. There is also a varying text of Rashi.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:18

They saw him from afar, and he was alone and likely in an isolated place, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him. Their hatred of Joseph was so intense that once they encountered him alone and outside their father’s home, they were stirred to rid themselves of him.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:18:1

ובטרם יקרב אליהם ויתנכלו אותו להרגו, “and before he could come close to them, they made plans how to kill him.” The meaning of this phrase is that the plans they made were how to kill him before he could come close to them so that they would not have to lay a hand on him. In Bereshit Rabbah 84,14 on that verse, we are told that they released ferocious dogs in his direction. When they realized that the dogs had not attacked him, they said: “let us kill him (with our own hands).”

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 30

“They conspired to kill him” [37:18]. The brothers thought that they wanted to kill Joseph, but they should not touch him with their hands to kill him. They incited vicious dogs to attack him, but God helped him. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:17.)

Jewish Thought

Rabbi Yehudah suggests that Jacob displeased God by not exhausting all means to ensure success in his encounter with Esau, as seen by the lack of divine help until after Jacob's struggle with the "man." Jacob's actions towards Esau were aimed at showing respect as an older brother and explaining his years with Laban, while the messengers' behavior suggests they were angels providing advice and time for Jacob to prepare gifts. This highlights the importance of taking all necessary steps for success.

Akeidat Yitzchak 26:1:6

According to Rabbi Yehudah, who states that the messengers were of the flesh and blood variety, Jacob may have displeaesd G-d in some manner. The fact that no help was forthcoming from G-d until the night following the return of the messengers supports our view that until Jacob had exhausetd all means at his disposal to ensure that the encounter would be successful, Providence would not manifest itself. Only after the successful struggle with the "man," concluding Jacob's preparations for the fateful encounter, would G-d offer His reassurance. From this we learn the importance of doing all one can to ensure one's success. (1) Jacob instructed the servants in a manner that would show that he was treating Esau with the courtesy due an older brother. (6) Calling all the giftbearers together would have revealed inner fear both to them and to members of his family. He told Esau that he had stayed with Laban all these years, in order to show Esau that he had not felt the need to run away from Laban. He indicated that he could understand Esau's reluctance to welcome a brother who had hired himself out for wages; since by now, however, he had acquired a fortune, Esau need not be ashamed of his poor brother. (2) The fact that the messengers returned without actually having met Esau proves they must have been angels; who else would have arrogated to himself the right to return "mission unaccomplished?" Moreover, who else would have offered gratuitous advice to Jacob? They did so in order to give Jacob time enough to arrange the gifts and to send them ahead. When Joseph encountered the "man" while he is searching for his brothers, he is also given gratuitous advice. In that case also, we assume it was an angel who proffered that advice (Genesis 37,16-18).

Midrash

The text discusses parallels between the experiences of Joseph and Zion, highlighting similarities in events and outcomes. It also emphasizes the love and hatred directed towards Joseph and Zion, as well as the actions taken against them. The text also draws connections between Joseph's experiences and those of his descendants, as well as the significance of certain symbols and actions in the narrative.

Aggadat Bereshit 61:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:14

“A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek? He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. The man said: They traveled from here, for I heard them saying: We shall go to Dotan. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan” (Genesis 37:15–17). “A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field” – Rabbi Yannai said: Three angels came to his assistance: “A man found him”; “the man asked him”; “the man said.” “They traveled from here” – from the attributes of the Omnipresent. (They abandoned the traits of mercy, grace, kindness, and the like.) “They saw him from afar, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). “They saw him from afar” – they said: Come let us sic the dogs on him. “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer is coming” (Genesis 37:19). “Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: A savage beast devoured him; and we will see what will become of his dreams” (Genesis 37:20). “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer [baal haḥalomot]” – The Rabbis said: Here he is coming, bearing his dreams. Rabbi Levi said: This one is destined to mislead them to follow the Baal. (Joseph’s descendant Yerovam will incite them to engage in idol worship.) “Now let us go and kill him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You say: “And we will see” and I say: We will see – now we will see “whose word will stand” (Jeremiah 44:28), mine or yours.’

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 7:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 44:18): When Judah saw that Joseph was not appeased, he began saying to his brothers: [Why] are we standing around? We will begin with this one and wind up with Pharaoh! Now they did not know that Joseph understood their language, as stated (in Gen. 42:23): NOW THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT JOSEPH UNDERSTOOD. When Joseph saw that, he began to talk to them with supplications and with gentle language. He said to them: About this Benjamin, I want only to know who < it was that > advised him to steal the goblet. Did you perhaps advise him to steal the goblet? When Benjamin heard that, he said: They did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. He said to them: Swear to me. He began to swear to him. By what did he swear to him? By the separation of my brother Joseph from me, (This clause may also be translated as follows: “By the scriptural section on the separation of my brother Joseph from me (in Gen. 37:18-36).”) I did not touch it. Now < I swear > neither by the launching of arrows which were sent against him, as stated (in Gen. 49:23): ARCHERS HAVE HATED HIM (Joseph); nor by the stripping with which they stripped him, as stated (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH OF HIS TUNIC; nor by the throwing with which they threw him into the cistern, as stated (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; nor by the selling with which they sold him to the Ishmaelites (in vs. 28); nor by the dipping with which they dipped his tunic in the blood (in vs. 31). < By none of these do I swear > that they did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. Joseph said: Who will make known to me that you are swearing truthfully about your brothers? He said to him: You can know how much I love him from the names of my sons, since I set names for them on the basis of what I feared for < each one >. (Sot. 36b (bar); Gen. R. 93:7; Tanh., Gen. 11:40.) He said to him: And what were the names of your sons? He said to him (in agreement with Gen. 46:21): BELA, BECHER, ASHBEL, GERA, NAAMAN, EHI, ROSH, MUPPIM, HUPPIM, AND ARD. He said to him: Why Bela (BL')? He said to him: Because my brother was swallowed up (rt.: BL') from me. Becher (BKR)? Because he was my mother's first-born (rt.: BKR). Ashbel ('ShBL)? Because my brother was captured (NShBH). Gera? Because my brother was a sojourner (ger) with < merely > the privileges of a transient. (Gk.: xenia, i.e., “rights of a foreigner” or “guest privileges.”) Naaman (N'M)? Because his words were pleasing (N'M). Ehi ('HY)? Because he was my brother ('HY) from < the same > mother, and I had none but him. Rosh (which means "head")? Because he was older than I. Muppim (MPYM)? Because he learned Torah from our father's mouth (MPY) and taught it to me. When all his brothers would return to shepherding, he would sit with my father and learn the traditions which he had received from Shem and Eber. Huppim (rt.: HPP)? Because he has been covered over (rt.: HPP) until this day. Another interpretation of Huppim: Because I did not see his wedding canopy (huppah) nor did he see my wedding canopy. Another interpretation of Huppim (rt.: HPP): Because until now I have been mourning over him and going barefoot (rt.: YHP). And Ard ('RD)? Because he brought (rt.: YRD) all of us down here. Another interpretation of ARD (from Gen. 37:35): NO, I WILL GO DOWN ('RD) MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. Will you please not bring down ('RD) Daddy to Sheol through grief! And so Judah said (in Gen. 44:34): FOR HOW SHALL I GO UP UNTO MY FATHER < IF THE LAD IS NOT WITH ME >? When Joseph heard that, he was not able to suppress his compassion, as stated (in Gen. 45:1-3): JOSEPH COULD NOT RESTRAIN HIMSELF…. AND HE WEPT ALOUD…. THEN JOSEPH SAID UNTO HIS BROTHERS: I AM JOSEPH. When he said to them: I AM {YOUR BROTHER JOSEPH} … (in vs. 3, cont.): HIS BROTHERS COULD NOT ANSWER HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE DISMAYED BECAUSE OF HIM. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said in the name of R. Eleazar ben Azariah: (Gen. R. 93:11.) Now, if in the case of Joseph, when he said to his brothers: I am Joseph, they knew what they had done with him and were unable to answer him; how much the less will a creature be able to stand when the Holy One comes to dispute with each and every one of < his > creatures and to tell him his deeds, just as it is written (in Amos 4:13): FOR BEHOLD, THE ONE WHO FORMS THE MOUNTAINS, < CREATES THE WIND, AND TELLS ONE WHAT HIS THOUGHT IS > … !

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2:3

And Jacob said to him: “Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren … and he came to Shechem (ibid. 37:14). (B. Sanhedrin 10:29.) This place had previously been designated for punishment. Dinah was dishonored in Shechem, Joseph was sold in Shechem, (Dothan, the place where Joseph was sold, was in the vicinity of Shechem; in addition, tradition maintains that he was buried in Shechem.) and David’s kingdom was divided at Shechem: Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim (I Kings 12:25). And a certain man found him (Gen. 37:15). The man referred to is none other than (the angel) Gabriel, as it is said: The man Gabriel (Dan. 9:21). And they saw him from afar … and they took him, and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:18, 24). The pit was empty of water, but it contained snakes and scorpions. What did Reuben do? He remained upon one of the hills nearby in order to rescue Joseph during the night. However, the nine other brothers stayed together in another place, all in agreement that he should die.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 38:10

And (Gabriel) said to him: What seekest thou? He said to him: I seek my brethren, as it is said, "And he said, I seek my brethren" (Gen. 37:16). And he led him to || his brethren, and they saw him and sought to slay him, as it is said, "And they saw him afar off" (Gen. 37:18). Reuben said to them: Do not shed his blood, as it is said, "And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness" (Gen. 37:22). And his brethren listened to him, and they took Joseph and cast him into the pit, as it is said, "And they took him, and cast him into the pit" (Gen. 37:24). What did Reuben do? He went and stayed on one of the mountains, so as to go down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit. And his nine brethren were sitting down in one place, all of them like one man, with one heart and one plan. Ishmaelites passed by them, and (the brethren) said: Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they will lead him to the end of the wilderness, and Jacob will not hear any further report concerning him.

Musar

The Kabbalists believe that the Heavenly objective was to wipe out the residual guilt of the brothers for selling Joseph. There are numerous allusions in the text to the manner in which the Ten Martyrs were killed, such as Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava having three hundred lances stuck into his body, as referenced in Genesis 37:18. The word "ויתנכלו להמיתו" is seen as an allusion to this, with the letters rearranging to spell "lances."

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 11

According to the Kabbalists the Heavenly objective was to wipe out the residual guilt of the brothers which had not been atoned for when they sold Joseph. We can find numerous allusions in our פרשה, which relate to the manner in which these Ten Martyrs were killed. According to tradition, Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava had three hundred לונכיות, lances, stuck into his body. The word ויתנכלו להמיתו, in 37, 18 is an allusion to this; the letters are simply a re-arrangement of the word לונכיות.

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that in II Kings 9:27, the king was struck as a result of a conspiracy, which may have involved spears. In Jeremiah 6:28, talebearers are compared to copper and iron, spreading falsehoods with guile. Ibn Ezra interprets "by their wiles" in Numbers 25 as meaning by their evil thoughts, related to the word for conspired in Genesis 37:18.

Ibn Ezra on Numbers 25:18:2

BY THEIR WILES. Be-nikhlehem (by their wiles) means by their evil thoughts. Be-nikhlehem is related to the word va-yitnakkelu (they conspired) in they conspired against him (Gen. 37:18). (Both words come from the same root, nun, kaf, lamed.)

Rashi on II Kings 9:27:3

And he fled to Meggido. He was struck as a result of a conspiracy [=בְנִכְלִיּוּת]. (See Rashi in Bereishis 37:18. In some editions Rashi’s text is מוּכָּה בְלוּנְכִּיוֹת [=struck by spears].)

Rashi on Jeremiah 6:28:2

going tale bearing between copper and iron. They introduce hatred between two princes who have the power to provoke one another. That is what I heard. But I say, they are tale bearers, and they are as strong as copper and iron to maintain their falsehood. Jonathan, however, renders this word רכיל as an expression of guile (נוכל). They go with guile as one mixes copper with iron. נוכל is an expression of plot. Comp. (Gen. 37:18) “And they plotted (ויתנכלו) against him to slay him.”

Targum

Before Joseph approached his brothers in Dothan, they saw him from a distance and conspired to kill him [Onkelos Genesis 37:18; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:18].

Onkelos Genesis 37:18

They saw him from a distance, and before he approached them they were plotting against him to kill [thinking about killing] him.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:18

And Joseph went after his brothers, and found them in Dothan. And they saw him from afar, before he had come nigh to them, and plotted against him to kill him.

וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו הִנֵּ֗ה בַּ֛עַל הַחֲלֹמ֥וֹת הַלָּזֶ֖ה בָּֽא׃ 19 J They said to one another, “Here comes that dreamer!
The brothers' deep animosity towards Joseph was fueled by his dreams, viewing him as a hostile stranger rather than their brother. Simeon and Levi were the main instigators of the plot to kill Joseph, highlighting the motif of youth and beauty being dangerous. In Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:19, Shimeon and Levi refer to Joseph as the master of dreams.

Commentary

The word "הלזה" refers to someone or something seen from afar, while "הזה" refers to someone or something close at hand. The brothers referred to Joseph as "the one who told us about his dreams in order to make us angry" in order to express their deep animosity towards him. Joseph's dreams intensified the brothers' hatred towards him, viewing him as a hostile stranger rather than their brother. They were surprised that Joseph had followed them all this distance.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:19:1

הלזה בא, “has not this one arrived?! (come closer)” (they were surprised that Joseph had dared to follow them all this distance). On the other hand, the word: והלאה is used to describe something that becomes more and more distant.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:19:1

הלזה; whenever the word הלזה is mentioned it refers to someone or something that one sees from afar, indistinctly. For instance in Genesis 24,65 Rivkah asked Eliezer who the man was who was approaching them from a distance. The word הזה, on the other hand, refers to someone or something close at hand, as for instance Haman in Esther 7,6, to whom Esther points when the King asked here who the culprit was who wanted to destroy her and her people.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:19:1

בעל החלומות wie בעל מזמות ,בעל כנפים, dem Flügel zu seiner Bewegung. Pläne zu seinen Absichten als Werkzeug bereit stehen. So בעל החלומות, dem Träume zu seinen Absichten bereit stehen, Meister der Träume.

Sforno on Genesis 37:19:1

הנה בעל החלומות, they meant “the one who told us about his dreams in order to make us angry.” They meant that Joseph had wanted them to commit a sin as a result of their anger so that they would bring down upon themselves the wrath of their father or of G’d. causing our destruction in either event.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:19

They said one to another: Here comes that dreamer. Joseph’s dreams caused the brothers’ hatred toward him to intensify. By mockingly referring to Joseph as “that dreamer,” the brothers expressed their deep animosity toward him. Furthermore, the word “that” indicates that the brothers viewed Joseph as a hostile stranger, and not as their brother.

Midrash

The Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tisa 2:7 highlights how even Israel's sins brought them benefits, with meritorious deeds being even more beneficial. In the Midrash Tanchuma Buber Toldot 7:1, it is explained how Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob each merited their sons through five attributes. The Midrash Tanchuma Buber Vayeshev 13:7 and 13:8 discuss Simon and Levi's actions towards Joseph. Bereshit Rabbah 60:15 interprets Rebecca's actions towards Isaac. Aggadat Bereshit 68:2 compares the experiences of Joseph and Zion. Aggadat Bereshit 40:1 elaborates on the attributes of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and how they influenced their sons. Aggadat Bereshit 67:3 illustrates how God can heal Israel through the same means they sinned.

Aggadat Bereshit 40:1

Chapter 40: Torah [1] And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old (Genesis 27:1). Twenty generations passed until Abraham, in which old age is not mentioned except for him, as it says, "Now Abraham was old" (Genesis 24:1). And Isaac also stood [before God] and it came to pass, that when Isaac was old (Genesis 27:1). And Jacob also stood [before God], as it says, "And the eyes of Israel were dim with age" (Genesis 48:10). The verse (Psalms 102:17) says, "He will regard the prayer of the destitute, and not despise their prayer." The only way [to achieve this level of prayer] is through old age, as it says, "The beauty of young men is their strength, and the glory of old men is their gray hair" (Proverbs 20:29). Abraham merited his son through five things, as our Rabbis taught: the father merits a son through five things: through his [the father's] name, through his [the father's] good deeds, through his [the father's] wealth, through his [the father's] strength, and through his [the father's] wisdom. Similarly, Isaac [merited his son through five things], and similarly Jacob [merited his son through five things]. Similarly, Jacob merited Joseph [through these five things], who resembled him in appearance and in title, as it says, "And Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6). [He resembled him] in wisdom, as it says, "Behold, he is the master of dreams" (Genesis 37:19). He had beauty, appearance, and wisdom. And in Isaac's case, it is written, "Who is this man?" (Genesis 24:65). What is the meaning of "this man" in reference to Joseph? That he was handsome and had wisdom. Likewise, Isaac was also built with wisdom. And just as Joseph stood up to his brothers in strength, so did Isaac stand up in strength against all the men of Gerar. Just as Joseph was wealthy, so was Isaac wealthy, as it says, "And the man became great and went forward and became very great" (Genesis 26:13). The verse (Genesis 26:8) explains [the word] "wisdom" as meaning "the greatness of his children." From where do we learn that Isaac was handsome like Joseph? It is written about Joseph, "And Joseph was handsome in form and appearance," and when he went to his brothers, what did they say? "Behold, the master of dreams is coming!" (Genesis 37:19). And it is said about Isaac, "Who is this man?" (Genesis 24:65). What is the meaning of "this man" in reference to Joseph? That he was handsome and had wisdom. Likewise, Isaac was also built with strength, as it says, We know this from the fact that he dug many wells, as it says, "Isaac dug again the wells of water" (Genesis 26:18), and "Isaac's servants dug in the valley" (Genesis 26:19), and "they dug another well" (Genesis 26:21). He had strength in his hands. From where do we know that he was wealthy? It says, "The man became great, and he grew richer and richer until he was very wealthy" (Genesis 26:13). And from where do we know that he lived to a ripe old age of 180 years? It says, "And Isaac lived one hundred and eighty years" (Genesis 35:28). Abraham was the son of Terah, and Isaac was the son of Abraham. Why does the Torah mention this? Because God said to Isaac, "You have merited these five things, so I will add another five years to your life, like your father Abraham." That is why it says, "Look upon your servants" (Psalms 119:16). Anyone who has merit will receive these five things, and anyone who does not have merit will receive five calamities in return. And who was this? Joab, as it is said: "Let Joab and his descendants be perpetually guilty of their bloodshed. May they be afflicted with leprosy, jaundice, and starvation." (2 Samuel 3:29) Leprosy corresponds to strength; one who has leprosy has no strength. Jaundice corresponds to beauty; even if someone is young and jaundiced, there is no beauty in them. Starvation corresponds to wealth, as it says, "Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have mixed. Leave your simple ways and you will live" (Proverbs 9:5-6). One who is starving has no leisure to engage in Torah study. Falling by the sword corresponds to the five aspects of praise. These are five calamities corresponding to five aspects of praise. One who does not merit praise inherits these five kinds of calamities, like Joab. But one who does merit praise receives them like Isaac, as it is said, "And it came to pass, when Isaac was old" (Genesis 27:1), and David cries out, "May your children be like your ancestors" (Psalms 45:17). Therefore, it says, "And it came to pass, when Isaac was old."

Aggadat Bereshit 67:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And there will be an end..." Like Scriptures say: "For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds" (Jeremiah 30:17). The measures of God are not like the measures of flesh and blood, for He can strike with a sword and heal with a sword. He is able to heal Israel in the very thing in which they sinned. For example, when they sinned with a cloud, it is written, "He has covered Himself with a cloud" (Lamentations 3:44), and they were struck with a cloud, as it is written, "Behold, he shall come up like clouds" (Jeremiah 4:13), and they were healed with a cloud, as it is written, "Who are these that fly as a cloud?" (Isaiah 60:8). Similarly, it is written, "And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day" (Isaiah 4:5). When they sinned with a thick darkness, it is written, "And darkness shall cover the earth" (Isaiah 60:2), and they were struck with darkness, as it is written, "He has made my skin black and my bones to shake" (Lamentations 3:4), and they were healed with darkness, as it is written, "Who are these that fly as a cloud?" (Isaiah 60:8). When they sinned with justice, it is written, "They judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless" (Jeremiah 5:28), and they were struck with justice, as it is written, "He will speak judgment to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:1), and they were healed with justice, as it is written, "Zion shall be redeemed with judgment" (Isaiah 1:27). They were struck in dreams, "as a dream when one awakens" (Psalms 73:20), and they were healed in dreams, "Your old men shall dream dreams" (Joel 3:1). Similarly, Joseph was not sold except for the sake of dreams, as it is written, "Behold, this dreamer comes" (Genesis 37:19), and he was healed in a dream, as it is written, "And it came to pass at the end of two full years, that Pharaoh dreamed" (Genesis 41:1), "For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds" (Jeremiah 30:17).

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 60:15

“Rebecca lifted her eyes, she saw Isaac, and she fell from upon the camel” (Genesis 24:64). “Rebecca lifted her eyes, she saw Isaac” – Rav Huna said: She saw that his hand was outstretched in prayer. She said: ‘He is certainly a great man,’ and that is why she inquired about him. (See the next verse.) “She fell [vatipol] from upon the camel” – she tilted herself downward, (It does not mean that she actually fell to the ground.) just as it says: “When he stumbles [yipol], he will not fall” (Psalms 37:24). (The verse shows that yipol does not necessarily mean to fall.) “She said to the servant: Who is that man who is walking in the field toward us? The servant said: He is my master. She took the veil, and covered herself” (Genesis 24:65). “She said to the servant: [Who is that [halazeh] man]” – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: She saw that he was attractive and was overwhelmed before him, just as it says: “Behold, here comes that [halazeh] dreamer” (Genesis 37:19). (Halazeh is used in reference to Joseph, who was very attractive (see Genesis 39:6). The same was true of Isaac.) The Rabbis said: [Halazeh means:] He and his accompanying angel; halazeh [as an abbreviation for] that different one [alon zeh]. (Rebecca saw that the individual accompanying Isaac was no ordinary man.) “The servant said: He is my master. [She took the veil, and covered herself]” – there are two people who covered themselves with a veil, and they both bore twins: Rebecca and Tamar. Rebecca – “she took the veil”; Tamar – “she covered herself with a veil, and she wrapped herself” (Genesis 38:14). “The servant related to Isaac all the matters that he had done” (Genesis 24:66). “The servant related to Isaac [all the matters]” – Rabbi Eliezer said: The general statements of the Torah (Such as here, where the Torah makes the general statement that Eliezer related “all the matters,” but does not specify what they were.) are more common than its detailed statements, as, if it had desired to write it [the details of what had transpired], it would have written two or three [more] columns. The Rabbis say: He revealed to him the matters that involved praise [for God], [such as] that the path was miraculously shortened for him.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:14

“A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek? He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. The man said: They traveled from here, for I heard them saying: We shall go to Dotan. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan” (Genesis 37:15–17). “A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field” – Rabbi Yannai said: Three angels came to his assistance: “A man found him”; “the man asked him”; “the man said.” “They traveled from here” – from the attributes of the Omnipresent. (They abandoned the traits of mercy, grace, kindness, and the like.) “They saw him from afar, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). “They saw him from afar” – they said: Come let us sic the dogs on him. “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer is coming” (Genesis 37:19). “Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: A savage beast devoured him; and we will see what will become of his dreams” (Genesis 37:20). “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer [baal haḥalomot]” – The Rabbis said: Here he is coming, bearing his dreams. Rabbi Levi said: This one is destined to mislead them to follow the Baal. (Joseph’s descendant Yerovam will incite them to engage in idol worship.) “Now let us go and kill him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You say: “And we will see” and I say: We will see – now we will see “whose word will stand” (Jeremiah 44:28), mine or yours.’

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Toldot 7:1

Thus has R. Tanhuma interpreted (Gen. 27:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS, THAT WHEN ISAAC WAS OLD < AND HIS EYES WERE TOO WEAK TO SEE >. You find that there are twenty generations from Adam to Abraham, and there is no < mention of > old age written about < any of > them except Abraham, as stated (in Gen. 24:1): NOW ABRAHAM WAS OLD. (For parallel accounts, see above, 5:4.) Isaac arose, < and > it is also written (in Gen. 27:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS, THAT WHEN ISAAC WAS OLD. Jacob arose, < and > it is also written (in Gen. 48:10): NOW ISRAEL'S EYES WERE DIM WITH AGE. This text is related (to Ps. 90:16): LET YOUR WORK BE WORTHY FOR YOUR SERVANTS AND YOUR GLORY ON BEHALF OF THEIR CHILDREN. Now GLORY can only be old age and gray hair, as stated (in Prov. 20:29): THE BEAUTY OF THE YOUNG IS THEIR STRENGTH; BUT THE GLORY OF THE OLD IS GRAY HAIR. Ergo (in Ps. 90:16): AND YOUR GLORY ON BEHALF OF THEIR CHILDREN. < These words mean > that Abraham endowed Isaac with five things. Thus have our masters taught (in 'Eduy. 2:9): A FATHER ENDOWS HIS SON WITH FIVE THINGS: WITH BEAUTY, WITH STRENGTH, WITH WEALTH, WITH WISDOM, AND WITH < LENGTH OF > YEARS. How is it shown about BEAUTY? In that Isaac was as handsome as Joseph. It is written of Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS WELL BUILT. Also, when he went to his brothers, they said (in Gen. 37:19): HERE COMES THIS (hallazeh) DREAMER. It is also said of Isaac (in Gen. 24:65): WHO IS THIS (hallazeh) MAN < WALKING IN THE FIELD TO MEET US >? Thus Isaac was as handsome as Joseph. How is it shown that Isaac was mighty in STRENGTH? Look at how many wells he dug! Thus it is stated (in Gen. 26:18-22): THEN ISAAC REDUG < THE WELLS OF WATER >…. AND ISAAC'S SERVANTS DUG…. AND THEY DUG ANOTHER WELL…. THEN HE MOVED FROM THERE AND DUG < ANOTHER WELL >…. Look at the power which he had! Where is it shown about WEALTH? Where it is stated (in Gen. 26:13): AND THE MAN GREW < RICHER AND RICHER >…. It also says (in vs. 14): AND HE POSSESSED FLOCKS < AND HERDS >…. Where is it shown about WISDOM? Where he said to his father (in Gen. 22:7 at the time of his being bound): HERE ARE THE FIRE AND THE WOOD…. [How is it shown] about < LENGTH OF > YEARS? In that he was one hundred and eighty years old < when he died >, while Abraham was < only > one hundred and seventy-five. On account of these five things {through which he had attained merit}, five years more than his father's were added to him. It is therefore stated (in Ps. 90:16): LET YOUR WORK BE WORTHY FOR YOUR SERVANTS…. Anyone who has merit is meritorious in these five things, and anyone who does not have merit is not meritorious and receives five retributions that correspond to them. (See yQid. 1:7 (61a).) And who is this anyone? This is Joab, of whom it is stated (in II Sam. 3:29): MAY IT (Abner's blood) FALL UPON THE HEAD OF JOB AND HIS SON; (Masoretic Text: ALL HIS FATHER’S HOUSE.) [MAY THE HOUSE OF JOAB NEVER LACK ONE WITH A DISCHARGE, A LEPER, A MALE WHO HANDLES THE SPINDLE, ONE WHO FALLS BY THE SWORD, AND ONE LACKING BREAD]. ONE WITH A DISCHARGE corresponds to STRENGTH. In the case of one who has a discharge, there is no one weaker than he. A LEPER corresponds to BEAUTY. In the case of one who is a leper, even a young < leper >, there is no one more ugly than he. A MALE WHO HANDLES THE SPINDLE corresponds to WEALTH; for he [is one] {like a poor woman is one} who, if not spinning flax, has nothing of which to eat. ONE LACKING BREAD corresponds to WISDOM, as stated (in Prov. 9:5, where Wisdom says): COME AND EAT OF MY BREAD. And ONE WHO FALLS BY THE SWORD corresponds to < LENGTH OF > YEARS. The one who sins is afflicted by them, but the one who is meritorious receives, as did Isaac. David also gave praise (in Ps. 45:17 [16]): INSTEAD OF YOUR PARENTS THERE WILL BE YOUR CHILDREN.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:7

(Gen. 37:19:) SO THEY SAID TO ONE ANOTHER. Who were they? Simon and Levi.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:8

(Gen. 37:19-20:) HERE COMES THIS DREAMER. SO COME NOW, AND LET US KILL HIM…. < AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS >. R. Isaac said: This Scripture cries out for exposition. Who said (in vs. 20): AND WE SHALL SEE < WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS >? Actually they had said (at the beginning of the verse): COME, AND LET US KILL HIM. (Rashi, on Gen. 37:20, explains that the brothers could not have said, AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS. Since they were about to slay him, his dreams would have been meaningless.) So the Holy Spirit says: Let us observe them. They said (ibid.): COME, AND LET US KILL HIM; and he said (in vs. 7): NOW LOOK, YOUR SHEAVES GATHERED AROUND. Now let us see whose < sheaf > stands up, yours or mine.

Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 2:7

This they shall give (Exod. 30:12). Observe that Israel was so beloved that even their sins brought them considerable benefit. If their sins could do that, how much more so would their meritorious deeds. You find that when Jacob sent Joseph to his brethren, they watched him approach and said to one another: Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, therefore, and let us slay him (Gen. 37:19–20). They hurled him into the pit and said: Let us eat and drink, and then we will kill him. After eating and drinking, they were about to say grace when Judah said to them: We are planning to take a life, yet now we would bless God. If we should do this, we would be blaspheming against God and not blessing Him. Because of this Scripture says: And the covetous vaunteth himself, though he condemn the Lord (Ps. 10:3). Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and let not our hand be upon him (Gen. 37:27). (And they all agreed.)

Musar

Heaven orchestrated Levi to be the first to find the money in his sack, as he was the one who suggested killing Joseph after his dreams. (Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 12:3)

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 12:3

And it was, therefore, brought about by Heaven that the first to open his sack and find the money was Levi, as explained by Rashi. For he was the first who said to his brother Shimon (Ibid. 37:19-20): "Behold this dreamer of dreams is coming, and now, let us go and slay him."

Quoting Commentary

The brothers of Joseph conspired to kill him out of fear that he would lead them to idolatry, with Simeon and Levi being identified as the main instigators of the plot. Simeon was the one who threw Joseph into the pit and threatened the Midianites with death for rescuing him, while also refusing to cooperate in tricking their father with Joseph's torn cloak. The motif of youth and beauty being dangerous is highlighted in the story.

Rashbam on Genesis 24:65:2

הלזה, the additional letter ל in this word indicates that the person it refers to, though identifiable, is still a considerable distance away, in fact may not yet be positively identified beyond any doubt. We have the same construction in Genesis 37,19 where the brothers refer to the unexpected appearance of Joseph in the distance. When the person referred to as זה is close by, such as when Esther entertained the King and Haman, she pointed to Haman as המן הרע הזה, “this wicked Haman!” (Esther 7,6)

Rashi on Genesis 49:5:1

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9).

Tribal Lands, Chapter 14; Ephraim 11

Youth and beauty, innocence and exuberance can be perilous if unrestrained. Joseph’s brothers felt this acutely, and it angered and frightened them: “They saw him [Joseph] from afar, and before he came close to them they conspired to kill him. They said to one another, ‘Behold, the baal ĥalomot (dreamer) approaches!’” (Genesis 37:18–19). “They said: ‘This one will lead them all to the Baal idolatry’” (Genesis Rabbah 84:14).

Tribal Lands, Chapter 3; Shimon 20

This midrashic motif that Simeon headed the plot to kill Joseph continues with a number of details. Simeon wanted to kill; Simeon alone was charged with throwing Joseph into the pit. (BR 84:16 and 99:7; Tan. B. VaYeshev 13 (where Simeon was also charged with hurling down stones into the pit after Joseph); Tan. VaYeshev 9, Targum Yerushalmi Genesis 37:19. Philo also placed blame squarely on Simeon in De Josepho 30; some sources have Levi as an accomplice (Midrash Mishlei 1:12).) He threatened the Midianites with death for drawing Joseph out of the pit and keeping him alive. (Sefer Ha-Yashar, VaYeshev, 67b–68a. In this midrashic retelling of the sale of Joseph, passing Midianites, thirsty for water, approached the pit and subsequently saw Joseph languishing. They drew him out. Brandishing his sword, Simeon threatened them all with death. The Midianites saved themselves by appealing to the other brothers with an offer to buy Joseph.) And, when Issachar advised tearing Joseph’s ketonet pasim, the special colorful garment lovingly given him by Jacob, and dipping it in blood to trick their father into thinking that Joseph had been torn apart by a wild animal, Simeon did not want to relinquish the cloak. This refusal to cooperate stemmed from Simeon’s anger toward his brothers for not agreeing to kill Joseph. (This detail was furnished by the pseudepigraphal Testament of Zebulun 4.)

Targum

In Onkelos Genesis 37:19, one man refers to Joseph as the dreamer. In Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:19, Shimeon and Levi refer to Joseph as the master of dreams.

Onkelos Genesis 37:19

One man said to another, Here comes the dreamer.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:19

And Shimeon and Levi, who were brothers in counsel, said each man to his brother, Behold, this master of dreams cometh.

וְעַתָּ֣ה ׀ לְכ֣וּ וְנַֽהַרְגֵ֗הוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵ֙הוּ֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד הַבֹּר֔וֹת וְאָמַ֕רְנוּ חַיָּ֥ה רָעָ֖ה אֲכָלָ֑תְהוּ וְנִרְאֶ֕ה מַה־יִּהְי֖וּ חֲלֹמֹתָֽיו׃ 20 J Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we can say, ‘A savage beast devoured him.’ We shall see what comes of his dreams!”
Joseph's brothers planned to kill him out of jealousy, but the Holy Spirit indicated his dreams of greatness would come true. Yosef favored Shimeon to avoid conflict among the tribes. Midrash discusses Joseph's trials due to speaking evil of his brothers and the consequences of seeking to nullify the Torah. Musar highlights how Joseph's sin of lashon hara led to his brothers' unforgiving behavior towards him. The gemstones on the High Priest's breastplate symbolize the tribes' characteristics and actions, such as Reuven's admission of guilt, Levi's spiritual illumination, and Yehudah's bravery in battle. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan translate the brothers' plot to kill Joseph and cover it up with a wild animal attack in Genesis 37:20.

Commentary

Joseph's brothers planned to kill him out of jealousy, with the intention to throw him into a pit and claim he was devoured by a wild animal to avoid responsibility, while the Holy Spirit interjected that they would see whose words would be fulfilled regarding Joseph's dreams of greatness. They believed killing Joseph would prove his dreams false, but the Holy One indicated that his dreams would come true, as he would become a ruler over them.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:20:1

ועתה לכו ונהרגהו, "Come now let us kill him!" They planned to kill him before he had a chance to actually reach them; they went towards him. This is why the Torah emphasises the word ועתה. They were so upset emotionally that they could not even contain their anger until he would reach them. What the brothers did is best described in Baba Kama 26 where the Talmud rules that when ten people kill one person simultaneously they cannot be held responsible by a human court. The brothers' main concern was to escape a trial by a human court.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:20:2

ונשליכהו באחד הבורות, "and let us throw him into one of the pits." When the brothers mentioned how they would explain Joseph's disappearance, i.e. ואמרנו, they meant that as a rule anyone found in one of these pits would be consumed by a variety of rodents which abound in them. They would then be telling the truth when they described him as having fallen victim to wild beasts. By not saying the rodents had killed him they would refrain from uttering an outright lie.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:20:3

Naturally, we must explore by whose authority the brothers imagined that they were entitled to kill a human being, and such a righteous human being at that? Even allowing for the fact that the manner in which they planned to kill Joseph would not have made them liable to a human tribunal, how did they expect to escape retribution at the hands of G'd?

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:20:4

Perhaps the brothers applied to Joseph the laws pertaining to עד זומם, someone who testifies to a crime he did not really see and who thereby intended to have the accused convicted of the death penalty. In such a situation the Torah demands that the עד זומם himself will be executed by the same death penalty he intended for his victim. Joseph had accused his brothers of eating אבר מן החי, tissue from a living animal. A fitting penalty would be for Joseph himself to be consumed by wild animals before he was dead. Joseph had also claimed that the brothers engaged in sex with partners forbidden to them. All these accusations, if true, carry the death penalty when committed by Gentiles. Moreover, a Gentile may be convicted by the testimony of a single witness without corroboration and without the victim having been warned of the consequences of his behaviour. Even next of kin may testify against the accused (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim chapter 9). Accordingly, the brothers applied to Joseph the law of an עד זומם thus exonerating themselves in the eyes of heaven. However, if so, they would not be considered innocent before a human tribunal because they had no הזמה, evidence of an alibi placing the witness Joseph in a different location at the time that he claimed that the brothers had committed the crimes he had accused them of. This is why they had to resort to the ruse of ganging up on him simultaneously. No human court could then prove that either one of them had administered a lethal blow. They felt quite at ease vis-a-vis heaven, being convinced that Joseph wanted to kill them. All of these considerations helped G'd carry out what He had planned without interfering with the freedom of will of the brothers or of Joseph. Perhaps the brothers even alluded to the fact that they would eventually repent what they were about to do and this is why they said ועתה, i.e. "for now this is what we are going to do." Bereshit Rabbah 21,6 claims that whenever the expression ועתה is used it refers to repentance.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:20:5

ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, "and we shall see what becomes of his dreams." They were at pains to prove that his dreams contained false information, or that the dreams were merely reflections of what he had been thinking by day. If they would kill him now this would prove that the dreams only reflected Joseph's own aspirations.

Radak on Genesis 37:20:1

ועתה לכו, the word לכו in this context is an exhortation to act without delay, as we explained on 28,2. [there it referred to the word קום, Ed.]

Ramban on Genesis 37:20:1

AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS. This is a derisive metaphor: “We shall see after his death if we shall prostrate ourselves before him.” The correct interpretation appears to me to be that they said, “Now we shall see what will become of his dreams, for if he shall be rescued from our hands he will surely reign over us.” But our Rabbis said: (84:13.) “It is the Ruach Hakodesh (See Seder Toldoth, Note 90.) that says, We shall see what will become of his dreams, (The intent is to say that it is the Ruach Hakodesh which completes the sentence, and not Joseph’s brothers.) as if to say; ‘We shall see whose words shall stand, Mine or theirs.’” (Jeremiah 44:28.)

Rashbam on Genesis 37:20:1

לכו ונהרגהו, the introduction לכו is an invitation for other people to participate in a planned undertaking. We have a similar example in verse 27 of our chapter when the brothers sell Joseph and Yehudah introduces the plan with the words לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים, “let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.” Another similar example is found in Exodus 1,10 when Pharaoh invites his people to outsmart the Israelites with the words הבה נתחכמה לו. In that verse the word הבה is used as such an invitation. Compare also Deuteronomy 11,26, where the word ראה is used in the same manner, except that it does not involve active participation by those addressed

Rashi on Genesis 37:20:1

ונראה מה יהיו חלמתיו AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS — R. Isaac said, this verse calls for a homiletic explanation. The Holy Spirit said this latter part of the text. They say “let us slay him”, and Scripture (i.e. the Holy Spirit) breaks in upon their words concluding them by saying, “and we shall see what will become of his dreams”: we shall see whose words will be fulfilled — yours or mine. For it is impossible that they should have said, “and we shall see what will become of his dreams”, for as soon as they would kill him his dreams would be of no effect (Tanchuma Yashan 1:9:13).

Sforno on Genesis 37:20:1

ועתה לכו, make up your minds quickly to kill him.

Sforno on Genesis 37:20:2

אמרנו חיה רעה אכלתהו, so that Jacob will not have a chance of becoming angry at us and first be cursing us.

Sforno on Genesis 37:20:3

ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, the dreams of which he told us that they foreshadow his rise to greatness and that he would rule over us. Then we will be witness to the fact that all these dreams will dissolve into nothingness and that they are nothing but lies.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:20

Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the nearby pits, and we will say: A wild beast devoured him. Since wild animals are commonly found in uninhabited areas, if someone inquires about the fate of Joseph, we will claim that his death was caused by a predatory animal in the area. And we shall see what will become of his dreams.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 31-32

“Come now, let us kill him” [37:20]. When Joseph was protected from the vicious dogs, his brothers said: we will kill him and throw him into a pit. We will say that a wild animal ate him. The Holy One said here. “We shall see what comes of his dreams” [37:20]. That is to say, his dreams show that you will not be able to do anything to him. He will be a king over you. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:20.)

Kabbalah

Yosef favored Shimeon over his brothers because he saw that wherever Shimeon was, strict judgment followed, as evidenced by his actions in Shechem and towards Yosef. Yosef believed it was better to choose Shimeon to avoid conflict among the tribes.

Zohar, Achrei Mot 19:112

Rabbi Shimeon began with the verse: "and he took Shimeon from them, and bound him in front of them" (Genesis 42:24). And what did Yosef see that he showed partiality in Shimeon more than the brothers? Rather, Yosef said: in every place Shimeon (and Levi) are, there is an opening for strict judgment, and at that moment when I went from my father to my brothers, Shimeon opened the strict judgment [against me], as it is written "a man said to his brother here comes that dreamer, come now etc" (Genesis 37:19-20), and before, in Shechem, "and the sons of Yaakov, Shimeon and Levi, each man took" (Genesis 34:25) - all was in strict judgment. It is better to select this one, and not to stir up fights among all the tribes.

Midrash

In Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev, R. Hiyya the son of Abba explains that the trials Joseph faced were due to speaking evil of his brothers. In Bereshit Rabbah 84, Reuben's actions towards Joseph are analyzed, showing how he began a mitzva but did not complete it. Devarim Rabbah 8 discusses the importance of speaking and imparting Torah teachings. Aggadat Bereshit 76 highlights the consequences of seeking to nullify the Torah, using Joseph's story as an example. Finally, in Bereshit Rabbah 84, Joseph's dreams and his brothers' reactions are examined, with interpretations of their significance.

Aggadat Bereshit 76:3

[3] Another interpretation: "Rejoicing in His inhabited world." These are the tribes who sought to nullify something from the Torah. When Joseph saw the dream and said, "And behold, the sun, and the moon" (Genesis 37:9), they said to him, "Shall you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8). Once he left, they said to each other, "Come, let us kill him" (Genesis 37:20), etc. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them, "You seek to abolish something from the Torah and said, 'Let us be killed for it,' let us see who will uphold his words. He only did it when Joseph was sold as a slave and became a ruler, as it is said, 'And Joseph was the ruler, etc.' And Joseph's brothers came, etc. (Genesis 42:6). He began to accuse them of being spies (Genesis 42:9), they said to him, 'No, my lord, your servants have come, etc.' (Genesis 42:10-11), he said to them, 'No, you are thieves who sell your siblings as slaves. Send one of you etc.' (Genesis 42:16). And in the end, when the cup was found in Benjamin's hand, he began to say, 'Who stole the cup? Benjamin, son of a thief mother, for Rachel stole, etc.' (Genesis 31:19). 'Behold, you are the thief,' they began to say to him, 'What shall we say to my lord?' (Genesis 44:16) 'About Joseph,' he replied, 'What shall we speak?' (Genesis 44:16) 'and how shall we justify ourselves?'(Genesis 44:16) 'but] God has found [a way to exact punishment for] the [former] sin of your servants.'(Genesis 44:16) God said to them, 'What could you have abolished one thing for which you said, "Let us be killed for it?" Yet you seek to make yourselves slaves and He does not want that, as it is said, "Far be it from me to do so," etc.' (Genesis 44:17). "He who mocks them [God's words], will play the fool [or 'will be played for a fool'] in his own land [or 'in his own country']." [refer: Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 6:11]

Bamidbar Rabbah 13:18

“On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben, Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:30). “On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben…” – once the banner of Judah (See Numbers 2:1–9.) finished, the prince of Reuben began presenting his offering, because he was the firstborn, and he presented the offering regarding his tribe of Reuben. “His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:31). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, full of incense” (Numbers 7:32). “His offering was one silver dish [ke’arat]” (Numbers 7:31), do not read it as ke’arat, but rather, as akeret; this is Reuben, who played the main [ikar] role in the rescue [of Joseph]. It was he who first initiated the rescue. That is what is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21). Alternatively, that he uprooted [akar] the thought of his brothers, who wanted to kill him, just as it says: “Now let us go and kill him…” (Genesis 37:20). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). ”Its weight one hundred and thirty,” this is because the first three letters of the first three words that he said to them, their numerical value totals one hundred and thirty. “Let us not smite him mortally [lo nakenu nafesh]” (Genesis 37:21); take lamed from lo, nun from nakenu, and nun from nafesh; that is one hundred and thirty. (Lamed is thirty and nun is fifty, so 30 + 50 + 50 = 130.) “One silver basin [mizrak],” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the counsel he gave them that they should cast [sheyizreku] him into the pit, just as it says: “Reuben said to them: Do not shed blood; cast him into [this] pit…” (Genesis 37:22). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “Of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the secret [sod] that was in his heart to save him [Joseph]. The numerical value of sod is seventy. (Samekh is sixty, vav is 6 and dalet is 4 = 70.) “Both of them full of high quality flour…” (Numbers 7:31), as what he said to them: “Let us not smite him mortally” and “cast him,” he intended only to rescue him, as in both matters, (His statement not to kill Joseph, and his proposal to throw Joseph into the pit.) rescue is written: Initially, it is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21), and ultimately, it is written: “In order to rescue him from their hand” (Genesis 37:22). “One gold ladle [kaf], ten shekels…” (Numbers 7:32), kaf, (Kaf also means palm or hand.) corresponding to what he said to his brothers: “Do not lay a hand on him” (Genesis 37:22). “Gold…ten shekels,” because he saved himself by admonishing them, and he saved nine brothers from bloodshed. That is why “gold” is written, as there is one type of gold that resembles blood, and that is parvayim gold. “Full of incense” (Numbers 7:32), although it happened to the tribes that Joseph’s sale befell them, you presume that this act would not have befallen them unless they had been wicked in performing other acts. No, but rather they were full-fledged righteous men, and no sin had ever befallen them other than this one: That is what is written: “They said one to another: But we are guilty [regarding our brother]” (Genesis 42:21). They were engaged in self-reflection as to why their detention in Egypt befell them, but found only this. From their disgrace, the verse relates their praise, that they had only this iniquity alone attributable to them. And because Joseph’s sale was fortuitous for him, as it led him to rule, and it was fortuitous for his brothers and his father’s entire household, as he provided them with food during the famine years, that is why he was sold by them, because merit is engendered by means of the meritorious. That is “full of incense.” Another matter, “full of incense,” as, at that time, Reuben was a penitent, donning sackcloth, fasting, and praying before the Holy One blessed be He, that He grant him atonement for the iniquity of the act with Bilha. (See Genesis 35:22.) Prayer is likened to incense, just as it says: “Let my prayer stand as incense before You…” (Psalms 141:2). That is, “full of incense.” “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:33). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34). “And for the peace offering, two cattle, five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year. This was the offering of Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:35). “One young bull…” (Numbers 7:33), these are the offerings that he sacrificed, corresponding to the penitence in which he was engaged when Joseph was sold. Penitence is likened to all the offerings of a sinner, as it is written: “Offerings to God are a broken spirit” (Psalms 51:19). Just as the sinner brings a burnt offering and a sin offering for his sin, that is why he brought here a burnt offering and a sin offering, corresponding to them. And because the burnt offering is more cherished (By the Holy One blessed be He.) than the sin offering, that is why he sacrificed a burnt offering from all the species with the exception of the goat, as we do not find the goat as a burnt offering throughout the Torah. “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34), this is to atone for the act with Bilha. “And for the peace offering, two cattle” (Numbers 7:35), because he was [going to be] excluded from being enumerated with his brothers because of the act with Bilha, as it is written: “Reuben went and lay with Bilha, his father's concubine, and Israel heard” (Genesis 35:22), the matter was interrupted, (Genesis 35:22 is written in the Torah with an empty space in the middle of the verse following the phrase "and Israel heard," before the continuation “the sons of Jacob were twelve.”) as it placed the end of the portion there, alluding that he was banished. This is why that portion is an open portion, as even though he was banished, the arms of the Holy One blessed be He are open to receive penitents. Because he sought to perform two good deeds, Joseph’s rescue and repentance, he was restored to be part of them, and was included in their tally. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis 35:22). Due to these two acts that Reuben performed, Moses found an opportunity to pray on behalf of Reuben so that he would not be excluded from his brothers. That is what is written: “May Reuben live [and not die, and may his people be counted]” (Deuteronomy 33:6). “May Reuben live,” because he gave life to Joseph; “and not die,” due to the act of Bilha, because he repented; “and may his people be counted,” may his descendants be included in the tally of the other tribes in every sense. That is why it is stated: “And for the peace offering, two cattle [bakar]” (Numbers 7:35), corresponding to the two good deeds that he sought out [shebiker], Joseph’s rescue and the repentance, he was restored and was enumerated with his brothers. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:35), why three species? It is corresponding to the three times Reuben is mentioned in the portion of Joseph’s rescue and corresponding to the three “vayomer” that are written there. (Genesis 37:21, 22, 30.) Why were there five of each? They correspond to the five words through which Reuben was drawn near. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve.” (There are five words in the Hebrew phrase.) “This was the offering of Elitzur…” (Numbers 7:35), when the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering in this order, He began lauding his offering; “this was the offering…”

Bereshit Rabbah 84:10

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

Bereshit Rabbah 84:14

“A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek? He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. The man said: They traveled from here, for I heard them saying: We shall go to Dotan. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan” (Genesis 37:15–17). “A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field” – Rabbi Yannai said: Three angels came to his assistance: “A man found him”; “the man asked him”; “the man said.” “They traveled from here” – from the attributes of the Omnipresent. (They abandoned the traits of mercy, grace, kindness, and the like.) “They saw him from afar, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). “They saw him from afar” – they said: Come let us sic the dogs on him. “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer is coming” (Genesis 37:19). “Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: A savage beast devoured him; and we will see what will become of his dreams” (Genesis 37:20). “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer [baal haḥalomot]” – The Rabbis said: Here he is coming, bearing his dreams. Rabbi Levi said: This one is destined to mislead them to follow the Baal. (Joseph’s descendant Yerovam will incite them to engage in idol worship.) “Now let us go and kill him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You say: “And we will see” and I say: We will see – now we will see “whose word will stand” (Jeremiah 44:28), mine or yours.’

Bereshit Rabbah 91:8

“If you are sincere, one of your brothers will be incarcerated in the place of your custody and you, go bring grain for the hunger of your houses” (Genesis 42:19). “And bring your youngest brother to me and your statements will be verified, and you will not die. They did so” (Genesis 42:20). “They said one to another: But we are guilty in our brother’s regard, that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he pleaded with us and we did not heed; that is why this anguish has befallen us” (Genesis 42:21). “If you are sincere…and [bring] your youngest brother…They said one to another: But [aval] we are guilty” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: It is a southern dialect: Aval – truthfully. “That we saw the anguish of his soul, when he pleaded with us” – Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan bar She’ila: Is it possible that Joseph, at seventeen years old, would see his brothers selling him, and be silent? Rather, it teaches that he prostrated himself before the feet of each and every one so that they would be filled with mercy for him, but they were not filled. “Reuben responded to them, saying: Did I not speak to you, saying: Do not sin against the child, and you did not heed? And, indeed, here is a reckoning for his blood” (Genesis 42:22). “Reuben responded to them, saying…” – did I not say this to you? “Did I not speak to you, saying: Do not sin against the child,” but this is what you said: “Now let us go and kill him” (Genesis 37:20). “And, indeed [vegam], here is a reckoning for his blood” – his blood and the blood of the elder. (Instead of “his blood vedamo],” it says “indeed…his blood [vegam damo].” The word vegam comes to include the blood of his father.) “They did not know that Joseph understood, as the interpreter was between them” (Genesis 42:23). “They did not know that Joseph understood, as the interpreter” – this was Manasseh. “He turned from them and wept, and he returned to them; he spoke to them, and took Simeon from them, and incarcerated him before their eyes” (Genesis 42:24). “He turned from them” – Rabbi Ḥagai said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: he incarcerated him before their eyes. When they departed, he fed him, gave him to drink, bathed him, and anointed him.

Devarim Rabbah 8:4

What the verse said: “For they are life for those who find them…” (Proverbs 4:22) – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: It is a salve for the eye and a remedy for a wound, and a cup of roots for the intestines. A salve for the eyes, as it is written: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, it enlightens the eyes” (Psalms 19:9). A remedy for a wound, as it is written: “It will bring health to your body” (Proverbs 3:8). A cup of roots for the intestines – as it is written: “And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8). Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [lemotzeihem]” – to one who issues them [lemotzian] out of his mouth. (Studies out loud.) There was an incident involving a certain disciple of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who would complete all his learning in one hour. (He did not say the words out loud.) One time, he fell ill and forgot all his learning. What caused this to befall him? It is because he did not recite it with his mouth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov prayed on his behalf and all his learning was restored. Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who imparts it [shemotzian] to others. Alternatively, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who completes [shemamtzi] (This is a variation of the word mematze, which means exhausts or completes.) all the mitzvot. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “All the mitzva” (Deuteronomy 8:1). What is “all the mitzva”? It is until you complete all the mitzvot. "And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8), the 248 limbs that you have. That is "For this mitzva." Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, causes that he will bury his wife and his children. From whom do you derive it? It is from Judah, who began a mitzva but did not complete it. How so? When Joseph came to his brothers and they sought to kill him, as it is stated: “Let us go and kill him” (Genesis 37:20). Judah stood and did not allow them. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “What profit is it if we kill our brother?” (Genesis 37:26). They heeded him because he was king over them. Had he said to them: ‘Let us return him to our father,’ they would have heeded him. Because he began the mitzva but did not complete it, he buried his wife and his children, as it is stated: “Bat Shua, Judah’s wife, died” (Genesis 38:12), and it is written: “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 46:12). Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: Anyone who begins a mitzva but does not complete it, and another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the one who completed it. How so? Moses began the mitzva, as he took Joseph’s bones with him. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him…” (Exodus 13:19). But because he did not take them into the Land of Israel, it is attributed to Israel, who buried him, as it is stated: “The bones of Joseph that the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32). “That Moses took up from Egypt” is not written here, but rather, “that the children of Israel took up.” Why did they bury him in Shekhem? To what is the matter comparable? It is to thieves who stole a barrel of wine. The homeowner was aware of their presence. He said to them: ‘Enjoy it, but, as you live, after you drink the wine, return the barrel to its place.’ So, when the brothers sold Joseph, they sold him from Shekhem, as it is stated: “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). The Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘You sold him from Shekhem, return him to Shekhem.’ Since they completed the mitzva, it is attributed to them. That is, “for this mitzva.”

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:8

(Gen. 37:19-20:) HERE COMES THIS DREAMER. SO COME NOW, AND LET US KILL HIM…. < AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS >. R. Isaac said: This Scripture cries out for exposition. Who said (in vs. 20): AND WE SHALL SEE < WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS >? Actually they had said (at the beginning of the verse): COME, AND LET US KILL HIM. (Rashi, on Gen. 37:20, explains that the brothers could not have said, AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS. Since they were about to slay him, his dreams would have been meaningless.) So the Holy Spirit says: Let us observe them. They said (ibid.): COME, AND LET US KILL HIM; and he said (in vs. 7): NOW LOOK, YOUR SHEAVES GATHERED AROUND. Now let us see whose < sheaf > stands up, yours or mine.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 7:1

His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph (Gen. 38:7). Scripture states elsewhere in allusion to this verse: Death and life are in the power of the tongue; and they that indulge it shall eat the fruit thereof (Prov. 18:21). R. Hiyya the son of Abba declared: If a man should eat from a basket of figs without offering a blessing, death is in the power of the tongue, but if he should pronounce the blessing and then eat it, life is in the power of the tongue. All of the trials that befell Joseph occurred because of the evil he spoke against his brothers, as it is said: And Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:20).

Musar

In Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:13, it is discussed how Joseph's brothers sought legal devices to rid themselves of him due to his alleged lashon hara, willing to indirectly cause harm as they believed he deserved it. In Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 12:8, it is noted that Joseph's sin of lashon hara led to his brothers' unforgiving behavior towards him, with a parallel seen in King David's acceptance of lashon hara resulting in the division of the kingdom between the seeds of Judah and Joseph, showing a measure for measure consequence.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:13

(Ibid. 17): "For I heard them [the brothers] saying: 'Let us go to Dothan [nelchah dotainah],' which Rashi interprets: 'to seek against you nichlei datoth [legal devices (suggested by 'nelchah dothainah')] to kill you with." The explanation: It was decided by them that Joseph was a man of lashon hara, who provoked their father to hate them. And who knows how much contention he would stir up among them? They, therefore, sought some pretext to rid themselves of him in a way which would not make them "murderers" legally. As far as his being killed indirectly through them, this did not concern them. And as to their saying (Ibid. 60): "Let us go and kill him," this was meant in the same indirect sense. As stated in the well known Gemara, Makkoth 23a): "If one speaks lashon hara, he is fit to be cast to the dogs, it being written (Shemoth 23:1): 'You shall not bear a false report,' preceded by (Ibid. 22:39): 'To the dog shall you cast it.'" And we find in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 24b): "If one sicked a dog against someone, he is not guilty [of murder]." And even though by the law of Heaven, he is certainly liable for "indirection," too, they thought that in this instance they would not be liable by the law of Heaven because Joseph was a man of lashon hara and contention.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 12:8

And see another extremely awesome thing which unraveled itself in the course of time, measure for measure. For Joseph stumbled in the sin of lashon hara [against his brothers] as related in the Torah. And his brothers did not want, by any means, to forgive him, relating to him in the extreme of din, saying (Bereshith 37:20): "Let us go and kill him (that is: "Let us sic the dogs on him" and the like,) and they wished to sell him as a slave because of this, though Judah defended him and did not allow them to kill him, as it is written (Bereshith 37:26): "What profit if we kill our brother, etc." Still, he by no means wanted to forgive him, saying (Ibid. 27): "Let us go and sell him." And because of this, in the succeeding generations, when one of the seed of Judah stumbled in the issur of accepting lashon hara, the distinctive one of the seed of Joseph would by no means forgive him. And who is it that stumbled in this way? No less than our lord, King David, may peace be upon him, who believed the evil that Tziva spoke of Mefibosheth, and said (II Samuel 19:30): "You [Mefibosheth] and Tziva shall divide the field" — at which a Heavenly voice came forth and said: "Rechavam [of the seed of Judah] and Yaravam [of the seed of Joseph] shall divide the kingdom." And, as it is written in Scripture, that after the death of Solomon, Yaravam and all of Israel came to Rechavam and besought him to ease somewhat his yoke upon them and they would serve him, and he answered them (I Kings 12:14): "My father [Solomon] chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpion-thorns" — whereupon all of them answered (II Chronicles 10:16): "Each to your tents, O Israel," and they crowned Yaravam. And the underlying cause was David's acceptance of lashon hara. As our sages of blessed memory said: "If David had not accepted lashon hara, the kingdom of the house of David would not have been divided and Israel would not have served idolatry, and we would not have been exiled from our land." And all of this is "measure for measure," as we have written.

Quoting Commentary

Yosef's brothers conspired to kill him due to his dreams of lording over them, reflecting disdain for his political behavior rather than tale-bearing. The gemstones on the breastplate of the High Priest symbolize the tribes, with each stone reflecting characteristics and actions of the respective tribe's founder, such as Reuven's stone representing his admission of guilt, Levi's stone symbolizing spiritual illumination, and Yehudah's stone reflecting his bravery in battle.

Metzudat Zion on Psalms 95:1:1

It is a language of action! Based on Genesis 37:20 “Let us go and kill them.” And [the verse continues to explain that] nariah is similar to teruah, to blow a horn.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 28:15:3

Scientific books claim that the basic number of gemstones, (not allowing for variants, mutations) are only 12 in number, so that they were all represented on the breastplate of the High Priest. They may be considered as the “patriarchs” of all other precious stones. The reason that the gemstone assigned to the tribe of Reuven was the אודם was the fact that it symbolised the blush on his face when he owned up to being guilty of his misdemeanour in Bilhah’s tent. The fact that he was not ashamed to admit his guilt is a credit to him reflected by this red-coloured stone known as “rubin.” It is supposedly found in certain areas at the bottom of the sea. It is chipped of a great rock beneath the sea, and is mined similar to silver and gold. The rock is known as Balax. Rubin and Balax are supposedly two names for the same kind of stone. The difference between them is only that the variety known as rubin is reddish looking. Onkelos also translates the word אודם as סמקן, a red stone. It is the choicest of a number of sub-categories of the same basic kind of precious stone. Seeing it is red, an essential colour reminding us of blood, it is reputed to have the power to protect a woman who wears this jewel against ever aborting any fetus she carries. Women who wear jewelry made from this stone will give birth to babies that have been growing in their wombs for the full nine months. The stone is even supposed to have positive effects upon women who are having a difficult delivery. If this stone will be crushed into powder and consumed with food and drink it displays properties similar to those of the דודאים (mandrakes?), the plant which Leah “sold” Rachel in order to help her achieve pregnancy (compare author’s comment on Genesis 30,14). The shape of those dudaim which Reuven had found at the time was the outline of a human being. This is the reason that the word אודם, normally spelled with the letter ו was spelled without that letter in order to draw our attention to the spelling which could be read “Adam,”אדם . The reading of the word teaches the nature of the stone, whereas the spelling teaches the effect of that stone, its function. Shimon’s stone פטדה, is a greenish-looking gemstone, similar to the turquoise colour of the sea in certain coastal cities. Onkelos also translates it as ירקן (emerald?). It is of the same group as the gemstone נפך, the stone with the name of Yehudah inscribed on it. Both are of similar colour, except that the stone described as נפך is the more precious of its group. It sparkles very much. The פטדה is inferior to the נפך both in colour and in sparkle. The greenish colour symbolises the terrible sexual licentiousness committed by that tribe who had caused the face of their leader Zimri to turn green in shame (Numbers 28,14). The same happened to all the other members of the tribe of Shimon who took part in that sin at that time. Darkon, dropsy, was the illness from which these people died. The positive feature of that gemstone is that it cools the body. This may be the reason it is found in hot countries such as Nubia (the Sudan). The people in that country are especially steeped in sexual licentiousness. They need to “cool off” in order to counteract their tendencies. This is why we read in Job 28,19 “topaz from Nubia cannot match its value (that of rubies).” The reason Job made this comparison was because these stones were found in Nubia. The stone which bore the name of Levi was the ברקת, known popularly as carbuncle (a rounded gemstone without facets). It is so called as it flashes just like a bolt of lightning, ברק. It illuminates like a lamp. Onkelos also translates it as ברקן, a flashing stone. This was the gemstone Noach hung in the ark to provide him with light. The Torah referred to this light in Genesis 6,15 צהר תעשה לתבה. Isaiah refers to it as אקדח, in Isaiah 54,12 where, speaking of the future of Israel he writes: ”I will make your battlements rubies and your gates of precious stones, i.e. לאבני אקדח.” The name is justified as it appears glowing like red-hot coals. A similar expression occurs also in Isaiah 50,11: “kindlers of fire.” The reason this stone was chosen to symbolise Levi was that the Levites illuminate the people by teaching them spiritual illumination, i.e. Torah, as we know from Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל, “they teach Your judgments to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel.” We also know of Moses, who was of the tribe of Levi, that the whole house was filled with light when he was born as the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 1,24) interpreted the words in Exodus there (Exodus 2,2) that “she (his mother) saw that he was good.” Furthermore, when Moses returned from Mount Sinai with the second sets of Tablets the Torah testified that the skin of his face emitted rays of light (Exodus 34,29). We have another verse (Kohelet 8,1) “a man’s wisdom lights up his face.” The positive value of this gemstone is that it is apt to enlighten the foolish, providing him with insights he never had. This is in addition to the general usefulness of that jewel in providing light just as does a lamp. People say that if one pounds this carbuncle into fine dust and mixes it with food or drink as one mixes certain medicinal herbs into the food it proves very capable of providing wisdom and opening up previously “closed” hearts. Yehudah’s name was inscribed on the gemstone called נפך as we mentioned already. This jewel is known either as merkedy or zemurah in Arabic. Onkelos’ translation azmoragdin, (emerald) can support either one of these names. He chose a combination of these two words. As already mentioned, it is a greenish stone of high luster and represented his shame-facedness in accusing his daughter-in-law Tamar’s pregnancy as being the result of harlotry when he himself had fathered the child she was carrying (Genesis 38,26). Seeing that he overcame his embarrassment and made a public confession of his own involvement, this stone, i.e. its color, was chosen as appropriate for him. In addition he also had had to bear the shame, i.e. his face turning green, in the matter of having sold Joseph and his father suspecting him of this though the matter had never been spoken of. When Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his deathbed saying: “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself,” he wanted him to know that he suspected him of having been involved in the deception which had made Yaakov call out in anguish: “a wild beast has torn Joseph to shreds (Genesis 37,33).” When hearing his father say that he considered Yehudah as having elevated himself, i.e. having exonerated himself from that guilt, his face was restored to its original colour after all these years. It then resembled the appearance of the emerald giving off a sparkle. It is also written of Yehudah (Genesis 49,8) “your hand is at the neck of your enemy,” and the outstanding feature of the gemstone emerald is that people wearing it experience that their enemies turn their neck towards them, i.e. that they attempt to flee. This is the reason this jewel is known as נפך. The Bible comments on Yehudah’s bravery in battle more than once, and it is written of David (Samuel I 18,7) that he defeated his enemies in their tens of thousands, Of the messiah it is written: (Isaiah 11,4) “with the spirit (breath) of his mouth he will kill the wicked.” Issachar’s name was inscribed on a jewel called ספיר, sapphire, a jewel known as sephily of a blue colour. It had been assigned to Issachar because he was extremely wise and his tribe excelled in Torah knowledge. This has been attested to in Chronicles I 12,32. We have a tradition that the Tablets with the Ten Commandments were made of sapphire (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 26). We also find another reference to this jewel in Exodus 24,10 where the vision of G’d seen by the elders and the nobles is described as their observing with their mental eyes the appearance of bricks made of sapphire. It is a well known fact that the souls of Torah scholars are part of a whole bundle of souls beneath the throne of G’d’s attribute כבוד. This is derived from Ezekiel 1,26: “as the semblance of a throne, in appearance like sapphire.” The blue color of this jewel is not like the blue which denotes haughtiness similar to certain shades of red or green; on the contrary, it is a color symbolizing humility, modesty, a character trait equally becoming to both young and old. This is what Isaiah 57,15 meant when he wrote: “I dwell on high, in holiness; yet with the contrite and lowly in spirit.” The outstanding feature of this jewel is that it is good for one’s eyesight; this is the reason people have a habit of passing this jewel back and forth in front of their eyes. It was appropriate for Issachar as Torah also provides enlightenment. There is a popular saying that this jewel is useful in getting rid of all manner of pains and any swelling one experiences in any part of one’s body. The Torah too is a powerful remedy for all parts of the body. We have been told in Eyruvin 54 that if someone suffers from headaches the best remedy is to immerse oneself in the study of Torah. The name of Zevulun was inscribed on the gemstone known as יהלום, diamond. This gemstone is known as pirle, same as bedolach. It is clear, transparent. It is to remind us of “white” silver, an allusion to the material wealth of the tribe of Zevulun. We know from Yaakov’s blessing of Zevulun in Genesis 49,13 that he was a great trader sending his ships far afield in order to bring home wealth from foreign lands. It was appropriate therefore that the stone bearing his name was the diamond. The special property of the diamond for man is that it helps one to go to sleep, something Leah referred to when she (the mother of Zevulun) said after he was born: “this time my husband will make his permanent home with me” (Genesis 30,20). [I believe what the author meant was that possession of diamonds allows people to sleep easy as they feel emotionally and economically secure. Ed.] The name of the tribe of Dan was inscribed on a gemstone called לשם, known as opal, or ashtefassis. It shows a human face turned upside down, reminiscent of the time when the tribe of Dan attempted to reverse the norms of Judaism by appointing for themselves a non-Levite as religious leader (compare Judges 18,31). We find in Joshua 19,47 that a certain town previously called Leshem was renamed Dan in commemoration of the founding father of that tribe. This city became an integral part of the land of Israel. The name of the tribe of Naftali was inscribed on a jewel known as שבו, agate. It is commonly known as turquoise. [The various names which I have spelled in italics appear to be the equivalents of these gems’ names in Spanish or old French during the time of the author. Ed.] Onkelos also translates it as טרקיא. The special property ascribed to that gemstone was that it “pulls” man while riding in carriages or riding horses and enables him to become successful as a driver or rider. This occurs through man and beast developing mutual affinity for each other while man sits in the saddle. It was appropriate for Naftali to be associated with this gemstone as at the time he was born his step-mother Rachel had said that she had prevailed in a struggle with the attribute of Justice and her sister and as a result her handmaid had born this son for her. Rachel also had to use all her abilities (she thought) in order to have a son at least through her handmaid (compare Genesis 30,8). The gemstone bearing the name of Gad was the אחלמה, popularly known as crystal. This is why Onkelos translates the word as עין עגלא. A better known gemstone called lemon is similar to it but reddish in appearance. The reason this gemstone was used to symbolize Gad was that seeing the gemstone crystal is very common and everyone is familiar with it, the members of the tribe of Gad were also widely known as were the people who had been slain by this tribe in the wars of Israel against the Canaanites. This is the meaning of Deut. 33,20 וטרף זרעו קדקד , “tearing off arm, and even head.” The special property of this gemstone is that it reinforces the resolve of one’s heart when going to war and prevents one from becoming faint-hearted. The gemstone gives man strength. It is called אחלמה, as that word is connected to מלחמה, attributes needed to be successful in battle. The expression occurs in that sense in Isaiah 38,16: ותחלימני ותחיני, “You have restored me to health and have revived me.” The idea is that G’d made King Chiskiyah strong again. Another verse with a similar message is Job 39,4 where G’d speaks to Job about the health of the hinds, etc., saying יחלמו בניהם ירבו בבר, “their young are healthy (strong) able to grow up in the open fields.” The gemstone on which the name of the tribe of Asher was inscribed is called תרשיש, better known as cariolica, topaz, chrysolite. Its color is close to that of oil (olive oil). Others say that its color is azure-blue (compare R' David Kimchi). Onkelos translates it as כרום ימא, aquamarine. The reason is that the color of the sea resembles that of azure-blue. The name Tarshish appears also as a destination in the ship hired by the prophet Jonah, presumably because these gems could be found in that country. The special property of this topaz is to facilitate in the digestion of foods. It is even more important if one first pulverizes it and mixes the powder into one’s food. It will then make a mass similar to a mixture of flour and oil. The Torah extols Asher’s land portion within the land of Israel as being particularly full of oil, i.e. rich soil as we know from Yaakov’s blessing in Genesis 49,20. The gemstone bearing the name of the tribe of Joseph was called שהם, better known as onyx. The special property of this jewel is that its owners enjoy favor in the eyes of people. The letters in that stone also spell השם when read in a different order. This is an allusion to the verse in Genesis 39,2: “G’d was with Joseph and he became a successful man;” or, Genesis 39,24 “G’d made the warden of the prison like Joseph, etc.” Anyone who wears the jewel in the king’s palace will find that he becomes very successful and that his suggestions will be well received. The name of the gemstone on which Binyamin’s name was inscribed was ישפה, better known as jasper. It is a multi-colored gem consisting of red, black, green. Binyamin had many contradictory thoughts about the sale of Joseph by his brothers, all of which are reflected in the different colours of the jasper. The special property of that stone is that it stops the flow of blood. The reason this gemstone was assigned to the tribe of Binyamin had to do with the founder of that tribe not being able to decide if to tell his father that Joseph was most likely alive, or to keep silent as he could not foresee how Yaakov would react to such information. In the end he controlled himself, stopped himself, and did not reveal what he knew. The word ישפה may be understood as two words, i.e. יש פה, “he has a mouth,” or words to that effect. The name of that stone alludes to the fact hat Binyamin deserved credit for keeping silent about what he knew his brothers had done to his older brother Joseph. This completes the discussion about the twelve gemstones on the breastplate of the High Priest. All the details connected with the stones, the breastplate, the inscriptions, etc., are part and parcel of the detailed supervision G’d exercises over the fate of the Jewish people in all its aspects.

Redeeming Relevance; Genesis 6:49

Yosef ’s father and brothers seem to view his political antics with a certain amount of disdain. His actions appear to grate against the fundamental spirit of Yaakov and his family. Thus, the brothers plot against Yosef because of his dreams of lording over his family and not because of the potentially more damaging tale bearing (Bereshit 37:19–20). More than anything else then, it is Yosef ’s political behavior that eventually brings about his exile.

Tribal Lands, Chapter 5; Yehudah 11

They saw him from afar, and before he came close to them they conspired to kill him. They said to one another, “Here comes that dreamer! Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits, and we can say, ‘A savage beast devoured him.’ We shall see what comes of his dreams.” Genesis 37:18–20

Targum

In Genesis 37:20, Onkelos translates the verse as the brothers plotting to kill Joseph and throw him into a pit, while Targum Jonathan adds that they plan to say an evil beast devoured him to see the interpretation of his dreams.

Onkelos Genesis 37:20

Now, come let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we will say that a wild beast devoured him. Then we will see what will become [be the end] of his dreams.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:20

And now come let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits and say that an evil beast hath devoured him; and we shall see what will be the interpretation of his dreams.

וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ׃ 21 E But when Reuben heard it, he tried to save him from them. He said, “Let us not take his life.”
Reuven's true intent to perform a mitzvah saved Yosef from being killed by his brothers, recorded in the Torah and connected to the future merits of their descendants, guiding them to righteousness and helping them resist wrongdoing. Reuben's repentance for his sins and good deeds, without ulterior motives, are highlighted in various Midrashim and the Midrash Hagadol, emphasizing the importance of sincere actions. Reuben's actions towards Joseph and Bilhah are contrasted, with him being praised for saving Joseph and seeking atonement for his act with Bilhah. Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai explains that Reuben was listed first in the rescue because he was the first to try to save Joseph, despite losing his birthright to him. Reuben heard his brothers' plan to kill Joseph and rescued him, saying they should not kill him or be responsible for his death, as mentioned in Onkelos Genesis 37:21 and Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:21.

Chasidut

Reuven's true intent to perform a mitzvah saved Yosef from being killed by his brothers, showing that even seemingly unsuccessful acts of goodness have positive outcomes. The actions of our forefathers, like Reuven, were recorded in the Torah and connected to the future merits of their descendants, guiding them to righteousness and helping them resist wrongdoing.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 4:6

The Midrash (Ruth Rabba 5:6) states that if Reuven had known Hashem would record his actions, "And Reuven heard it, and delivered him out of their hand" (Genesis 37:21), he would have carried Yosef on his shoulder to his father. This highlights that the deeds of our forefathers were imbued with Torah and intertwined with the future merits of their descendants. The verse, “For I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of Hashem” (Bereishit 18:19), means Avraham connected his actions to his descendants, ensuring future benefits from his righteousness. This is why Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov are called “Avos” (forefathers). Their actions were foundational and recorded in the Torah, guiding Bnei Yisrael to understand and correct their ways. The Midrash implies that had Reuven known his actions would teach future generations, it would have strengthened his resolve, and he would have carried Yosef back to their father. Therefore, each person should consider how their actions impact their descendants, helping them remain steadfast against wrongdoing.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 7:5

“And Reuven heard and he saved him from their hands” (Bereishis 37:21). Reuven acted with true intent to perform a mitzvah. When he returned to the pit and found Yosef gone, he feared that his advice had led to Yosef’s demise. However, Hashem testified that Reuven's actions indeed saved Yosef from being killed, as without Reuven's intervention, the brothers would have killed him. This teaches us that when a person intends to do a mitzvah with true intent, even if it seems unsuccessful, one can be assured that something positive comes from it.

Commentary

Reuben saved Joseph from being killed by his brothers, preventing an irreversible act that would have been considered murder. Reuben's intention was to avoid shedding blood, not necessarily to save Joseph out of love, but to prevent his brothers from committing a grave sin. The brothers' actions were motivated by jealousy and fear of losing their elevated status in the family due to Jacob's favoritism towards Joseph.

Ba'alei Brit Avram, Vayeshev 1

"And Reuben heard and saved him from their hands, etc." (Genesis Rabbah, Parasha 44) Where was Rabbi Yossi? He said, 'Every day each one of them used to serve his father, and that day of Reuben was [when he served], etc.' Rabbi Yossi interpreted 'וישמע' (and he heard) in the sense of hearing, as it literally means, while Rabbi Nechemia and the Sages interpreted it in the sense of understandingHowever, there is cause for wonder: when did Reuben serve his father on that particular day? He comes immediately [after the incident with Joseph], and since each of them served his father every day, why did Jacob need to send Joseph to them? He could have waited a little until one of them came to serve him, and then he could inform Joseph about the well-being of his brothers and the welfare of the flock.It can be explained that initially, his brothers intended to devise a plot and set a trap for him. Before this incident, they were grazing the cattle near their father, and Joseph was also shepherding with them, as it is mentioned that he was shepherding his brothers among the flock. When they became jealous of him, they went to a distant place, hoping that he might come there, and they could take revenge on him. This is also evident from their overall scheme: on that particular day, they intentionally delayed Reuben from going to his father to serve him so that their father would send Joseph. They gave Reuben a pretext, informing him that their intention was to travel to Dotan, and they asked him to delay his journey to help them prepare for their departure. Reuben agreed, and afterwards, he would go to his father." "And this means, 'Behold, I have heard people saying, 'Let's go to Dotan.'" Therefore, Jacob was distressed because none of them came that day as was customary. For this reason, he sent Joseph, fearing that the people of Shechem might gather against them due to what had happened. This is indicated by the phrase, 'Are not your brothers pasturing in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them,' where Jacob said to him, 'Here I am.' Like a son who fears his father, he said to him, 'Please go and see,' meaning, 'See with your own eyes.' He did not learn it from the Maggid [angelic messenger], and he immediately returned to instruct him about his great distress. He sent him, meaning that he provided him with a guide until the depth of Hebron, and from there, he let him go. "And a man found him wandering," meaning that three angels encountered him. At first glance, it seems that they did not help him at all, and they did not make any effort to save him. On the contrary, if they had not met him, he would have returned to his father when he realized he was lost. Although he might not have returned, it would have been better for him to remain lost than to fall into the hands of his enemies who wanted to kill him. God, however, saved him from evil situations just as the angels saved him from the snakes. Nevertheless, all of this was part of the advice of a good companion, the buried one in Hebron. When he came to his brothers, Reuben was then involved in the household matters to serve his father for the day. He went to his father to serve him every day. He found out about their intentions from the words of his brothers, who wanted to kill Joseph. This is the meaning of 'And Reuben heard and saved him from their hands. And behold, it does not say here, 'And his brothers heard,' as it is stated about Judah. It is possible that Judah was their king, and they were obligated to listen to him by force. Another possibility is that since it says, 'And they took him and cast him,' with 'they took him' written in the singular form, it indicates that it was Simeon, as the sages state. Therefore, when they heard the matter from Reuben, they immediately arose and cast him into the pit. At that moment, after casting him into the pit, Reuben had not yet gone to his father, as he was occupied with the household matters before leaving. Later, he returned to the pit in the wilderness, took Joseph, and intended to return him to his father. This is what is meant by 'And Reuben returned to the pit.' Where was Rabbi Joshua saying that all the troubles of the household were thrown upon him? Once he turned away, he went to the pit. According to this interpretation, his statement, 'The boy is gone, and where can I go?' is more understandable. He meant that his intention was to bring the boy back to his father when he returned. Now, since the boy is gone, he does not want to go to his father, even though it is his daily task. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer says that he was busy with fasting and mourning when he turned away and went to the pit. This explains his statement, 'And they sat down to eat bread, and Reuben did not sit with them to eat.' One can inquire about the deed that the tribes of Jacob did, allowing themselves to shed innocent blood and sell him. And behold, some say that their intention was related to their suspicions that, God forbid, they might be separated from their elevated status of holiness, and Joseph would become the main figure in place of their father. They feared that they would become subordinate to him. They saw it similar to the case of Ishmael and Esau, as they observed that their father loved him more than all his brothers. Jacob trusted him, imparted knowledge to him, and taught him everything he learned. Joseph, too, had the same perception. He saw himself as the favorite, and his conduct was pious and esteemed in their eyes. As it is written, 'And Joseph brought evil reports of them to their father,' meaning that he reported that they were eating limbs from a living animal while it was still writhing. He was strict about this. He also claimed that they were gazing at the local girls, implying that they were engaging in inappropriate relationships, which he considered permissible. Furthermore, he mentioned that they called his brothers the sons of the maidservants, indicating a degree of disparagement towards them. He was strict about this as well. Regarding these three matters, the Scripture hints in the verse, 'Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, for he was a son of his old age,' meaning that he kept them in line with matters related to the flock. He was a young man who looked after the affairs of the youth, meticulously attending to their conduct. He would inform his brothers about the deeds of the youth. He referred to his father's wives as 'your father's wives,' unlike his brothers who referred to them as 'the maidservants of your father.' Therefore, when they observed him engaging in these actions of separation, strictness, and jealousy, they thought he intended to cause harm and displace them from their superior position. His dreams further strengthened this perception. Hence, they said it was permissible to pursue him and remove him from their midst."

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:21:1

וישמע ראובן ויצילהו מידם, “when Reuven heard this he saved him from them. G-d decided at that moment that because it was Reuven who had made the first move to save Joseph, the cities of refuge in Israel later on would begin with those in the territory allocated to the tribe of Reuven. (Bereshit Rabbah 84,15) This is also hinted at in Deuteronomy 4,43: את בצר במישור לראובני, “Bezer in the tableland to the members of the tribe of Reuven.”

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:21:1

LET US NOT TAKE HIS LIFE. Our verse is similar to (Our verse literally reads: lo nakkennu nefesh (let us not take his life) which literally means, let us not strike him life. I.E. holds that this is short for, let us not strike him (lo nakkennu) a mortal blow (makkat nefesh).) but his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man (Ex. 33:11), the meaning of which is: but his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, did the ministry (This has to be added to the text.) of a young man. The aforementioned verse must be so understood because Joshua was not at that time a young man. (Thus a young man is short for: did the service of a young man.) Similarly our verse should be read as if written: let us not strike him a mortal blow thus taking his life.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:21:1

ויצילהו מידם. "He saved him from harm at their hands. This action was applauded by the Torah as man is a free creature possessing freedom of choice and able to kill people who are not guilty or have not been convicted, as distinct from wild beasts which do not kill humans unless the latter are guilty of death in the eyes of G'd. The words ויצילהו מידם mean that he saved them from the evil consequences of carrying out their freedom of choice to kill. By doing what he did Reuben nullified the brothers' statement: "we shall see what happens to his dreams."

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:21:2

לא נכנו נפש. "Let us not kill him." What Reuben meant was "let us not kill him outright ourselves but only cause his death indirectly." When he said later: "do not shed blood, throw him into the pit," this was his argument to his brothers. He only pretended to agree that Joseph's death should be caused because he could think of no other way of saving Joseph's life and restoring him to his father. He was quite certain in his own mind that no wild beast would harm Joseph, or any other of Jacob's sons for that matter. He himself would also not allow Joseph to remain in the pit long enough to die of hunger. Proof of Reubens' intention is that the Torah reports that he returned to the pit shortly after the brothers had sold Joseph in his absence. He had planned to take Joseph out of the pit.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:21:1

לא נכנו נפש, “let us not commit murder. Reuven found it impossible to agree with the advice, i.e. the solution proposed by his brothers. He intended to save Joseph. Had he said immediately: “we will not kill him,” he would have given away his intention to save Joseph and the fact that he had pity on him. He therefore added the word נפש to convince his brothers that his strategy was not aimed at saving Joseph’s fate but at saving his brothers from committing an unpardonable sin The prohibition of murdering someone in cold blood is absolute and knows of no exceptions. This is why he added אל תשפכו דם, “do not spill blood.” Had he been concerned only with Joseph’s blood not being spilled he would have said אל תשפכו דמו, “do not spill his blood.” He implied that he shared the brothers’ evaluation of Joseph’s guilt and hated him just as they hated him, but that he was concerned with the basic prohibition of shedding the blood of a human being, נפש.

Radak on Genesis 37:21:1

וישמע...לא נכנו נפש, killing.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:21:1

ויצילהו מידם, he saved his life, no more.

Rashi on Genesis 37:21:1

לא נכנו נפש — supply the word מכת so that the meaning will be “Let us not smite him with a smiting of his life” — it means killing.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:21:1

Reubens Verhältnis zu den Brüdern, wie er in dieser Begebenheit auftritt, dürfte rätselhaft erscheinen. Er scheint nur zufällig bei ihnen zu sein, da er ja sich sehr bald wieder von ihnen entfernt haben muss, und bei der eigentlichen Entwicklung gar nicht gegenwärtig war. Ob er überhaupt als בכור an den gewöhnlichen Tagesbeschäftigungen nicht Teil zu nehmen hatte, ob er schon im allgemeinen von ihren Ansichten über Josef differierte und daher an den Absichten und Beratungen, die sie nach Sichem geführt, nicht teilnehmen wollte, dürfte zweifelhaft sein. Wir werden noch Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: 30. wieder darauf zurückkommen. — לא נכנו נפש ist ganz positiv. Einen solchen Gedanken, wie ihr eben angeregt, werden wir nicht ausführen. Ich, als der ältere Bruder, leide das nicht. Indem V. 22 nochmals seine Rede eingeleitet wird, scheint es erst Diskussion gegeben zu haben, worauf er dann, um sie zu beschwichtigen, mit dem andern Vorschlag hervortrat.

Sforno on Genesis 37:21:1

ויצילהו מידם, by first of all preventing immediate action by the brothers, committing an act which would prove to be irrevocable. This would have been the kind of thing Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 1,15 that מעוות לא יוכל לתקן, “there are things so twisted that they are beyond repair.” He referred to matters from which sometimes the righteous person can also not be saved. One such example was the irreversible act of Reuven of having slept with Bilhah. Yaakov himself characterized it as פחז כמים, “hasty like water” (flowing downstream, something beyond recall).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:21:1

A blow to the soul, which refers to killing. Otherwise, how does נכנו — the object of which is Yoseif — connect to the following word נפש? Thus Rashi explains that the verse is as if it said מכת נפש, [which is an adverbial phrase modifying נכנו]. (R. Meir Stern)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:21

Reuben, the oldest son, heard, and delivered him from their hand, as he felt responsible for whatever was about to take place; and he said: Let us not smite him mortally; there is no need for us to kill him.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 33

“Let us not take his life” [37:21]. When Reuben heard this, Reuben wanted to save him and said: “Let us not take his life.” That is to say, Reuben showed the brothers that he also hated him. Therefore, Reuben spoke wisely. It is not appropriate to kill any person, not even a stranger. Therefore, Reuben did not say, “Let us not take.” This means, we will not kill him. Rather, he said: “Let us not take his life.” How appropriate is it to take a life? Therefore, Reuben said: “Shed no blood” [37:22]. That is, shed no blood of any person. God will punish you. It is not that I love Joseph. Rather, I am concerned with your welfare, that you should not shed blood. Therefore, Reuben said: “shed no blood” and did not say, do not shed his blood. This means, do not shed his blood. That is to say, Reuben did not want to show the brothers that he loved Joseph, in the expectation that they would listen to his advice. Reuben thought: I am the oldest; my father will be angry with me that I did not save him. So writes Bahya. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:21.)

Midrash

Reuben's actions towards Joseph and Bilhah are contrasted, with Reuben repenting for his sins and being praised for saving Joseph and seeking atonement for his act with Bilhah. Various Midrashim highlight Reuben's role in rescuing Joseph, his penitence, and his offerings as a form of repentance. Reuben's good deeds and repentance allowed him to be included among his brothers, as seen in his offerings and Moses' prayer for him.

Bamidbar Rabbah 13:18

“On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben, Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:30). “On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben…” – once the banner of Judah (See Numbers 2:1–9.) finished, the prince of Reuben began presenting his offering, because he was the firstborn, and he presented the offering regarding his tribe of Reuben. “His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:31). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, full of incense” (Numbers 7:32). “His offering was one silver dish [ke’arat]” (Numbers 7:31), do not read it as ke’arat, but rather, as akeret; this is Reuben, who played the main [ikar] role in the rescue [of Joseph]. It was he who first initiated the rescue. That is what is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21). Alternatively, that he uprooted [akar] the thought of his brothers, who wanted to kill him, just as it says: “Now let us go and kill him…” (Genesis 37:20). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). ”Its weight one hundred and thirty,” this is because the first three letters of the first three words that he said to them, their numerical value totals one hundred and thirty. “Let us not smite him mortally [lo nakenu nafesh]” (Genesis 37:21); take lamed from lo, nun from nakenu, and nun from nafesh; that is one hundred and thirty. (Lamed is thirty and nun is fifty, so 30 + 50 + 50 = 130.) “One silver basin [mizrak],” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the counsel he gave them that they should cast [sheyizreku] him into the pit, just as it says: “Reuben said to them: Do not shed blood; cast him into [this] pit…” (Genesis 37:22). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “Of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the secret [sod] that was in his heart to save him [Joseph]. The numerical value of sod is seventy. (Samekh is sixty, vav is 6 and dalet is 4 = 70.) “Both of them full of high quality flour…” (Numbers 7:31), as what he said to them: “Let us not smite him mortally” and “cast him,” he intended only to rescue him, as in both matters, (His statement not to kill Joseph, and his proposal to throw Joseph into the pit.) rescue is written: Initially, it is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21), and ultimately, it is written: “In order to rescue him from their hand” (Genesis 37:22). “One gold ladle [kaf], ten shekels…” (Numbers 7:32), kaf, (Kaf also means palm or hand.) corresponding to what he said to his brothers: “Do not lay a hand on him” (Genesis 37:22). “Gold…ten shekels,” because he saved himself by admonishing them, and he saved nine brothers from bloodshed. That is why “gold” is written, as there is one type of gold that resembles blood, and that is parvayim gold. “Full of incense” (Numbers 7:32), although it happened to the tribes that Joseph’s sale befell them, you presume that this act would not have befallen them unless they had been wicked in performing other acts. No, but rather they were full-fledged righteous men, and no sin had ever befallen them other than this one: That is what is written: “They said one to another: But we are guilty [regarding our brother]” (Genesis 42:21). They were engaged in self-reflection as to why their detention in Egypt befell them, but found only this. From their disgrace, the verse relates their praise, that they had only this iniquity alone attributable to them. And because Joseph’s sale was fortuitous for him, as it led him to rule, and it was fortuitous for his brothers and his father’s entire household, as he provided them with food during the famine years, that is why he was sold by them, because merit is engendered by means of the meritorious. That is “full of incense.” Another matter, “full of incense,” as, at that time, Reuben was a penitent, donning sackcloth, fasting, and praying before the Holy One blessed be He, that He grant him atonement for the iniquity of the act with Bilha. (See Genesis 35:22.) Prayer is likened to incense, just as it says: “Let my prayer stand as incense before You…” (Psalms 141:2). That is, “full of incense.” “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:33). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34). “And for the peace offering, two cattle, five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year. This was the offering of Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:35). “One young bull…” (Numbers 7:33), these are the offerings that he sacrificed, corresponding to the penitence in which he was engaged when Joseph was sold. Penitence is likened to all the offerings of a sinner, as it is written: “Offerings to God are a broken spirit” (Psalms 51:19). Just as the sinner brings a burnt offering and a sin offering for his sin, that is why he brought here a burnt offering and a sin offering, corresponding to them. And because the burnt offering is more cherished (By the Holy One blessed be He.) than the sin offering, that is why he sacrificed a burnt offering from all the species with the exception of the goat, as we do not find the goat as a burnt offering throughout the Torah. “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34), this is to atone for the act with Bilha. “And for the peace offering, two cattle” (Numbers 7:35), because he was [going to be] excluded from being enumerated with his brothers because of the act with Bilha, as it is written: “Reuben went and lay with Bilha, his father's concubine, and Israel heard” (Genesis 35:22), the matter was interrupted, (Genesis 35:22 is written in the Torah with an empty space in the middle of the verse following the phrase "and Israel heard," before the continuation “the sons of Jacob were twelve.”) as it placed the end of the portion there, alluding that he was banished. This is why that portion is an open portion, as even though he was banished, the arms of the Holy One blessed be He are open to receive penitents. Because he sought to perform two good deeds, Joseph’s rescue and repentance, he was restored to be part of them, and was included in their tally. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis 35:22). Due to these two acts that Reuben performed, Moses found an opportunity to pray on behalf of Reuben so that he would not be excluded from his brothers. That is what is written: “May Reuben live [and not die, and may his people be counted]” (Deuteronomy 33:6). “May Reuben live,” because he gave life to Joseph; “and not die,” due to the act of Bilha, because he repented; “and may his people be counted,” may his descendants be included in the tally of the other tribes in every sense. That is why it is stated: “And for the peace offering, two cattle [bakar]” (Numbers 7:35), corresponding to the two good deeds that he sought out [shebiker], Joseph’s rescue and the repentance, he was restored and was enumerated with his brothers. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:35), why three species? It is corresponding to the three times Reuben is mentioned in the portion of Joseph’s rescue and corresponding to the three “vayomer” that are written there. (Genesis 37:21, 22, 30.) Why were there five of each? They correspond to the five words through which Reuben was drawn near. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve.” (There are five words in the Hebrew phrase.) “This was the offering of Elitzur…” (Numbers 7:35), when the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering in this order, He began lauding his offering; “this was the offering…”

Bereshit Rabbah 84:15

“Reuben heard, and delivered him from their hand and said: Let us not smite him mortally” (Genesis 37:21). “Reuben heard, and delivered him” – where had he been? (The fact that he heard implies that he was not there during the initial discussion and heard about it after the fact (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis: Rabbi Yosei said: Each one of them would serve his father on his day, and that day was Reuben’s day. Rabbi Neḥemya said: Reuben said: I am the firstborn, and the blame will be attributed only to me. The Rabbis say: Reuben said: He enumerates me with my brothers; shall I not rescue him? I was under the impression that I had been banished because of that incident, (The incident of Reuben and Bilha; see Genesis 35:22. ) and he enumerates me with my brothers, As it is stated: “And eleven stars prostrated themselves to me” (Genesis 37:9) – shall I not rescue him? The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You were the first to engage in the saving of lives; as you live, they will designate cities of refuge first only within your boundaries.’ That is what is written: “Betzer in the wilderness…[for the Reubenites]” (Deuteronomy 4:43).

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Berakhot 1:35

(Ib. b) R. Jochauan in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai said: "Since the day the Holy One, praised be He! created the world there was no man who called the Holy One, praised be He! 'Lord' (Adon) until Abraham came and called him 'Lord,' for it is said (Gen. 15, 8.) And he said Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" Rab said "Daniel also would not have been answered were it not for the sake of Abraham, for it is said (Dan. 9, 17.) And now listen, O our God! to the prayer of thy servant, for the sake of the Lord; — 'for Thy sake' he [Daniel] ought to have said? But [he prayed] for the sake of Abraham, who called you Lord." Again said R. Jochanan in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "Since the day when the Holy One, praised be He! created the world, there was no man who thanked the Holy One, praised be He! until Leah came and thanked Him, as it is said (Gen. 29, 35.) This lime will I thank the Lord." What is the meaning of being called Reuben? R. Elazar said: "Leah said, 'See the difference between my son and the son of my father-in-law (Esau); whereas my father-in-law's son sold his birthright to Jacob of his own accord, as it is written (Gen. 25, 33.) And he sold his right of first-horn unto Jacob, yet what happened? As it is written (Ib. 27, 41.) And Esau hated Jacob, and it is also written (Ib. ib. 36.) And he said, hath he been therefore named Jacob, because he hath supplanted me these two times; but my son, although it was against his will that Joseph took from him the birthright, as it is written (I Chr. 5, 1.) But when he defiled his father's bed was his birth-right given unto the sons of Joseph; yet he never envied him, for it is written (Gen. 37, 21.) And when Reuben heard it he delivered him out of their hands.'" Why was she named Ruth? R. Jochanan said "Be cause she merited that from her shall come forth David, who satisfied the Holy One, praised be He! with songs and praises." And whence do we derive that the name is the cause? R. Elazar said: "It is said (Ps. 46, 9.) Come, look at the deeds of the Lord, who hath made desolation on the earth. Do not read it Shamoth (desolation), but read Shemoth (names)."

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Makkot 2:3

R. Tanchum b. Chanilai said: "Why is the tribe of Reuben mentioned first among the cities of safety? Because he was the first to save Joseph from his brothers, as it is written (Gen. 37, 21) And when Reuben heard it, he delivered him out of their hand." R. Simlai lectured: "It is written (Deut. 4, 41) Then Moses separated three cities beyond the Jordan, toward the sunrise. The Holy One, praised be He! said to Moses: 'Thou hast caused the sun to shine toward the murderers (to save them from death)'." R. Simlai lectured: "What is the meaning of the verse (Ecc. 5, 9) He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance, will finally have income? He that loveth silver refers to Moses, our master, who, [although] having been aware that the three cities on the other side of the Jordan could not protect [the innocent murderer] until the other three cities were selected; nevertheless he selected them, saying: "A meritorious act which has come to my hand, I shall fulfil;' nor he that loveth abundance, i.e., who is fit to lecture before a crowd? He who possesses all the grain [of knowledge] like the Bible, Mishna, Halacha and Hagada." And this is what R. Elazar said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Ps. 106, 2) Who can express the mighty acts of the Lord? or make all His praise to be heard? This means, who is fit to express the mighty acts of the Lord? He who can make all His praise to be heard." The Rabbis, and according to others, Rabba b. Mari explained this passage thus: "He who loves the abundance [of scholars], possesses the fruit of knowledge"; whereupon the Rabbis fixed their eyes upon Raba b. Rabba who possessed such a quality. R. Ashi said: "He who likes to learn among a crowd of scholars possesses the fruit of their knowledge." And this is what R. Jose b. Chanina said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Jer. 50, 36) The sword is upon the boasters (badim) and they shall become fools? This means the sword may cut the necks of the scholars who study separately [without interchange of ideas] and not only this, but they become also foolish; for it is written here, V'no-alu, (and they become foolish) and there is another passage (Num. 12, 11) For that we have done foolishly, and not only this but they also commit a crime, as it is written (Ib.) And wherein we have sinned. Rabina said: "He who loves to study among a crowd [of students], will possess the grain of knowledge." And this is what Rabbi said: "I learned much from my teachers, more, however, from my colleagues, but from my disciples, I learned the most."

Ruth Rabbah 5:6

“Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here, and eat of the bread, and dip your loaf in the vinegar. She sat beside the reapers and he handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over” (Ruth 2:14). “Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here.” Rabbi Yoḥanan interpreted this [verse] with six approaches. [According to one approach, this verse] is referring to David. “Come here [halom],” – draw near to kingship, as halom means nothing other than kingship, as it is written: “[King David came and he sat before the Lord and said: Who am I, my Lord God, and who is my household, that You have brought me to this point [halom]?” (II Samuel 7:18). “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “Lord, do not rebuke me in Your wrath” (Psalms 6:2). (This verse was stated by David.) “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as Rav Huna said: Those six months that David was fleeing from Avshalom are not included in the tally, (Of the years of David’s reign.) as he would gain atonement with a female goat like a commoner. (A commoner brings a female goat as a sin-offering (Leviticus 4:27-28), whereas a king brings a male goat (Leviticus 4:22–23). Thus, Rav Huna is stating that during those six months David did not have the status of a king.) “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “Now I know that the Lord has redeemed His anointed” (Psalms 20:7). “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – [David] eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future. Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Solomon. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship, as it is stated: “Solomon's provision for one day was thirty kor of fine flour, and sixty kor of meal” (I Kings 5:2). “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are his sullied actions. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as Rabbi Yoḥai bar Ḥanina said: An angel in the image of Solomon descended and sat on his throne, and Solomon would circle among the entrances of Israel (Seeking charity) and say: “I am Kohelet , I was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12). What did one of them do? She gave him a bowl of grits and struck him on his head with a reed, and said to him: ‘Isn’t Solomon sitting on his throne, and [yet] you say: I am Solomon king of Israel?’ “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him. “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future. Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Hezekiah. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “Isaiah said: Let them take a cake of figs [and spread it on the rash and he will live]” (Isaiah 38:21). (The verse is stated regarding Hezekiah.) “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as it says: “So said Hezekiah: A day of distress and chastisement” (Isaiah 37:3). “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “He was exalted in the eyes of all nations thereafter” (II Chronicles 32:23). “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future. Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Menashe. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – that he sullied his actions like vinegar due to his evil actions. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as it is written: “The Lord spoke to Menashe and his people, but they would not pay heed. The Lord brought the officers of the army of the king of Assyria against them, and they took Menashe captive in manacles” (II Chronicles 33:10–11). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: They were manacles of iron and bronze. Rabbi Levi bar Ḥayyata said: They made a bronze cauldron and kindled a fire beneath it. He was crying: ‘Idol so-and-so, idol so-and-so, rescue me!’ When he saw that they were of no avail to him at all, he said: ‘I remember that my father would read to me: “In your distress [all these things] will find you…For the Lord your God is a merciful God [He will not forsake you]” (Deuteronomy 4:30–31). I will cry to Him. If He answers, that is good; if He does not answer, everything is one, all the gods are the same.’ At that moment, the ministering angels arose and sealed all the supernal windows, and they said before Him: ‘Master of the Universe, a person who placed an idol in the Sanctuary, are You accepting him through repentance?’ He said to them: ‘If I do not accept him through repentance, I would thereby be locking the door before all penitents.’ What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He excavated an opening beneath His throne of glory, in a place that no angel has control. That is what is written: “He prayed to Him, He acceded to his entreaty [vaye’ater] and He heard his supplication” (II Chronicles 33:13). Rabbi Levi said: In Arabia, they call excavation atira. “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “He returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13). With what did He return him? Rabbi Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Aḥa said: He returned him with the wind. This is what is said: He causes the wind to blow. “She ate, was sated, and left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future. Alternatively, it is referring to the messianic king. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “He was pained by our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5). “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – his kingship is destined to be temporarily captured [litzod] from him, as it says: “I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for the war and the city will be captured” (Zechariah 14:2). “He handed her roasted grain” – it is destined to return to him, as it is stated: “He will smite the land with the rod of his mouth” (Isaiah 11:4). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Levi: Like the initial redeemer, so the ultimate redeemer. Just as the initial redeemer was revealed, and then was again concealed from them, and for how long was he concealed from them, for three months, as it is stated: “They encountered Moses and Aaron” (Exodus 5:20); (The midrash interprets this as referring to the officers of the Israelites meeting Moses and Aaron after Moses returned from a three-month hiatus in Midyan. See Shemot Rabba 5:19, which similarly states that Moses departed to Midyan, but states that it was for six months.) so too, the ultimate redeemer will be revealed to them and concealed from them. How long will he be concealed from them? Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of the Rabbis: Forty-five days; that is what is written: “From the time the daily offering is abolished…[one thousand two hundred and ninety days]” (Daniel 12:11), and it is written: “Happy is one who waits and it comes [to one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days]”(Daniel 12:12). These extra days, what are they? Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ketzarta in the name of Rabbi Yona: These are the forty-five days that Israel will gather and eat saltwort; that is what is written: “Who pick saltwort from the bushes.” (Job 30:4). Where will he lead them? (Where will the messianic king lead the Jewish people?) To the Judean Desert, as it is stated: “Behold, I will seduce her and I will lead her to the desert” (Hosea 2:16). [There is] one who says: To the wilderness of Siḥon and Og, as it is stated: “I will yet settle you in tents as in the days of the appointed times” (Hosea 12:10). Anyone who believes in him will live, and one who does not believe in him will go to the nations of the world and they will kill him. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: Ultimately, the Holy One blessed be He will appear to them and rain down manna for them, “and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Boaz, draw near and “eat of the bread,” this is the bread of the reapers. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar,” as it is the way of reapers to dip their loaves in vinegar. Rabbi Yonatan said: From here it is derived that one takes out sour foods to the threshing floors. “She sat beside the reapers,” she certainly sat alongside them. (But not in their midst, for reasons of modesty.) “He handed her roasted grain,” a light, small amount, with his two fingers. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: You derive from this one of two matters: Either a blessing rested on the fingers of that righteous man, or that a blessing rested on the innards of that righteous woman. From where? It is from that which is written: “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over.” (If he gave her just a pinch of roasted grain, how could she have been sated, with grain to spare?) It stands to reason that the blessing rested on the innards of that righteous woman. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: The verse comes to teach you that if a person performs a mitzva he should perform it wholeheartedly, as had Reuben known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “Reuben heard and he rescued him from their hands” (Genesis 37:21), (This verse is stated regarding Reuben saving Joseph from his brothers, who wanted to kill him.) he would have taken him to his father on his shoulder. Had Aaron known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “Behold, he is emerging to meet you” (Exodus 4:14), he would have emerged to meet [Moses] with drums and dancing. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over,” he would have fed her fattened calves. Rabbi Kohen and Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi: In the past, a person would perform a mitzva and the prophet would write it. Now, when a person performs a mitzva, who writes it? Elijah writes it, and the messianic king, and the Holy One blessed be He affixes a seal for them. That is what is written: “Then those who feared the Lord spoke one with another, [and the Lord heeded, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him]” (Malachi 3:16).

Sifrei Devarim 347:3

Variantly: "Reuven shall live for his act with Joseph (viz. Bereshith 37:21), and he shall (therefore,) not die for his act with Bilhah. R. Chanina b. Gamliel says: Merit is not exchanged for liability, nor liability for merit — except for the instance of Reuven (above) and that of David (viz. II Samuel 16:13) … And the sages say: Neither merit for liability nor liability for merit, but mitzvoth are rewarded and transgressions are punished. And what is the import of "Reuven shall live and he shall not die"? That he repented of his deed. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: Reuven was far removed from that sin (of cohabitation with Bilhah) and he did not descend to that act. Is it possible that he would stand at the head of the tribes on Mount Eival and say (Devarim 27:20) "Cursed be he who lives with father's wife," having descended to such an act! What, then, is the intent of (Bereshith 49:4) "For you went up on your father's bed?" He was solicitous of his mother's honor (viz. Shabbath 55b).

Vayikra Rabbah 34:8

Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Elazar says four approaches in this regard: Who was it who performed kindness with those who were not in need? Abraham, with the ministering angels. It is written: “He stood over them beneath the tree, and they ate” (Genesis 18:8). Were they eating? Rabbi Yudan said: They appeared as though they were eating and drinking, and each course disappeared in turn. How did the Holy One blessed be He reward his descendants? The manna fell for them, the spring arose for them, the quail was present for them, the clouds of glory surrounded them, and the pillar of cloud traveled before them. The matters can be inferred a fortiori. For one who performed kindness for those who were not in need of kindness, the Holy One blessed be He rewarded his descendants; one who performs kindness for those who are in need, all the more so. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Elazar said another approach in this regard: Who was it who did not perform kindness for those who were not in need of kindness? The Amonites and Moavites, with Israel, as it is written: “Because they did not greet you with bread and with water” (Deuteronomy 23:5). Did Israel need them? Is it not so that all those forty years that Israel was in the wilderness, the manna fell for them, the spring arose for them, the quail was present for them, the clouds of glory surrounded them, and the pillar of cloud traveled before them? Rather, it is common courtesy that those who come from the way, one greets them with food and drink. How did the Holy One blessed be He repay them as a result? “An Amonite or a Moavite shall not enter [into the assembly of the Lord]” (Deuteronomy 23:4). The matters can be inferred a fortiori. For those who did not perform kindness for those who were not in need of kindness, see how He repaid them in punishment; one who does not perform kindness for one who is in need of kindness, all the more so. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Elazar says another approach in this regard: Who was it who performed kindness with one to whom he was beholden? Yitro, with Moses. “He said: Call him and let him eat bread” (Exodus 2:20). Rabbi Simon said: He fed him for his wages, as it is written: “He drew water for us” (Exodus 2:19). (Yitro was merely repaying Moses for having drawn water in order to help Yitro’s daughters give it to the sheep. ) Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis, Rabbi Yehuda said: He drew water for us and for our ancestors. (This is based on the doubled Hebrew term employed in the verse “He drew water [dalo dala] for us.” Apparently, the daughters of Yitro had their own sheep, in addition to tending to their father’s sheep (Etz Yosef; cf. Matnot Kehuna). ) Rabbi Neḥemya said: He drew water for us and for the shepherds. The Rabbis said: He drew water for us due to the merit of our ancestors, and for the shepherds in order to make peace. When did the Holy One blessed be He pay his reward? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: In the days of Saul. That is what is written: “Saul said to the Kenite: Go, withdraw and descend [from the midst of the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them, and you acted with kindness with all the children of Israel when they came up from Egypt]” (I Samuel 15:6). Did he perform kindness for all Israel? Did he not perform kindness only for Moses alone? Rather, it is to teach you that anyone who performs kindness for one of the prominent leaders of Israel, it is ascribed to him as though he performed kindness for all Israel. The matters can be inferred a fortiori. For one who performed kindness for one to whom he was beholden, see how the Holy One blessed be He repaid him one who performs kindness for one to whom he is not beholden, all the more so. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Elazar says another approach in this regard. He said: Who was it who performed kindness with one who was in need of kindness? It was Boaz, with Ruth. That is what is written: “Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here” (Ruth 2:14); draw near. “Eat of the bread” (Ruth 2:14); of the bread of the reapers. “Dip your morsel in vinegar” (Ruth 2:14); as it is the way of the reapers to dip their morsel in vinegar during the dry heat. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From here [it may be derived] that one takes out food containing vinegar to the threshing floors. (Harvesting and threshing are performed in the summer, and vinegar helps the workers find some relief from the heat.) “She sat alongside the reapers” (Ruth 2:14); in its plain sense. “He handed her a pinch of toasted grain” (Ruth 2:14); he gave her a minute pinch with his fingertips. But is it not written: “She ate, she was satisfied, and she left over”? (Ruth 2:14). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: We derive from this one of two matters: Either a blessing rested on the hand of that righteous man, or a blessing rested in the innards of that righteous woman. But from what is written: “She ate, she was satisfied, and she left over,” we know that a blessing rested in the innards of that righteous woman. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The Torah teaches you etiquette. When a person performs a mitzva, he should do so with a joyous heart. Had Reuben known that the Holy One blessed be He would dictate in his regard: “Reuben heard and he rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21), (Reuben rescued Joseph from his brothers, who had conspired to kill him. ) he would have carried him and taken him to his father. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He would dictate in his regard: “He handed her a pinch of toasted grain,” he would have fed her fattened calves. Rabbi Kohen and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Levi: In the past, a person would perform a mitzva and the prophet would record it, but now, when a person performs a mitzva, who records it? It is Elijah and the messianic king, and the Holy One blessed be He signs it for them, like that which is written: “Then those who fear the Lord spoke one to another, and the Lord listened and heeded; a book of remembrance was written before Him” (Malachi 3:16). Rabbi Yehoshua taught: More than what the homeowner does for the poor person, the poor person does for the homeowner, as Ruth says to Naomi: “The name of the man for whom I acted today is Boaz” (Ruth 2:19). (This verse would ordinarily be translated “for whom I worked.” However, the term used for worked [asiti] does not literally mean worked. It is a more general term that can also be translated “did,” or “acted.” ) “Who acted for me” is not written here, but rather, “for whom I acted.” She said to her: ‘I performed many actions and favors with him today for the piece of bread that he gave me.’ (Meaning, by taking the bread that he gave me, I did him a favor by giving him the merit of the mitzva of charity. )

Musar

The Midrash Hagadol highlights examples of individuals, such as Reuben, Aaron, and Boaz, who performed good deeds without ulterior motives, emphasizing the value of sincere actions. These individuals, if they had known their deeds would be recorded in the Torah, would have gone above and beyond in their actions, demonstrating the importance of pure intentions in performing good deeds.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 118

There is a comment by the Midrash Hagadol on the words וישמע ראובן, in 37,21 which illustrates that the brothers did not understand Joseph's true motives. We are told there that the objective of the Torah in telling us of the purity of Reuben's motive, though he dared not express it at the time, was to tell us how highly G–d rates the performance of a good deed when such deed is performed without ulterior motives. Had Reuben known that his deed would be recorded by the Torah and be read in public for millennia, he would have carried Joseph back to his father on his shoulder without delay. Another example of the same idea is Aaron's meeting Moses when the latter returned from Midian to assume the leadership of the Jewish people. Aaron's joy and lack of envy of his younger brother is extolled by the Torah in Exodus 4,14. The Midrash adds that if Aaron had known that the Torah would compliment him on his deed, he would have organised a musical band to welcome Moses home to Egypt instead of merely going to meet him all by himself. The Midrash goes on with a similar comment about the way Boaz treated Ruth amongst the gleaners (Ruth 2,14). Boaz is reported there as inviting Ruth to dip her morsel in vinegar. Had he known that this gesture would have been recorded in Scripture for all to know, he would have offered her all kinds of delicacies.

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that Simeon and Levi were the brothers involved in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph, as they were the only ones who would have had perfect hatred towards Joseph to wish to kill him. Rabbeinu Bahya discusses how Reuven's repentance paved the way for other repentant sinners, and how his camp was second in the procession of the Israelites traveling. He also explains how serving God joyfully is crucial, as exemplified by the actions of Reuven, Aaron, and Boaz. Rabbi Yaakov Hagiz's explanation in Korban Mincha is that Reuben was saved from punishment for his sin with Bilhah because he had the status of an Israelite. Ezra ben Solomon discusses the symbolic positioning of the tribal banners and the shekhinah's camp, corresponding to the angels and the world's directions.

Ezra ben Solomon on Song of Songs 2:4:2

And his banner of love was over me: He arrayed the four tribal banners and the shekhinah’s camp in the middle, just as He surrounded His throne with the four camps of angels. Michael stands to His right, for he is the angel of love and compassion, corresponding to Reuben, whose banner is situated in the south, who began his career with an act of compassion and rescue, as it says: “Reuben heard and saved him from their hands” [Gen. 37:21]. Uriel is positioned on the left, for he is appointed over justice and vengeance. He corresponds to the tribe of Dan, who produced Micah’s statue and received Jeroboam’s calf. (The association of din, or the left side, with the demonic is strongly enunciated here.) Gabriel stands before Him, corresponding to the kingdom of the house of Judah, whose banner was situated in the east. As it says: “For Judah triumphed over his brothers” [I Chron. 5:2]. Raphael is behind him, corresponding to Ephraim situated in the west, fulfilling the need for healing caused by the sin of Jeroboam. This order corresponds to the world’s four directions: the east, whence light enters the world; the west, in which lie the treasuries of snow and hail and whence come coldness and warmth; the south, whence dews and rains of blessing come; and the north, from which darkness enters the world. Thus is the structure ordered: by day it faces to the east, ruling over command of the day. But at night it faces west to pray; that is opposed to what we have said. (Perhaps implying that darkness should come from the west (opposite to the east) rather than from the north.) Just as the tribal banners are arrayed to symbolize the world to come and this world as we have explained, so too has the tabernacle been constructed according to the order of the upper world, the building of the holy of holies, where the shekhinah rests between the two cherubim. Corresponding to the intermediate angelic world, in which serve those angels whose authority is over the earth, is the tent of meeting, in which are situated the showbread table, the candelabrum and the golden altar, these being inner and spiritual vessels. The golden altar was not designated for wholly burnt offerings or sacrifices, but rather for the incense, which was a matter subtle and spiritual. Facing it was the candelabrum and the light from its six branches issuing as hammered work from its central branch, radiating light at the front of the lamp stand. Corresponding to the terrestrial world is the sacrificial altar, situated in the tabernacle court, upon which all of the sacrifices might be offered. Similarly, three worlds exist within a human being: the world of speech corresponding to the head; that of the life-force from the navel and above; and the natural world from the navel and below, in which are situated multitudinous obstacles.

Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Petach HaEmek, Part II 9:23

This is stated in the Midrash [Rabbah] on the Book of Ruth: R. Yitzhak ben Merion said: “Scripture teaches us that if a person performs a mitzvah, he should perform it with a full heart. If Reuven had known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him, ‘Reuven heard and saved him [Joseph] from their hand,’ (Gen. 37:21.) he would have carried him on his shoulders and brought him to his father. And if Aharon had known that that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him, ‘Behold, he [Aharon] is going out to meet you [Moshe], and when he sees you he will rejoice in his heart,’ (Ex. 4:14.) he [Aharon] would have gone out to greet him with drums and cymbals. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He would record of him, ‘He handed [Ruth] parched grain, and she ate and was satisfied and had some left over,’ (Ruth 2:14.) he would have fed her fattened calves. R. Kohen and R. Yehoshua of Sichnin said in the name of R. Levi, “In the past, when a person performed a mitzvah, the prophets would record it. However, now when a person performs a mitzvah, who will record it? Eliyahu will record it, and it will be sealed by the hands of the Messiah and the Holy One, blessed be He. This is what Scripture states: ‘Then those who fear the Lord spoke to one another, (That is, Eliyahu speaks with the Messiah.) and the Lord listened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and those who give thought to His Name.’” (Mal. 3:16.)

Nachal Eshkol on Ruth 2:14:1

He handed her roasted grain… “Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: The verse comes to teach that if a person performs a mitzvah he should perform it wholeheartedly. Had Reuben known that the blessed Holy One was writing: “Reuben heard and rescued him (Joseph) from their hands,” (Gen. 37:21) he would have taken his brother to their father on his shoulder. Had Aaron known that the blessed Holy One was dictating in his regard: “Behold, he is coming out to meet you” (Exodus 4:14), Aaron would have emerged to meet Moses with drums and dancing. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over,” he would have fed her fattened calves.” (Ruth Rabbah 5:6) It is possible to explain this statement, by beginning with Rabbi Yaakov Hagiz’s, (Jacob Hagiz (1620–1674) was a Jewish Talmudist born of a Sephardi Jewish family at Fes, Morocco. Ḥagiz's teacher was David Karigal who afterward became his father-in-law. In about 1646, Ḥagiz went to Italy for the purpose of publishing his books, and remained there until after 1656, supporting himself by teaching. Samuel di Pam, rabbi at Livorno, calls himself a pupil of Ḥagiz. About 1657, Ḥagiz left Livorno for Jerusalem, where the Vega brothers of Livorno had founded a beit midrash for him and where he became a member of the rabbinical college. (Wikipedia)) explanation in Korban Mincha: (S. 115) “Israel heard. The sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” (The full verse states, “While Israel stayed in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine; and Israel found out. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” (JPS translation)) (Gen. 35:22) the sages state in a Midrash on Parshat V’Zot HaBerachah that Jacob had been given the Torah and in this way Reuben was saved because he was exempt for having had relations with his father’s concubine. This is what the verse states, “Israel heard,” that he had the status of an Israelite and therefore, “The sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” If the sons had the status of Noahides, then Reuben would have been put to death for this act and there would not have been twelve sons of Jacob. That is what is stated, “The heritage (morashah) of the congregation of Jacob,” (Deut. 33:4) There was already a heritage or a tradition of betrothal for Jacob and his children that marriage is only finalized through chuppah. (Therefore, the concubine was not judged as one of Jacob’s wives according to Jewish law.) “Then he became King in Jeshurun,” (Deut. 33:5) this refers to Moses who gather all the heads of the people (and officially taught them the laws), “Numerous people is the glory of a king,” (Prov. 14:28) This is the reason for the statement, “May Reuben live and not die,” (Deut. 35:6) Because Rebuen was judged as a Israelite, he did not die as a Noahide. This is the essence of his explanation in short. In my youth I wrote a treatise called Rosh David (P. 36) containing the opinion of Rabbi Chagiz, expressed in the introduction of Parashat Derachim. (A work containing twenty-six homiletic treatises on various subjects, by Rabbi Yehuda Rosanes. He (1657-1727) was a Rabbi of Constantinople. On account of his knowledge of Arabic and Turkish he was appointed by the government as chief rabbi of the Ottoman empire. He took a very active part in condemning and denouncing the Shabbethaians, and was one of the signers of an appeal to the German communities to oppose the movement. This work and others were edited & published by his devoted pupil Rabbi Yaakov Culi, author of Meam Loez. (https://seforimcenter.com)) I explained all of these verses there but I never found the Midrash on V’Zot HaBerachah that Rabbi Hagiz mentions. However, what was written on, “The heritage of the congregation of Jacob,” was explained there. And according to this one can explain, “O offspring of Israel, His servant;” (offspring of Israel, His servant, O descendants of Jacob, His chosen ones.) (I Chron. 16:13) Israel - our forefather Jacob - received Torah and passed it onto his children so that Reuben was not guilty of sin and there would still be the 12 sons of Jacob. Some have written in homilies that Joseph the righteous assumed that they had the status of Noahides as the author of Parashat Derachim and others wrote. If this were so then Reuben would have been deserving of he death penalty (God Forbid!). While it was Reuben’s righteous intention to save Joseph, he didn’t try hard enough, because he was afraid that he would find out that the law was according to Joseph and that they had the status of a Noahides. If he saved Joseph he might have brought evil upon himself. If he had known, however, that God would write that he would save Joseph from the brothers, in other words, similar to what the Torah states, “He tried to save him from them,” (Gen 37:21) and also, “Intending to save him from them in order to return him to his father.” (Gen. 37:22) (he might have acted differently.) His only intention was to bring Joseph back. This is what the Holy One wrote about him and it proves that he had the status of an Israelite for whom good intentions are joined to actions. (See BT Kiddushin 40a: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, links a good thought to an action, as it is stated: “Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with the other, and the Lord listened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that fear the Lord, and that think upon His name” (Mal. 3:16). The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase “and that think upon His name”? Rav Asi said: Even if a person intended to perform a mitzvah but due to circumstances beyond his control he did not perform it, the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed the mitzvah, as he is among those that think upon His name.” This however only applies to Jews and not non-Jews.) If, however, Reuven was considered a Noahide, then good intentions would not be joined to his actions. Since the blessed Holy One wrote that he had the status of Israelites, he had no fear that they would say that he had the status of a Noahide as Joseph claimed, and that he was guilty (of having relations with his father’s concubine). Then he would have carried Joseph on his shoulders back to Jacob even though Joseph thought the law was different. Still, Reuben saved him because he knew that one who saves an Israelite is as if he saved the whole world. And that is why one who performs a commandment should do so with a whole heart and not worry about suspicions or other matters. And we have heard about Reuben with whom damage would have resulted had he acted on his thoughts when they (the brothers) sold Joseph resulting in a step between him and death, and all the other events that would have come to pass. One might conclude that Reuben should have acted on his good intentions and not worried about those who disagreed. But what if one’s action will not lead to such damages; should one worry about “the scorn of the complacent?” (Ps. 123:4) The Midrash brings proof to show that a person should still perform mitzvot with a wholeheart even if there is no danger of damage as in the case of Aaron. It is possible that Aaron thought that Israelites were considered Noahides when he saw what his father, Amram, did. Amram was one of the righteous people of his generation. He was one of four who died due to Adam’s sin with the serpent (and not because of his own sin). (BT Shabbat 55b) He married his own aunt, Yocheved. According to Targum Yonatan when he divorced her she married Elitzafan ben Parnach but in the end, he remarried her and they gave birth to Moses. All of these acts would later be forbidden by Torah law. As a result, Aaron concluded that the Israelites had the status of Noahides until they received the Torah. Amram could take his aunt as a wife, divorce her and then take her back as a wife because the Torah had not yet been given. However, in order not to cause the scorn of the masses, Aaron didn’t want to go out to meet his brother with “drums and dance” which would have given the people an excuse to talk about his family or Moses. That is why he went out to greet Moses privately. Even though there was no danger or suffering involved in this matter, he thought that it was better to worry about scorn of the people. Thus we learn that even in this situation, it is better to perform the commandment with a full heart... If Aaron had known that God would write, “he (Aaron) will be happy in his heart to see you.” (Ex. 4:14) he would have known that they had the status of Israelites and his analysis was incorrect. Amram had acted according to the word of God, as the Zohar comments on the verse, “A man from the house of Levi…” (Ex. 2:1), then Aaron would have gone forth with timbrels and dancing (when meeting his brother), to fulfill the commandment properly. Further we also learn this lesson from Boaz. It occurred to Boaz and he saw through the Holy Spirit that he would marry Ruth. Further Ruth said, “Why are you so kind as to single me out, when I am a foreigner?” (Ruth 2:10) The sages comment, “To single me out,” in the way of all the earth. Boaz only gave her a little grain because he was fearful that people would say that he didn’t do so for the sake of a commandment but rather out of desire for her and in order to marry her. If Boaz had known that God would write about him, “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate her fill and had some left over,” so that it appeared as of he gave her a extra in order to satisfy her hunger, when in fact he gave her just a little bit but it was blessed, as the sage explain. But the blessed Holy One wrote that he gave her enough for her satisfaction. But if he really valued the mitzvah he would have given her fatted chickens! Further it states the details; it states that he said to her”“Come over here and partake of the meal, and dip your morsel in the vinegar.” and afterwards it states that he gave her roasted grains, all as part of a single commandment to feed her. Had Boaz known how important this mitzvah was, he would have fed her fatted chickens.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 2:2:5

דגל מחנה ראובן, “the banner of the camp of Reuven, etc.,” this camp was situated at the South of the Tabernacle. Reuven was a repentant sinner. The acceptance of repentance by G‘d is an outstanding act of love and kindness on G’d’s part vis-a-vis His creatures. Seeing that Reuven was the first person to demonstrate repentance he opened the gate for other repentant sinners. The Torah credited Reuven with having intended to save Joseph and even attributed Joseph’s life being saved to his suggestion to throw him into a pit instead of killing him (Genesis 37,21). His camp was accompanied by that of Shimon who was born right after him by his mother Leah. He was joined by the soldiers of the tribe of Gad, the firstborn of Leah’s maidservant Zilpah. The Torah writes that this camp was second in the procession of the Israelites traveling. The expression ושניים יסעו, “they are to travel in second position,” is a hint at the emanation בינה which is second to the emanation חכמה, which had been represented by the camp of Yehudah. The camp of Reuven may be perceived as a counterpart to the celestial camp headed by the archangel Michael whose camp also included the angels Kuchbiel and Pediel who are positioned to the right of the Shechinah. All three are known as the camp of Michael, seeing he represents the attribute of Love and Mercy. It was this camp which Moses alluded to when he said in the song after crossing the sea of reeds מי כמוך, and he concluded the Torah with the verse commencing אין כאל ישורון. When you combine the word מי in the Shirah, with the word כאל in Deut. 33,26 you get the word מיכאל, a reference to that angel who represents the attribute of Mercy. Following this we encounter the camp of the Levites as traveling בתוך המחנות, “amidst the other camp.” You are aware already that the camp of the Levites consisted of 22.000 men from the age of one month and up (3,39). This number corresponded to the number of angels who had accompanied the Shechinah at the revelation at Mount Sinai. This has been alluded to in Psalms 68,18 as we pointed out before. These 22.000 angels were the ones that are normally the angels closest to the Shechinah.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Devarim 28:47:1

תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה' אלוקיך בשמחה, “because you did not serve the Lord your G’d joyfully.” The Torah accuses people who do serve G’d not to have done so joyfully. A person is obligated not merely to carry out G’d’s instructions but to do so gladly, in a happy frame of mind. Joy when performing any of G’d’s commandments is considered as fulfillment of a commandment by itself, meriting additional reward. This is why one may be punished for failing to perform the commandments with a joyful heart. This is why the Torah requires that its commandments be performed with full intent and joyfully. Our sages in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5,6 comment concerning this that if Reuven had been aware that G’d would write in the Torah concerning his attempts to save Joseph’s life from the hands of his other brothers (Genesis 37,21) that he would receive a reward not only for his deed but for the good intentions accompanying same, he would have carried Joseph on his shoulders and brought him back to his (their) father. The Torah also makes a point of underlining the joy in Aaron’s heart when he saw his brother Moses again after so many years. Had he known that his feelings would be commented upon favorably (Exodus 4,14), he would have gone out to meet his brother accompanied by an orchestra of many different musical instruments. Had Boaz known that his offering Ruth food and drink in abundance would be recorded for eternity as a good deed of his, he would have fed her the choicest parts of a fatted calf, instead of merely bread and vinegar (Ruth 2,14).

Rabbeinu Bahya, Devarim 4:43:2

בארץ המישור לראובני, “in the land of the plain of the tribe of Reuven.” The reason this is mentioned first is that Reuven had tried to save the life of Joseph at the time when he prevailed on his brothers not to kill him (Genesis 36,21-22). This is why the first city of refuge was situated in Reuven’s part of the east bank. This is the meaning of Proverbs 28,17: “a man oppressed by blood guilt will flee to a pit, let none give him support.” The “pit” mentioned in that verse is a reference to the territory of Reuven of whom the Torah writes in Genesis 37,29: “Reuven returned to the pit.”

Rashi on Genesis 49:5:1

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9).

Talmud

Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai explains that Reuben was listed first in the rescue because he was the first to try to save Joseph, as seen in Genesis 37:21. Despite losing his birthright to Joseph, Reuben did not show jealousy and even saved him from his brothers' plot to kill him, as mentioned in I Chronicles 5:1 and Genesis 37:21.

Berakhot 7b:8

While my son, Reuben, even though Joseph took his birthright from him by force, as it is written: “And the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, for he was the firstborn; but, since he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, son of Israel” (I Chronicles 5:1). Nevertheless, he was not jealous of him, as it is written when Joseph’s brothers sought to kill him: “And Reuben heard and he saved him from their hands, saying ‘Let us not take his life’” (Genesis 37:21).

Makkot 10a:14

§ Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai says: For what reason was Reuben privileged to be enumerated first in the rescue, as the first city of refuge listed is Bezer (see Deuteronomy 4:43), which is located in the tribal portion of Reuben? It is due to the fact that he began the rescue of Joseph first, as it is stated: “And Reuben heard and delivered him from their hands” (Genesis 37:21).

Targum

Reuben heard his brothers' plan to kill Joseph and rescued him, saying they should not kill him or be responsible for his death (Onkelos Genesis 37:21; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:21).

Onkelos Genesis 37:21

Reuvein heard and rescued him from their hands. He said, Let us not kill him.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:21

And Reuben heard, and delivered him from their hands, and said, We will not kill him nor become guilty of his blood.

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ הַשְׁלִ֣יכוּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֤וֹר הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְיָ֖ד אַל־תִּשְׁלְחוּ־ב֑וֹ לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃ 22 E And Reuben went on, “Shed no blood! Cast him into that pit out in the wilderness, but do not touch him yourselves”—intending to save him from them and restore him to his father.
Reuben's attempt to save Joseph's life by suggesting he be thrown into a pit instead of killed is praised in various commentaries and Midrash texts, highlighting his good intentions and desire to return Joseph safely to their father. Despite his good intentions, Reuben's actions ultimately led to negative consequences for his descendants, as seen in the Midrash criticizing him for referring to his sons as his own rather than as Yaakov's.

Chasidut

Every action a person takes affects their essence in a place beyond their understanding, requiring intellect and desires to be nullified to the will of Hashem. Actions are already decreed in heaven, as seen with Reuven and Moshe questioning God. The Sabbath signifies nullification and acceptance of the yoke of heaven, drawing actions after their essence in heaven. True wisdom requires all knowledge to be nullified to the word of Hashem.

Sefat Emet, Exodus, Vaera 1:2

In the midrash (Shemot Rabbah 5:6) " and I turned to see… that which he already did…” (Ecclesiastes 2:12). For a person should know that every action affects his essence in a place so high that a person’s understanding cannot reach there at all. And because of this, it is necessary that all the intellect and all the desires are nullified to the will of Hashem. Similarly, I heard from my father, my master, my teacher and mentor, the righteous one who should be remembered for life in the World to Come, about what the midrash says, that if Reuven had known that the Torah had written about him “in order to save him” (Genesis 37:22), he would have carried Yosef on his shoulders back to his father (Rus Rabbah 5:6, Vayikra Rabbah 34:8). God forbid that he would have done this because of the honor that the verse would attest to him, but if he had known that the matter affected so much that the verse would write… Until here are the words of my father. And every action of a person is already decreed in heaven. And that is what the verse means, “that which he already did” (Ecclesiastes 2:12). Because on high, every action that a person will do is already decreed before Hashem; if so, it is not pertinent to question Him. And certainly it seemed obvious to King Solomon that his heart would not be led astray. But a person's actions affect that which is above his ability to understand. And consequently, there can be a change in the essence of a person. And if so, a person cannot know this at all. And it is written (Shemot Rabbah 5:6) that the letter yud in the word “yirbeh” (increase) went up before Hashem and said, Solomon is nullifying me! And is it true that someone who performs a sin nullifies a letter? But certainly through sin a person is cut off from clinging. But King Solomon knew that through the power of the Torah that was in him and the life force of Hashem which he was connected to without separation, he said “I will increase and not be led astray [and that's what the verse says, “God is with me and I will prevail” (Proverbs 30:1)]. And therefore, the yud, which signifies thought [which is the essence, as we say “the end is action, the beginning is thought” (Friday night prayers)], went up and said… And similarly by Moshe. He said, “Why did You do evil to Your nation?" (Exodus 5:22). Certainly he was not able to depict, God forbid, the evil of Israel. And Hashem responded to Him, “I am God” (Exodus 6:2), that all existences are through My will; if so, questions and challenges are not pertinent. And He also commanded him to say to the children of Israel, “I am Hashem” (Exodus 6:6), so that they will know that even the exile of Egypt was only through the life force of Hashem, because all existences are from Him. “And they didn’t listen to Moshe because of shortness of breath” (Exodus 6:9), because when they were in exile, this matter was not revealed [the meaning of “shortness of breath” is the life force of Hashem that is in a person, as it is written “and He blew into his nostrils a breath of life” (Genesis 2:7). And in exile the clinging to the essence of the life force is halted] and that is what is written in the midrash, that everything is from the Torah, He established in it positive commandments and negative commandments… (Shemot Rabbah 6:1), meaning that every action of a person of Israel has a life force in Torah and mitzvos that are dependent on action. And therefore the action of a person affects that which is above, and it draws from the life force of Hashem. And similarly what is written about the holy Sabbath, “that Hashem created to make” (Genesis 2:3), meaning that which is done even now through the desire of Hashem at the time of the creation, and on the Sabbath the children of Israel testify about this, that the truth was made clear. And this is what is written “and you should honor it from doing your desires…” (Isaiah 58:13), the Sages explained that all your work should be done. We can say as we said above, that one should know that also that which a person is doing is already done through the will of Hashem, as it is written “a person only injures a finger below if they decree so about him on high” (Chullin 7b), and that is what is written “that which was already done” (Ecclesiastes 2:12), as we said above. And on the Sabbath it is the aspect of nullification and the acceptance of the yoke of heaven, to nullify oneself to the essence of life. And through this, every action is drawn after its essence in heaven. Because it is written, “He did wonders” (Psalms 98:1). And the Rama in Orach Chaim explained “and does wondrous things” (Blessing of Asher Yatzar), that the action has in it an aspect of wonder, (see the Magen Avraham there, Orach Chaim 6:1). And also the wisdom of a person needs to be nullified to the aspect of the essence of wisdom, as it is written “from where is it found…” (Job 28:12). Because a person knows that when he grows and becomes wiser, he sees that that which he did not consider to be a sin beforehand was a mistake, and so too afterwards even more. If so, for true wisdom there is no measure, and all knowledge must be nullified to the word of Hashem, and everything will be drawn to the essence, as we said above.

Commentary

Reuben advised his brothers to not shed Joseph's blood, suggesting they throw him into a pit without water but possibly containing serpents and scorpions, with the intent to rescue him later. Reuben's intent was to save Joseph and return him to his father, showing that he did not want Joseph to be harmed. The Torah emphasizes that the pit was empty, indicating it did not contain water or harmful creatures, although the brothers later threw Joseph into a pit with snakes and scorpions, leading to Reuben's shock when he returned and found the pit empty. This highlights the distortion of judgment caused by hatred, as the brothers' actions were driven by their intense dislike of Joseph rather than any guilt on his part.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:22:1

אל הבור הזה, “to this pit;” the word אל has been used here instead of the prefix ב. In other words: “into this pit.” We have a similar construction in Numbers 19,6: והשליך אל תוך שרפת הפרה, “and he will throw it into the fire consuming the cow.”

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:22:2

להשיבו אל אביו, “intending to bring him back to his father.” His intentions were good; if you were to ask that even though the pit may have been dry, it most likely served as a lair for all kinds of poisonous snakes etc.? The fact that the Torah writes the unnecessary word: רק, “empty,” informs us that the brothers had made sure there were no harmful creatures hiding in it either. After Reuven had left, the brothers threw Joseph into another pit which was infested with snakes and scorpions. When the Torah describes Reuven’s shock when he returned to the first pit later and found it empty, that was the pit which he had told his brothers to throw him, into.

Radak on Genesis 37:22:1

אל תשפכו דם, his blood is innocent, i.e. he is not guilty of a capital crime. But throw him into this pit if you are so angry about his dreams and the way he presents them. You may repay him by making him feel pain such as yours, but do not touch him in a way that will lead to his death. When Reuven said: “throw him into this pit,” he did so in order to know where to find him later and to bring him back safely to his father after rescuing him from the pit. He did not mean for Joseph to be harmed in any way.

Ramban on Genesis 37:22:1

SHED NO BLOOD. Reuben said to them: “I would have been tolerant of you when you thought to kill him by your subtle intrigues, for I too hated him and desired that he be killed by others. But do not spill blood with your hands. Far it be from you!” And Reuben’s intent in all this was to rescue him and restore him to his father. Now Scripture relates that which Reuben told them when they paid heed to him. However, originally he told them other things which they did not accept, as he said to them afterwards, Spoke I not unto you, saying: Do not sin against the child and you would not hear? (Further, 42:22.) Now when he saw that they would not listen to the extent of releasing him, he said to them, “If so, shed no blood with your own hands.” Now Reuben did not say, “Shed not his blood,” [but instead, he said, “Shed no blood,”] in order to make it appear that he is not saying it because he loves him, but in order that they should not spill blood. Thus he taught them that the punishment of he who indirectly causes death is not as great as that of he who personally spills blood. The meaning of the expression, This pit that is in the wilderness, is that this pit is deep and he will not be able to get out of it, and it is in the desert, and if he cries for help there is no one to rescue him as no one passes by there. Now Scripture relates that the pit was empty and did not contain water. (Verse 24 here.) Had there been water in it they would not have drowned him as they had already avoided spilling his blood. Now Rashi writes: “Since it states that the pit was empty, do I not know that there was no water in it? Why then does it say that there was no water in it? It means to state that water indeed was not in it, however it did contain serpents and scorpions.” This is Rashi’s language quoting from the words of our Rabbis. (Shabbath 27a.) If so, the serpents and scorpions must have been in the cracks of the pit, or it was deep and they did not know about them. Had they seen them and known that they did not harm Joseph, it would have become clear to them that a great miracle had been done to him, and that he was indeed a perfectly righteous man. They would then have known that his merits would save him from all evil, and how would they touch the anointed one of G-d in whom He delights and whom He saves, even as it says, My G-d hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not hurt me; for as much as before Him innocency was found in me. (Daniel 6:23.) But, we must therefore conclude, they did not know anything about it. In line with the simple meaning of the verse, it states that the pit was empty and completely devoid of water, for even if there were a little water in it, it would still be called “empty.” (Therefore, the verse specifies that there was no water in it to indicate that there was no water at all in it.) Similarly, For thou shalt die and not live, (II Kings 20:1.) which means “not live at all, under any circumstances.” Such redundancies are all for the purpose of clarification and emphasis.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:22:1

השליכו אותו אל הבור הזה אשר במדבר, where no one passes so that he will die from natural causes.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:22:2

למען הציל, in order to really save him. The verse illustrates Reuven’s intention of not only saving Joseph’s life, but of bringing him back safely to his father, as the Torah testifies later in the course of its narrative.

Rashi on Genesis 37:22:1

למען הציל אתו THAT HE MIGHT DELIVER HIM [OUT OF THEIR HAND] — The Holy Spirit (Scripture) bears witness for Reuben that he said this only for the purpose of saving his brother — that he would come afterwards and draw him up from there. He thought, “I am the first-born and the chief among them, and blame will attach to no one but myself” (Genesis Rabbah 84:15).

Sforno on Genesis 37:22:1

ויד אל תשלחו בו, according to your judgment that he deserves killing as a רודף, someone threatening you with death or perdition. (compare Samuel I 24,13 מרשעים יצא רשע וידי לא תהיה בך, “although from wicked people come wicked deeds, my hand will never touch you. [David telling G’d that he will personally not harm his persecutor King Sha-ul, but he leaves it to G’d to deal with him. Ed.]

Sforno on Genesis 37:22:2

למען הציל אותו, in order to raise him from the pit afterwards.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:22:1

The Divine Spirit testifies concerning Reuvein. Rashi is answering the question: How could Reuvein himself have said they should throw Yoseif in the pit so he may bring him back to his father? If they knew this, they would not let Reuvein rescue him! Furthermore, if these were Reuvein’s words, it should say, “My purpose is to rescue.” Why does it say, “His purpose was to rescue”? Re’m comments: I do not understand why Rashi needed to write this. It is selfevident that these are not Reuvein’s words.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:22:2

He thought: “I am the firstborn and the oldest of them all... You might ask: How does Rashi know this is why Reuvein wanted to save him? Perhaps he was very pious and did not want to kill? The answer is: In Parshas Vayechi, among the blessings with which Yaakov blessed his sons, it is written that he blessed Yehudah, who said: “What will we gain if we kill our brother... come let us sell him...” Yet, why did Yaakov not bless Reuvein, who wanted to totally rescue Yoseif and bring him back to his father? Whereas Yehudah suggested to sell him! Perforce, Reuven’s intent was not for the sake of Heaven, but so people should not put the blame on him, saying: “You are the firstborn...” (Maharshal)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:22

Reuben said to them: Do not shed blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but do not lay a hand on him. Left alone, he will die of starvation; there is no need for us to kill him with our own hands. The verse points out that Reuben suggested this course of action only in order to deliver him from their hand, to restore him to his father. Perhaps Reuben did not join his brothers in their hatred of Joseph, and he therefore urged the brothers not to murder Joseph. He then attempted to convince them to cast Joseph into a pit, with the intention to later return and extract Joseph from the pit and bring him home. 5

Torah Temimah on Torah, Genesis 37:22:1

To rescue him. See Rashi; the Rashba derives from here that good deeds should be publicized.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:22:1

השליחו אותו אל הבור הזה, “throw him into this pit, etc.” He said: “into this pit,” because he had ascertained that that pit did not contain any harmful substances. The brothers did not heed him and threw him into a pit containing harmful substances such as snakes and scorpions, according to our sages. This is the meaning of verse 29 that when Reuven returned to the pit there was no Joseph in it. Nachmanides writes that according the Midrash that there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, we must assume that the brothers had not seen those. They must have been hiding in nooks and cracks within the pit. The fact that they did not ham Joseph before he was lifted out and sold was due to a miracle. This proves that Joseph was quite innocent, else why would G’d have extended this kind of help to him? I do not understand why anyone needs to resort to an explanation of this kind, for even if we do not consider Joseph as a totally innocent victim but as at least partially guilty, he was certainly not an evil person and did not deserve to die. In spite of his not being guilty of death the brothers set about killing him. The reason was that hatred distorts one’s ability to judge fairly and to apply one’s reason objectively. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words “the pit was empty,” mean that there was no accumulation of water inside the pit, for if there had been water in it, it could not be described as “empty.”

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 34

“Cast him into that pit” [37:22]. Reuben said: throw him into a pit. Hizkuni asks a question here. If indeed there were snakes in the pit, so what did Reuben’s advice help? The snakes would devour Joseph. The explanation is that Reuben told them to throw him into a pit that did not have snakes. Reuben thought to himself: when my brothers will leave, I will steal him out of the pit and bring him to our father. However, the brothers took him out of that pit and threw him into a pit that contained snakes. That is why it is written in the verse that Reuben came back to the pit and he did not find Joseph in the pit. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:22.)

Jewish Thought

The commentary on Akeidat Yitzchak 30:1:5 raises various questions regarding the actions and motivations of Joseph and his brothers in the story of their reunion. Some of the issues discussed include Joseph's behavior towards his brothers, the accusations of spying, the brothers' response to the accusations, the details of the interactions between the characters, and the significance of certain actions and statements made throughout the narrative. The commentary also questions the decisions made by Jacob, Joseph, and Pharaoh in the later parts of the story, such as the treatment of Benjamin and the instructions given to Joseph's family.

Akeidat Yitzchak 30:1:5

Problems in the text: 1) Since the Torah states that Joseph recognized his brothers though they did not recognize him, what point was there in deliberately acting like a stranger? Why is the fact that he did not recognize them repeated? 2) Why did Joseph remember his dreams as soon as he saw his brothers? Would it not have been better to state that as soon as he saw his brothers, "He remembered what they had done to him?" 3) Why did Joseph accuse the brothers of spying? How was that accusation countered by the brothers explaining that they were all the sons of one father? Why did they repeat this statement, and how did their answer cause Joseph to say that this only confirmed his suspicions? 4) Why did Yehudah say, "My lord asked if we had a father etc," when in fact the Torah does not report that Joseph had asked this at all? 5) The two accusations A) you are spies and B) you came to look for the weakness of the country, seem not to have been responded to by the brothers. How could Joseph ignore the ongoing anguish suffered by his father and not reveal to him that he was alive? 6) It seems strange that during the three days that all the brothers were imprisoned, no mention is made of any mutual recriminations; neither did they ascribe their misfortune to the manner in which they had treated Joseph at the time the latter had pleaded with them from inside the pit while they were imprisoned. Only after their release and Joseph's statement that he was a G-d-fearing man, do the brothers admit that they deserved punishment for their insensitive conduct towards Joseph. Besides, how could Reuben accuse his brothers of not listening to his pleas not to spill Joseph's blood but rather to throw him into the pit, when in fact they had listened to him? 7) The conversation between the brothers in the presence of an interpreter seems foolish. It would only make sense if there were no one present who understood Hebrew. Why did they reveal their secrets while being overheard? The use of the word "sack and fodderbag" seems confusing (42,27). Why did not all the brothers examine their sacks as soon as one of them had discovered that he still had his money? Why is the expression "sacks" not used when the brothers came back to Egypt later? We do not find the word used when they examined their loads! 8) Why did Jacob refuse to accept Reuben's proposal, seeing he knew quite well that sooner or later the brothers would be forced to undertake a second journey to Egypt? What new dimension did Yehudah's proposal contribute which moved his father to approve of their journey? Why did Jacob describe the return of the money as only a possible error on the part of the Egyptians? 9) Why are we told all the details about what was served at the luncheon, and why all the details about the seating arrangements? If the Midrash is accurate, then the Torah should have stated "Joseph seated them according to their age, instead of "They sat down according to their age." The latter would hardly be cause for amazement by the brothers, it would be perfectly normal for them to sit down in that order. 10) The last time, Joseph had ordered that the brothers be given "grain." This time he ordered that they be given "food." Why the change? Why was the money this time placed at the opening of their fodderbags, whereas the last time it was put "in the sack?" 11) What is the meaning of "Also this time I accept your argument?" 12) Why did Yehudah volunteer all the brothers to become servants of Joseph? Surely, when one is in danger one must not voluntarily give up any advantages one still possesses, in this case one's very freedom! 13) Why did Yehudah make his speech when Joseph had already displayed extreme consideration by insisting that only the guilty party be punished, and that there would not be any guilt by association? What more could he reasonably have expected to accomplish? 14) The review of events as described by Yehudah lacks foundation in fact. Joseph had never asked about their father till the brothers had volunteered they had an aged father. How could Yehudah summon up the courage to misrepresent the facts as he does in 44,19? 15) Why do most commentators regard the words "he will die," as applying to Jacob, when the subject at the beginning in verse 44,22 refers to "the lad dying?" 16) What precisely is the meaning of "to control oneself," when words such as "to suffer," "to keep a grip on oneself," seem more appropriate to describe Joseph's feeling of discomfiture when he heard Yehudah describe Jacob? 17) Why was Joseph's first question after he had revealed himself to the brothers, "Is my father still alive?" After all, he had heard from the mouth of Yehudah repeatedly that their father was still alive. Why did Joseph first say "You have sold me here," and then reverse himself saying, "Not you have sent me here, but G-d etc.?" 18) Why did Joseph instruct his brothers to hurry home and not to engage in arguments? Why did he specifically instruct that his power and glory in Egypt should be mentioned only at the end of the brothers' report about their reunion? 19) What is the meaning of the words "My mouth is speaking to you, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin witness all this?" 20) Pharaoh seems to repeat the order to allow Joseph's family to immigrate in 45,17 and again in 45,19-20, as well as that they were to be given V.I.P. status. Why? 21) Why did Benjamin receive bigger gifts and 300 shekel, a gift the brothers did not receive?

Midrash

Jacob sends Joseph to check on his brothers in Shechem, where they plan to kill him, but Reuben suggests throwing him into a pit instead to save him. Reuben's actions are praised for trying to rescue Joseph, and his involvement is highlighted in the Midrash texts from Sefer HaYashar, Midrash Tanchuma, and Bamidbar Rabbah. Reuben's role in saving Joseph is emphasized, showing his righteousness and intention to bring Joseph back to their father.

Bamidbar Rabbah 13:18

“On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben, Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:30). “On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben…” – once the banner of Judah (See Numbers 2:1–9.) finished, the prince of Reuben began presenting his offering, because he was the firstborn, and he presented the offering regarding his tribe of Reuben. “His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:31). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, full of incense” (Numbers 7:32). “His offering was one silver dish [ke’arat]” (Numbers 7:31), do not read it as ke’arat, but rather, as akeret; this is Reuben, who played the main [ikar] role in the rescue [of Joseph]. It was he who first initiated the rescue. That is what is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21). Alternatively, that he uprooted [akar] the thought of his brothers, who wanted to kill him, just as it says: “Now let us go and kill him…” (Genesis 37:20). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). ”Its weight one hundred and thirty,” this is because the first three letters of the first three words that he said to them, their numerical value totals one hundred and thirty. “Let us not smite him mortally [lo nakenu nafesh]” (Genesis 37:21); take lamed from lo, nun from nakenu, and nun from nafesh; that is one hundred and thirty. (Lamed is thirty and nun is fifty, so 30 + 50 + 50 = 130.) “One silver basin [mizrak],” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the counsel he gave them that they should cast [sheyizreku] him into the pit, just as it says: “Reuben said to them: Do not shed blood; cast him into [this] pit…” (Genesis 37:22). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “Of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the secret [sod] that was in his heart to save him [Joseph]. The numerical value of sod is seventy. (Samekh is sixty, vav is 6 and dalet is 4 = 70.) “Both of them full of high quality flour…” (Numbers 7:31), as what he said to them: “Let us not smite him mortally” and “cast him,” he intended only to rescue him, as in both matters, (His statement not to kill Joseph, and his proposal to throw Joseph into the pit.) rescue is written: Initially, it is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21), and ultimately, it is written: “In order to rescue him from their hand” (Genesis 37:22). “One gold ladle [kaf], ten shekels…” (Numbers 7:32), kaf, (Kaf also means palm or hand.) corresponding to what he said to his brothers: “Do not lay a hand on him” (Genesis 37:22). “Gold…ten shekels,” because he saved himself by admonishing them, and he saved nine brothers from bloodshed. That is why “gold” is written, as there is one type of gold that resembles blood, and that is parvayim gold. “Full of incense” (Numbers 7:32), although it happened to the tribes that Joseph’s sale befell them, you presume that this act would not have befallen them unless they had been wicked in performing other acts. No, but rather they were full-fledged righteous men, and no sin had ever befallen them other than this one: That is what is written: “They said one to another: But we are guilty [regarding our brother]” (Genesis 42:21). They were engaged in self-reflection as to why their detention in Egypt befell them, but found only this. From their disgrace, the verse relates their praise, that they had only this iniquity alone attributable to them. And because Joseph’s sale was fortuitous for him, as it led him to rule, and it was fortuitous for his brothers and his father’s entire household, as he provided them with food during the famine years, that is why he was sold by them, because merit is engendered by means of the meritorious. That is “full of incense.” Another matter, “full of incense,” as, at that time, Reuben was a penitent, donning sackcloth, fasting, and praying before the Holy One blessed be He, that He grant him atonement for the iniquity of the act with Bilha. (See Genesis 35:22.) Prayer is likened to incense, just as it says: “Let my prayer stand as incense before You…” (Psalms 141:2). That is, “full of incense.” “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:33). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34). “And for the peace offering, two cattle, five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year. This was the offering of Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:35). “One young bull…” (Numbers 7:33), these are the offerings that he sacrificed, corresponding to the penitence in which he was engaged when Joseph was sold. Penitence is likened to all the offerings of a sinner, as it is written: “Offerings to God are a broken spirit” (Psalms 51:19). Just as the sinner brings a burnt offering and a sin offering for his sin, that is why he brought here a burnt offering and a sin offering, corresponding to them. And because the burnt offering is more cherished (By the Holy One blessed be He.) than the sin offering, that is why he sacrificed a burnt offering from all the species with the exception of the goat, as we do not find the goat as a burnt offering throughout the Torah. “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34), this is to atone for the act with Bilha. “And for the peace offering, two cattle” (Numbers 7:35), because he was [going to be] excluded from being enumerated with his brothers because of the act with Bilha, as it is written: “Reuben went and lay with Bilha, his father's concubine, and Israel heard” (Genesis 35:22), the matter was interrupted, (Genesis 35:22 is written in the Torah with an empty space in the middle of the verse following the phrase "and Israel heard," before the continuation “the sons of Jacob were twelve.”) as it placed the end of the portion there, alluding that he was banished. This is why that portion is an open portion, as even though he was banished, the arms of the Holy One blessed be He are open to receive penitents. Because he sought to perform two good deeds, Joseph’s rescue and repentance, he was restored to be part of them, and was included in their tally. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis 35:22). Due to these two acts that Reuben performed, Moses found an opportunity to pray on behalf of Reuben so that he would not be excluded from his brothers. That is what is written: “May Reuben live [and not die, and may his people be counted]” (Deuteronomy 33:6). “May Reuben live,” because he gave life to Joseph; “and not die,” due to the act of Bilha, because he repented; “and may his people be counted,” may his descendants be included in the tally of the other tribes in every sense. That is why it is stated: “And for the peace offering, two cattle [bakar]” (Numbers 7:35), corresponding to the two good deeds that he sought out [shebiker], Joseph’s rescue and the repentance, he was restored and was enumerated with his brothers. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:35), why three species? It is corresponding to the three times Reuben is mentioned in the portion of Joseph’s rescue and corresponding to the three “vayomer” that are written there. (Genesis 37:21, 22, 30.) Why were there five of each? They correspond to the five words through which Reuben was drawn near. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve.” (There are five words in the Hebrew phrase.) “This was the offering of Elitzur…” (Numbers 7:35), when the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering in this order, He began lauding his offering; “this was the offering…”

Bereshit Rabbah 99:7

“Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of villainy are their heritage” (Genesis 49:5). Reuben went out and his ears were slumped. [Jacob] began calling: “Simeon and Levi are brothers” – brothers for degradation. He said to them: ‘You were brothers for Dina, as it is written: “Two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dina’s brothers, each took his sword” (Genesis 34:25), but not brothers for Joseph, as you sold him.’ Rabbi Simlai said: In Reuben’s regard it is written: “In order to deliver him from their hand, to restore him to his father” (Genesis 37:22). Reuben was not involved in Joseph’s sale. Judah, too, said to them: “What profit [is there if we kill our brother]?” (Genesis 37:26). These were the eldest; consequently, the two of them sold him. (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah were the oldest sons of Jacob. If Reuben and Judah were not involved in the sale, it must have been Simeon and Levi who organized it. ) Know that it is so, for when they descended to Egypt, [Joseph] took from them none other than Simeon, as it is stated: “He took Simeon from them [and incarcerated him before their eyes]” (Genesis 42:24). That is why [Jacob] called the two of them as one. “Weapons of villainy” – what are weapons of villainy? He said to them: ‘They have been stolen by you; they are not yours. They belong to Esau, in whose regard it is written: “By your sword you shall live”’ (Genesis 27:40). Those are weapons of villainy, and villainy is none other than Esau, as it is stated: “For the villainy to your brother Jacob” (Obadiah 1:10). (Thus, Jacob was saying that the weapons of Simeon and Levi belong to Esau, who is the subject of the verse in Obadiah. ) “Their heritage [mekheroteihem]” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a Greek expression, makhirin, makhirin>. Some say: “Mekhuroteihen” – their residences [meguroteihem], just as it says: “Your origins [mekhorotayikh] and your birthplace” (Ezekiel 16:3). “Let my soul not come in their company; with their assembly let my glory not be associated; for in their anger they killed men, and with their will they hamstrung oxen” (Genesis 49:6). “Let my soul not come in their company” – when Zimri will arise and perform that act with Kozbi, let my name not be mentioned there, as it is stated: “The name of the man of Israel who was slain…[Zimri, son of Salu, a prince of a patrilineal house of the Simeonites]” (Numbers 25:14). (The name of Jacob is not mentioned. ) “With their assembly let my glory not be associated” – when Koraḥ will assemble his congregation to dispute, let my name not be associated with them, but rather, “Koraḥ, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi” (Numbers 16:1), but it did not say: “Son of Jacob.” “For in their anger they killed men [ish]” – did they kill one man [ish]; is it not written: “They killed all the males” (Genesis 34:25)? It is that they were all considered before the Holy One blessed be He like one man. Likewise it says: “Behold [hen], nations may be regarded like a drop from a bucket…” (Isaiah 40:16). What is hen? In the Greek language, hen is one. Likewise it says: “You will smite Midian as one man” (Judges 6:16). Similarly, “the horse and its rider He cast into the sea” (Exodus 15:1) – like one horse and its rider. (The singular terms are used in order to indicate that God cast all the many horses and riders of the Egyptian army into the sea as though they were just one. ) “Cursed is their anger, as it is fierce, and their wrath, as it is harsh; I will divide them in Jacob, and I will disperse them in Israel” (Genesis 49:7). “Cursed is their anger” – he cursed only their anger. Likewise, the wicked Bilam says: “How will I curse, where God has not cursed” (Numbers 23:8)? If at a time of anger he cursed only their anger, can I come to curse them? (If Jacob was angry at Simeon and Levi and yet, with divine spirit, Jacob cursed only their anger and not them, can I, Bilam, curse the Israelites? ) “I will divide them in Jacob” – how so? Twenty-four thousand fell from the tribe of Simeon in [the incident of] Zimri, and its widows were twenty-four thousand. They were divided into two thousand for each and every tribe, as it is stated: “I will divide them in Jacob.” Everyone who circulates among the doorways [to beg] is from the tribe of Simeon. The Holy One blessed be He said: Levi too will circulate. What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He provided him with his sustenance cleanly, and yet Jacob’s edict was fulfilled. The Holy One blessed be He elevated [Levi] and gave him one-tenth, (The first tithe of produce. ) and he circulates and says: ‘Give me my portion.’ That is why it is stated: “I will divide them in Jacob.”

Midrash Mishlei 1:9

[9] "If they say, 'Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause'" - These are the brothers of Joseph, who were lurking and saying, 'When will the end come, and we will kill him?' And when he came to them, they began to say to one another, 'This is the hour; this is the season,' and the Divine Presence (Shechinah) was jesting and saying, 'Woe to them for the blood of this righteous one.' Therefore, it is said, "We will lurk secretly for the innocent without cause." And of them all, none wanted to save him except Reuben, as it is said, "Reuben heard, and he saved him from their hand." He said to them, 'Come, and I will give you advice,' They said to him, 'What advice are you giving us?' He said to them, 'Let us throw him into the pit while he is alive, and our hand will not be upon him,' From where [do we learn this]? As it is stated: (Proverbs 1:12): "We will swallow them up alive as the grave, and whole, as those that go down into the pit" - that he went down to the pit in his innocence, and he did not know what they were going to do to him. Rabbi Levi ben Zavdai said: "Who lowered [Joseph] into the pit from among all his brothers? You must say it was Simeon and Levi, as it is said (Genesis 49:6), 'Into their council let my soul not enter.' But Reuben intended to save him and return him to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:22), 'That he might save him from their hand, to restore him to his father.' (Genesis 37:29): 'And Reuben returned to the pit' - where was he? Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah [disagreed]: Rabbi Judah said, 'The burden of the household was thrust upon him, and as soon as he was free from his burden, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him. This is the meaning of "And Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he tore his clothes."' Rabbi Nehemiah said, 'He was occupied in his sackcloth and fasting over the incident that occurred, and he did not turn [from it], and as soon as he was free from his sackcloth and fasting, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him, as it says "And Reuben returned to the pit, etc." ' Not only that, but once they sold him, the Divine Presence (Shechinah) mocked them and said to them (Isaiah 55:8), 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, etc.,' not with the thought that you think, 'nor your ways my ways,' and not in the way that you say, for if there were not a decree from before Me, your counsel would be nothing. (Proverbs 1:13): 'All precious substance shall we find, our houses shall be filled with spoil' - this is the sale of Joseph, who was a precious son to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:3), 'For he was the son of his old age,' he was found to sustain them, as it is written (Genesis 45:5), 'For God sent me before you to preserve life.' 'Our houses shall be filled with spoil' - that they filled their houses with silver and gold from Joseph's treasures. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: The ten martyrs were drawn [to their deaths] only by the sin of selling Joseph. Rabbi Avin said: You must say that ten were exacted from every generation, and still, that sin persists. (Proverbs 1:14): 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - when Joseph sat down, he took the key and was calling out: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Dan and Naphtali - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Gad and Asher - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; and he went back and hit with the key and said: Benjamin is an orphan, and I am an orphan, it is fitting for an orphan to sit with an orphan, 'One purse shall be ours' - for they all ate at one table at the banquet. How did he do it? He gave each one one portion, and to Benjamin five portions, how? He took his portion, and Benjamin's portion, and Ephraim's portion, and Manasseh's portion, and the portion of Asenath, Joseph's wife, and gave it to Benjamin, as it is said (Genesis 43:34): 'And he took and sent portions to them from before him, but Benjamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs, and they drank and were merry with him.' Rabbi Shmuelai said in the name of Rabbi Isaac from Magdala: From the day that Joseph separated from his brothers he did not taste the taste of wine until that day, as it is written (Genesis 49:26), 'And the crown of the head of his brothers' Nazirite.' Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: They also did not taste the taste of wine, as it is said, 'And they drank and were merry with him.' Another explanation, 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - this is the Torah, which was the lot of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and given to Israel; 'One purse shall be ours' - at the time when they stood at Mount Sinai and said (Exodus 24:7), 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do and we will hear.'"

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:9

(Gen. 37:22:) REUBEN ALSO SAID UNTO THEM: DO NOT SHED BLOOD. Why? < It is > as the Holy Spirit says (ibid.): IN ORDER TO SAVE HIM FROM THEIR HAND < AND RESTORE HIM UNTO HIS FATHER >. If Reuben had known that the Holy One would write this verse about him, he would have placed him on his shoulders and brought him unto his father! (Gen. R. 84:16; Lev. R. 34:8.)

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 38:10

And (Gabriel) said to him: What seekest thou? He said to him: I seek my brethren, as it is said, "And he said, I seek my brethren" (Gen. 37:16). And he led him to || his brethren, and they saw him and sought to slay him, as it is said, "And they saw him afar off" (Gen. 37:18). Reuben said to them: Do not shed his blood, as it is said, "And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness" (Gen. 37:22). And his brethren listened to him, and they took Joseph and cast him into the pit, as it is said, "And they took him, and cast him into the pit" (Gen. 37:24). What did Reuben do? He went and stayed on one of the mountains, so as to go down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit. And his nine brethren were sitting down in one place, all of them like one man, with one heart and one plan. Ishmaelites passed by them, and (the brethren) said: Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they will lead him to the end of the wilderness, and Jacob will not hear any further report concerning him.

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 3

And when Jacob saw that they were delaying in Shechem, Jacob said to himself: Perhaps that ‎the inhabitants of Shechem rose up to fight against them and therefore their coming home ‎hath been delayed to-day. And Jacob called unto Joseph his son, saying: Behold thy brothers ‎are feeding the flock in Shechem, and they have not yet returned; go thou therefore and look ‎after them, and bring me back words concerning the peace of thy brothers and concerning the ‎cattle. And Jacob sent his son from the valley of Hebron; and Joseph went unto his brothers in ‎Shechem but he found them not. And Joseph went about in the fields about Shechem to ‎ascertain whither his brothers had turned, and he lost his way in the wilderness, and he knew ‎not in which direction he should go. And an angel of the Lord met him wandering about in the ‎field, and he asked him, saying: What seekest thou? And Joseph said unto the angel: I seek my ‎brethren, knowest thou where they are feeding? And the angel of the Lord replied unto ‎Joseph: I saw thy brothers feeding here, but I heard them say that they would go to feed in ‎Dothan. And Joseph listened to the voice of the angel and he went to Dothan unto his ‎brothers and he found them feeding the flock in Dothan. And Joseph advanced towards his ‎brothers, but ere he had reached them, they had concluded to kill him. And Simeon said unto ‎his brothers: Behold the dreamer cometh unto us to-day. And now come and let us kill him, ‎and cast him into some pit in the wilderness, and when our father will inquire for him, we will ‎say, some evil beast hath devoured him. And Reuben heard the words of his brothers ‎concerning Joseph, and he said unto them: Do not do such a thing, for how could we look up to ‎our father? Cast him into this pit, that he may die therein, but lay no hand upon him, to shed ‎his blood. And Reuben said this that he might rid him out of their hands and bring him back to ‎his father.‎

Musar

Reuven offered his own sons as a guarantee for Benjamin's safety, but Yaakov refused. The Midrash criticizes Reuven for referring to his sons as his own rather than as Yaakov's. This incident illustrates that everything spoken by man, except for matters related to fear of God, is determined by Heaven. Reuven's words were fulfilled in his descendants Dathan and Aviram, who suffered a similar fate. Despite Reuven's good intentions in saving Joseph, his actions led to negative consequences for his descendants. However, one descendant, On ben Peleth, was able to repent and return to God.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 12:4

(Ibid. 42:37): "And Reuven said to his father: 'You may kill my two sons if I do not bring him [Benjamin] back to you… (38): And he said: 'My son shall not go down with you.'" The Midrash relates that Yaakov said about him [Reuven]: "He is a foolish bechor [(first-born)]. Are they his sons and not my sons?" The words of Reuven must, indeed, be understood, but, essentially, this is the explanation: Whatever issues from a man's mouth [(aside from what relates to fear of the L-rd, which is a function of man's free will)] is brought about by Heaven. This is the thrust of Chazal's statement: "All is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven." And the Midrash tells us that this ejaculation of Reuven's [("You may kill my two sons, etc.")] was fulfilled in his sons, [i.e., descendants], Dathan and Aviram [(in the episode of Korach)]. And, in truth, he [Reuven] himself was the cause of this, by saying (Bereshith 27:32): "Cast him into this pit which is in the desert." The act was extremely evil, for which reason they [Dathan and Aviram] descended, living, to Sheol, to the midst of the pit. As to his intent, being good, as it is written (Bereshith, Ibid.): "in order to rescue him from their hands to return him to his father," he merited that one of his descendants, On ben Peleth, be saved, by returning in repentance to His Father in heaven (wherefore he was called "On," his being in aninuth ["mourning" (for his sin)] all of his life, as Chazal have stated.

Quoting Commentary

Reuben showed penitence by trying to save Joseph's life from his brothers' plot to kill him, suggesting they throw him into a pit instead of shedding his blood. This act of redemption was driven by Reuben's desire to return Joseph safely to their father, demonstrating his good intentions and willingness to act with a whole heart, even if there was no danger of damage.

Lessons in Leadership; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayeshev; The Power of Praise 9

When Reuben heard this, he tried to rescue him from their hands. “Let us not take his life,” he said. “Do not shed any blood. Throw him into this cistern here in the wilderness, but do not lay a hand on him.” Reuben said this to rescue him from them and take him back to his father. (Gen. 37:21–22)

Nachal Eshkol on Ruth 2:14:1

He handed her roasted grain… “Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: The verse comes to teach that if a person performs a mitzvah he should perform it wholeheartedly. Had Reuben known that the blessed Holy One was writing: “Reuben heard and rescued him (Joseph) from their hands,” (Gen. 37:21) he would have taken his brother to their father on his shoulder. Had Aaron known that the blessed Holy One was dictating in his regard: “Behold, he is coming out to meet you” (Exodus 4:14), Aaron would have emerged to meet Moses with drums and dancing. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over,” he would have fed her fattened calves.” (Ruth Rabbah 5:6) It is possible to explain this statement, by beginning with Rabbi Yaakov Hagiz’s, (Jacob Hagiz (1620–1674) was a Jewish Talmudist born of a Sephardi Jewish family at Fes, Morocco. Ḥagiz's teacher was David Karigal who afterward became his father-in-law. In about 1646, Ḥagiz went to Italy for the purpose of publishing his books, and remained there until after 1656, supporting himself by teaching. Samuel di Pam, rabbi at Livorno, calls himself a pupil of Ḥagiz. About 1657, Ḥagiz left Livorno for Jerusalem, where the Vega brothers of Livorno had founded a beit midrash for him and where he became a member of the rabbinical college. (Wikipedia)) explanation in Korban Mincha: (S. 115) “Israel heard. The sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” (The full verse states, “While Israel stayed in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine; and Israel found out. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” (JPS translation)) (Gen. 35:22) the sages state in a Midrash on Parshat V’Zot HaBerachah that Jacob had been given the Torah and in this way Reuben was saved because he was exempt for having had relations with his father’s concubine. This is what the verse states, “Israel heard,” that he had the status of an Israelite and therefore, “The sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” If the sons had the status of Noahides, then Reuben would have been put to death for this act and there would not have been twelve sons of Jacob. That is what is stated, “The heritage (morashah) of the congregation of Jacob,” (Deut. 33:4) There was already a heritage or a tradition of betrothal for Jacob and his children that marriage is only finalized through chuppah. (Therefore, the concubine was not judged as one of Jacob’s wives according to Jewish law.) “Then he became King in Jeshurun,” (Deut. 33:5) this refers to Moses who gather all the heads of the people (and officially taught them the laws), “Numerous people is the glory of a king,” (Prov. 14:28) This is the reason for the statement, “May Reuben live and not die,” (Deut. 35:6) Because Rebuen was judged as a Israelite, he did not die as a Noahide. This is the essence of his explanation in short. In my youth I wrote a treatise called Rosh David (P. 36) containing the opinion of Rabbi Chagiz, expressed in the introduction of Parashat Derachim. (A work containing twenty-six homiletic treatises on various subjects, by Rabbi Yehuda Rosanes. He (1657-1727) was a Rabbi of Constantinople. On account of his knowledge of Arabic and Turkish he was appointed by the government as chief rabbi of the Ottoman empire. He took a very active part in condemning and denouncing the Shabbethaians, and was one of the signers of an appeal to the German communities to oppose the movement. This work and others were edited & published by his devoted pupil Rabbi Yaakov Culi, author of Meam Loez. (https://seforimcenter.com)) I explained all of these verses there but I never found the Midrash on V’Zot HaBerachah that Rabbi Hagiz mentions. However, what was written on, “The heritage of the congregation of Jacob,” was explained there. And according to this one can explain, “O offspring of Israel, His servant;” (offspring of Israel, His servant, O descendants of Jacob, His chosen ones.) (I Chron. 16:13) Israel - our forefather Jacob - received Torah and passed it onto his children so that Reuben was not guilty of sin and there would still be the 12 sons of Jacob. Some have written in homilies that Joseph the righteous assumed that they had the status of Noahides as the author of Parashat Derachim and others wrote. If this were so then Reuben would have been deserving of he death penalty (God Forbid!). While it was Reuben’s righteous intention to save Joseph, he didn’t try hard enough, because he was afraid that he would find out that the law was according to Joseph and that they had the status of a Noahides. If he saved Joseph he might have brought evil upon himself. If he had known, however, that God would write that he would save Joseph from the brothers, in other words, similar to what the Torah states, “He tried to save him from them,” (Gen 37:21) and also, “Intending to save him from them in order to return him to his father.” (Gen. 37:22) (he might have acted differently.) His only intention was to bring Joseph back. This is what the Holy One wrote about him and it proves that he had the status of an Israelite for whom good intentions are joined to actions. (See BT Kiddushin 40a: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, links a good thought to an action, as it is stated: “Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with the other, and the Lord listened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that fear the Lord, and that think upon His name” (Mal. 3:16). The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase “and that think upon His name”? Rav Asi said: Even if a person intended to perform a mitzvah but due to circumstances beyond his control he did not perform it, the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed the mitzvah, as he is among those that think upon His name.” This however only applies to Jews and not non-Jews.) If, however, Reuven was considered a Noahide, then good intentions would not be joined to his actions. Since the blessed Holy One wrote that he had the status of Israelites, he had no fear that they would say that he had the status of a Noahide as Joseph claimed, and that he was guilty (of having relations with his father’s concubine). Then he would have carried Joseph on his shoulders back to Jacob even though Joseph thought the law was different. Still, Reuben saved him because he knew that one who saves an Israelite is as if he saved the whole world. And that is why one who performs a commandment should do so with a whole heart and not worry about suspicions or other matters. And we have heard about Reuben with whom damage would have resulted had he acted on his thoughts when they (the brothers) sold Joseph resulting in a step between him and death, and all the other events that would have come to pass. One might conclude that Reuben should have acted on his good intentions and not worried about those who disagreed. But what if one’s action will not lead to such damages; should one worry about “the scorn of the complacent?” (Ps. 123:4) The Midrash brings proof to show that a person should still perform mitzvot with a wholeheart even if there is no danger of damage as in the case of Aaron. It is possible that Aaron thought that Israelites were considered Noahides when he saw what his father, Amram, did. Amram was one of the righteous people of his generation. He was one of four who died due to Adam’s sin with the serpent (and not because of his own sin). (BT Shabbat 55b) He married his own aunt, Yocheved. According to Targum Yonatan when he divorced her she married Elitzafan ben Parnach but in the end, he remarried her and they gave birth to Moses. All of these acts would later be forbidden by Torah law. As a result, Aaron concluded that the Israelites had the status of Noahides until they received the Torah. Amram could take his aunt as a wife, divorce her and then take her back as a wife because the Torah had not yet been given. However, in order not to cause the scorn of the masses, Aaron didn’t want to go out to meet his brother with “drums and dance” which would have given the people an excuse to talk about his family or Moses. That is why he went out to greet Moses privately. Even though there was no danger or suffering involved in this matter, he thought that it was better to worry about scorn of the people. Thus we learn that even in this situation, it is better to perform the commandment with a full heart... If Aaron had known that God would write, “he (Aaron) will be happy in his heart to see you.” (Ex. 4:14) he would have known that they had the status of Israelites and his analysis was incorrect. Amram had acted according to the word of God, as the Zohar comments on the verse, “A man from the house of Levi…” (Ex. 2:1), then Aaron would have gone forth with timbrels and dancing (when meeting his brother), to fulfill the commandment properly. Further we also learn this lesson from Boaz. It occurred to Boaz and he saw through the Holy Spirit that he would marry Ruth. Further Ruth said, “Why are you so kind as to single me out, when I am a foreigner?” (Ruth 2:10) The sages comment, “To single me out,” in the way of all the earth. Boaz only gave her a little grain because he was fearful that people would say that he didn’t do so for the sake of a commandment but rather out of desire for her and in order to marry her. If Boaz had known that God would write about him, “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate her fill and had some left over,” so that it appeared as of he gave her a extra in order to satisfy her hunger, when in fact he gave her just a little bit but it was blessed, as the sage explain. But the blessed Holy One wrote that he gave her enough for her satisfaction. But if he really valued the mitzvah he would have given her fatted chickens! Further it states the details; it states that he said to her”“Come over here and partake of the meal, and dip your morsel in the vinegar.” and afterwards it states that he gave her roasted grains, all as part of a single commandment to feed her. Had Boaz known how important this mitzvah was, he would have fed her fatted chickens.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 49:5:2

A Midrashic approach to this verse (Bereshit Rabbah 99,7) “Shimon and Levi are brothers when it comes to taking revenge for the rape of Dinah, but when it came to their behaviour vis-a-vis Joseph they certainly did not act as brothers.” By using the word מכרותיהם, Yaakov alluded to the sale of Joseph i.e. מכירה. We should remember that the four brothers Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehudah were the senior brothers. Seeing that the Torah reported that both Reuven and Yehudah considered the sale of Joseph as inappropriate (compare 37,22 and 37,26), this leaves Shimon and Levi as the ones who must have suggested that Joseph be sold. This explains why when the brothers went to Egypt, Joseph detained only Shimon.

Rashi on Genesis 49:5:1

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9).

Redeeming Relevance; Genesis 6:14

(Bereshit 37:21–22, 24)

Tribal Lands, Chapter 1; Reuven 24

Penitence and Redemption Where was evidence of Reuben’s conscience-stricken spirit? Witness Reuben’s eagerness to save his brother Joseph’s life. Years after Reuben’s sin (we cannot say exactly when), Joseph, favorite son of Jacob, dreamed of the future. He fashioned himself as head of the brothers, envisioning his role as central and superior within the family hierarchy – even his parents would be subject to his leadership. Joseph shared his dreams with his family, perhaps in the naiveté of youth, perhaps to provoke, and the brothers banded against him. Whipped into jealous frenzy, the brothers conspired to kill Joseph as they saw him approaching from afar. Reuben, whose role Joseph threatened directly and whom we therefore would expect to see heading this cabal, instead jumped to intercede: “Let us not take his life!…Do not shed his blood, rather cast him into this pit in the wilderness, but do not touch him yourselves” (Genesis 37:21–22).

Talmud

Abraham built a walled city for his sons with precious stones for future use as luminaries, Og was huge and built sixty cities, Jacob tested his sons with stones and Joseph's stone stood up, Rebekah was miraculously saved from defilement, and Dinah bore Asenath at six years old before being taken by Michael to Potiphar's house.

Tractate Soferim 21:9

(From this point to the end of the tractate is an aggadic addendum.) The greatest man among the Anakim (Josh. 14, 15.) —among the Anakim refers to our father Abraham whose height was equal to that of seventy-four men; his eating and drinking were of a similar proportion, equal to those of seventy-four men; so too his strength. What did he do? (This is probably a reference to Gen. 25, 6, But unto the sons of the concubines … Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away … eastward, unto the east country.) He removed the sixteen (So GRA in accordance with Gen. 25, 2-4. V, M and H incorrectly ‘seventeen’.) sons of Keturah, built for them a walled city of iron and settled them in it. The sun never penetrated into it because it was exceedingly high, so Abraham handed to them disks of precious stones and pearls of which use will be made (So GRA. V, M and H read, ‘and they will be used’.) in the hereafter when the Holy One, blessed be He, will cause the sun and moon to be confounded, as it is written, When the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, (Is. 24, 23.) because use will be made of these [disks as luminaries]. Og (King of Bashan; Deut. 3, 11.) is identical with Eliezer, (Abraham’s servant; cf. Gen. 15, 2, XXIV, 2ff.) and [he was so huge that] he could hide Abraham’s feet in the palm of his hand. Once he was rebuked [by Abraham] and from fright his tooth fell out. Abraham picked it up and made ivory beds of it in which he slept. Others say that he made of it a chair which he used (lit. ‘and sat in it’.) all his life. Who gave him to Abraham? Nimrod. (Mentioned in Gen. 10, 8ff.) Og went and built sixty cities, the smallest of which was sixty miles high, as it is stated, Threescore cities, all the region of Argob. (Deut. 3, 4.) And what did he eat? A thousand oxen and the same [number of] other animals, and his drink consisted of a thousand measures. A (So GRA. V, M and H read ‘and what was the’.) drop of his semen weighed thirty-six pounds. (V and H add ‘and so for all generations’, which makes no sense.) It was taught: What did our father Jacob do when his sons brought him the coat [stained] with blood? (Cf. Gen. 37, 31ff.) He did not believe them at all. Whence do we infer this? For it is written, But he refused to be comforted, (ibid. 35.) because no consolations are acceptable for a living person. One, however, who is dead passes naturally from the mind, (lit. ‘he is forgotten from the heart of his own accord’.) as it is stated, I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind. (Ps. 31, 13.) What then did he do? He proceeded to make a test with sheaves, (GRA transposes the order of V, M and H by putting the test of the sheaves before that of the stones, and omits ‘according to the first opinion’.) writing upon them the respective names of the tribes, their constellations and the months, and said to them, ‘I order you to prostrate yourselves before Levi because he wears the Urim and Thummim’, (Cf. Ex. 28, 30.) but they did not stand up. ‘Before Judah who is king’, but they did not stand up; but when he mentioned Joseph to them, they all stood up and bowed before Joseph. But it was not yet quite clear that he was alive. So Jacob went to the mountains, hewed twelve stones, arranged them in a row, and wrote on each the name of its tribe, the name of its constellation and the name of its month. On one stone he wrote ‘Reuben, lamb, Nisan’ (The name of the tribe, constellation and month.) and similarly on every stone. He began from Simeon and said to them, ‘I order you to stand up for Reuben’, but they did not stand up. ‘For Simeon’, but they did not stand up. ‘For every tribe’, but the stones did not stand up. As soon, however, as he mentioned the name of Joseph to them, they stood up at once and bowed before Joseph’s stone. (The translation follows the text of GRA.) For this reason, all the tribes were written on Joseph’s stone. Similarly, all Israel are called by Joseph’s name, as it is stated, Thou that leadest Joseph like a flock. (Ps. 80, 2 where Joseph is a synonym of all Israel.) So also all the heads of the families of the priests and Levites, [e.g.] Eliashib, (Neh. 3, 1.) because of the phrase lahashibo ’el ’abiw; (In the story of Joseph (Gen. 37, 22), E.V. to restore him to his father. The name Eliashib is broken up in three parts corresponding in sound and meaning to these three Heb. words. From ‘For this reason’ to ’abiw is the reading of GRA. V and H have instead: ‘but from the mishmaroth, Eliashib the priest’.) Elḳanah, (Connected with ḳanah, ‘he bought’.) because Potiphar had bought him [as it is stated,] And Joseph ms brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar … bought him. (Gen. 39, 1. V inserts in parentheses, And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Ẓaphenath, paneah, etc. (ibid. XLI, 45), which has no relevance to the subject.) When Rebekah left her father’s house (Cf. ibid. XXIV, 59ff.) she was three years old, (V, M and H add ‘and three days’.) because it is customary among kings, when a daughter is born to them, to hear of it after three days; (H reads ‘after three years and three days’.) but as her father did not hear [of her birth] he did not defile her up to that time; and now a miracle happened to her in that her father died so that he should not defile her, as it is written, Neither had any man known her, (Gen. 24, 16.) and by man only her father could be meant, (From ‘he did not’ to ‘meant’ is GRA’s reading. V, M and H read: ‘therefore a miracle happened to her that she should not be defiled’.) for such was the practice of the Arameans to lie with their virgin daughters after they were three years of age, (‘After … age’ is inserted by GRA; omitted in V, M and H.) and then to give them away in marriage. (V, M and H add: ‘on account of that which is written, Neither had any man known her, and by man only her father could be meant’.) Dinah was six years old when she bore Asenath from [her association with] Shechem, (Cf. Gen. 34.) corresponding to (lit. ‘the number of’.) the six years which Jacob served Laban in payment for the flock, (ibid. XXXI, 41.) thus completing (lit. ‘until’.) the twenty years of his service. [The Archangel] Michael then descended and took her away to the house of Potiphar. From here onward let the man of understanding increase knowledge. (From ‘completing the twenty years’ to ‘knowledge’ is GRA’s text. V and M have instead: ‘and he added twenty years, because he died. From this point onwards let the man of understanding increase knowledge. And Michael descended and led her to Potiphar’s house’.)

Targum

Reuben suggested throwing Joseph into a pit to save him from being killed by his brothers, with the intention of eventually returning him to their father (Onkelos Genesis 37:22, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:22).

Onkelos Genesis 37:22

Reuvein said to them, Do not commit bloodshed. Throw him into this pit which is in the wilderness, and do not lay a hand on him. His purpose was to rescue him from their hands, to bring him back to his father.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:22

And Reuben said, Let us not shed innocent blood. Throw him into this pit in the wilderness, but the hand of the slayer stretch not forth against him; because he would deliver him from their hand, and restore him to his father.

וַֽיְהִ֕י כַּֽאֲשֶׁר־בָּ֥א יוֹסֵ֖ף אֶל־אֶחָ֑יו וַיַּפְשִׁ֤יטוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ אֶת־כֻּתׇּנְתּ֔וֹ אֶת־כְּתֹ֥נֶת הַפַּסִּ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָלָֽיו׃ 23 J When Joseph came up to his brothers, they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the ornamented tunic that he was wearing,
Ibn Ezra and Rashbam explain the stripping of Joseph by his brothers, with Or HaChaim and Tur HaArokh providing additional details. Siftei Chakhamim and Chizkuni highlight the striped coat as the main cause of jealousy. The Midrash Tanchuma and Bereshit Rabbah draw parallels between Joseph and Zion, while Aggadat Bereshit emphasizes similarities in their experiences. Ramban discusses the word "asher" in Leviticus 4:22, Yosef's struggle over his tunic in Genesis 37:23, and Rashi on Ecclesiastes 8:16. Targum Jonathan and Onkelos describe how Joseph's brothers stripped him of his colorful coat upon his arrival.

Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains that the brothers caused Joseph to strip by taking off his coat and garment worn next to the skin, while Rashbam suggests that the mention of Joseph's tunic was to deceive their father. Or HaChaim clarifies that Joseph was stripped of both his shirt and outer garment, while Tur HaArokh believes that Joseph wore only one garment. Siftei Chakhamim and Chizkuni emphasize that the striped coat was the main cause of jealousy and hatred among the brothers.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:23:1

את כתונת הפסים, “the striped coat;” because it had been the garment which had caused all the hatred and jealousy.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:23:1

THAT THEY STRIPPED. Va-yafshitu (that they stripped) (Va-yafshitu is a hifil. Hifil is the causative form. Hence I.E. renders it: and they caused him to strip (Krinsky, Weiser and Cherez). For an alternate interpretation see Filwarg.) is a causative. They told him to take the coat off by himself. (Hence they caused him to strip.) Ketonet (coat) in Hebrew refers to a garment worn next to the skin. The brothers thus stripped Joseph of his garments and threw him naked into the pit. (According to Cherez, I.E. interprets the verse as follows: that they stripped Joseph of his coat (ketonet), i.e., of the garment worn next to the skin, and also of the coat of many colors. Joseph was thus left standing naked (Cherez). Cf. Rashi. However, Cherez’s interpretation seems forced. It appears that I.E. identified the ketonet passim with the garment worn next to the skin.)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:23:1

ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, They stripped Joseph of his tunic, etc. According to the plain meaning of the verse the word כתנתו refers to his shirt, whereas the additional words את כתנת הפסים refer to his outer garment, the one his father had made for him. In order to understand the verse thoroughly we have to know why the Torah did not write ואת כתנת הפסים, "and the striped coat."

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:23:2

The Torah wanted us to understand that the brothers did not want to strip Joseph naked. Their main concern was to remove the striped coat which had aroused their jealousy. The Torah tells us that when they began to strip the striped coat off him they were so angry at him that they inadvertently also removed his shirt at the same time. The Torah describes that Joseph was left naked by writing ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, "they stripped him naked by unintentionally removing his shirt with his striped coat."

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:23:3

The Torah adds אשר עליו, "which he wore on top," to further underline that the striped coat was an outer garment. In spite of this, in their frenzy they removed all his garments.

Radak on Genesis 37:23:1

ויהי..את כתנת הפסים, the letter ה at the beginning of the word הפסים, referring to a specific garment, is justified seeing that we had previously been told את כתנתו, “his tunic,” i.e. the same tunic.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:23:1

את כתונת הפסים, the only reason why these words have been inserted here is to remind the reader of what had been the cause of the entire tragic episode of fraternal hatred. However, if the Torah had not added these words, we would have been misled. The fact that the Torah describes the brothers sending the blood-spattered tattered remains of this tunic to their father (verse 33) was designed to deceive their father into believing that what happened to Joseph had nothing to do with his father having had this garment made for him and the brothers having resented this. The Torah does not want us, the readers, to be misled as the brothers had succeeded in misleading their father into thinking that he had become the victim of a wild animal.

Rashi on Genesis 37:23:1

את כתנתו HIS GARMENT — this means his shirt.

Rashi on Genesis 37:23:2

את כתנת הפסים THE LONG SLEEVED GARMENT — this was the garment that his father had given him additional to those of his brothers (Genesis Rabbah 84:16).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:23:1

Das ויקחהו steht erst nach dem Ausziehen des Rockes. Er hat überhaupt keinen Widerstand geleistet. Nur durch Bitten suchte er sie zu erweichen, wie wir aus Kap. 42, 21 wissen.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:23:1

This is an additional one that his father gave him in excess of what was given to the brothers. Re’m explains that it is all one garment. He was wearing only one כתונת, which was of פסים, and the verse reads as follows: “They stripped him of his כתונת.” Which כתונת? “The פסים כתונת that he had on.” It cannot mean that he wore two כתונות, one top of the other, because only the garment touching the skin is called כתונת. But Maharshal writes: It seems to me not so. Rather, he had on two כתונות, one on top of the other. The first was on his skin, so that sweat should not ruin the כתונת of פסים. They stripped off both garments at once by grasping the bottom one and removing both. That is why it says אשר עליו (“that was on it”), referring to the other garment on which the פסים כתונת was on top of. The reason they grasped the bottom one was to show him that they were not doing this because his father gave him an additional כתונת of פסים. Rather, it was because of his bad reports and his dreams [that he told his father].

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:23

It was when Joseph came to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the fine tunic that was upon him.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:23:1

ויפשיטו את יוסף את כותנתו, “They stripped Joseph of his tunic.” Rashi explains the word כתונת as “shirt,” an undergarment. This is a difficult explanation, as the question is how they could remove an undergarment before removing his outer garment first, the famous striped coat. The answer usually given to this question is that it is normal for someone robbing someone else of his clothing to pull all his garments off him in one motion, and to then turn these garments inside out, beginning to separate them, so that the undergarment is separated first. Alternately, travelers have a habit of covering their outer garments with their undergarments as a form of protection for them while they are on the journey encountering obstacles that might damage the costly outer garments. Personally, I believe that the Torah speaks of only one garment, describing his fancy outer garment as also his undergarment, and the fact that he wore it visibly when planning to visit his brothers inflamed their hatred even more.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 35

“They stripped Joseph” [37:23]. The brothers pulled off Joseph’s silk shirt.

Midrash

The Midrash Tanchuma compares the experiences of Joseph and Zion, showing parallels in their love, hatred, jealousy, stripping, casting into pits, and more. The Bereshit Rabbah discusses how Joseph's sale to Egypt was a way for Israel to descend to Egypt willingly. Aggadat Bereshit highlights the similarities between Joseph and Zion, noting how both were loved, hated, stripped, cast into pits, and sold, among other parallels.

Aggadat Bereshit 61:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:16

“It was when Joseph came to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the fine tunic that was upon him” (Genesis 37:23). “It was when Joseph came to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his tunic” – Rabbi Elazar said: He came with praise. (Joseph came with praise for his brothers, i.e., in a conciliatory state of mind, as implied in the verse: “Joseph came to his brothers.”) “They stripped Joseph” – this is the cloak. “Of his tunic” – this is his shirt. “The fine tunic” – this is the tunic. “That was upon him” – this is his undergarment. “They took him [vayikaḥuhu] and cast him into the pit, and the pit was empty; there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24). “They took him [vayikaḥuhu]” – it is written “he took him [vayikaḥehu].” Who was it? It was Simeon. When did [Joseph] repay him? It was later: “He took Simeon from them [and incarcerated him before their eyes]” (Genesis 42:24). “And cast him into the pit, and the pit was empty; there was no water in it” – there was no water in it, but there were serpents and scorpions in it. There were two pits, (This is based on the fact that the verse mentions “the pit” twice. ) one filled with stones and one filled with fiery snakes and scorpions. Rav Aḥa said: “The pit was empty” – Jacob’s pit was emptied. (This is a reference to Jacob’s sons. ) “There was no water in it” – there were in it no matters of Torah, which are likened to water, just as it says: “Ho, everyone thirsty, go to water” (Isaiah 55:1). It is written: “If a man is found abducting any of his brethren…[and he sold him, that thief shall die]” (Deuteronomy 24:7), and you are selling your brother?

Bereshit Rabbah 84:17

“They sat to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balm, and ladanum, going to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). “They sat to eat bread” – Rabbi Aḥva bar Ze’eira said: The transgression of the tribes is remembered forever; it gave hope to the world. “They sat to eat bread” – he gave everyone in the world bread to eat. (The sale of Joseph led to his appointment to viceroy in Egypt and to his role as dispenser of food during the famine.) “And they lifted their eyes and saw…” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: But is it not typical of the Ishmaelites to bear only hides and tar? Rather, see what the Holy One blessed be He prepared for that righteous one at that moment: Sacks filled with spices, so that the wind would blow through them [and provide a pleasant smell] to counteract the odor of the Arabs. (Because the Ishmaelites generally transported foul-smelling substances, they and their equipment had an unpleasant odor. God arranged for the caravan carrying Joseph to Egypt to have pleasant-smelling spices in order to mask the foul, unpleasant odor. ) “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood” (Genesis 37:26). “Judah said to his brothers…” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: The verse is speaking in praise of Judah. In three places, Judah spoke before his brothers and they crowned him king over them. (They accepted his advice or his leadership. ) “Judah said to his brothers”; “Judah and his brothers came [.…And Judah said]” (Genesis 44:14); (This was after Benjamin was caught with Joseph’s goblet; Judah led the brothers in their return to Joseph and spoke as their representative.) “Judah approached him [and said]” (Genesis 44:18). (This was after Joseph informed them that Benjamin would be his slave. Judah again spoke on behalf of the brothers, argued for Benjamin’s release, and offered to take Benjamin’s place as a slave. ) “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers heeded him” (Genesis 37:27). “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” – they said: Let us adopt the way of the world. Canaan, who sinned, (Canaan reported Noah’s nakedness to Noah’s sons (see Bereshit Rabba 36:7). ) was he not cursed to be a slave? This one, too, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites. (Joseph had slandered his brothers (Genesis 37:2; see above, section 7). Therefore, they considered him worthy of a similar fate to that of Canaan. ) “His brothers heeded him.”

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 7:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 44:18): When Judah saw that Joseph was not appeased, he began saying to his brothers: [Why] are we standing around? We will begin with this one and wind up with Pharaoh! Now they did not know that Joseph understood their language, as stated (in Gen. 42:23): NOW THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT JOSEPH UNDERSTOOD. When Joseph saw that, he began to talk to them with supplications and with gentle language. He said to them: About this Benjamin, I want only to know who < it was that > advised him to steal the goblet. Did you perhaps advise him to steal the goblet? When Benjamin heard that, he said: They did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. He said to them: Swear to me. He began to swear to him. By what did he swear to him? By the separation of my brother Joseph from me, (This clause may also be translated as follows: “By the scriptural section on the separation of my brother Joseph from me (in Gen. 37:18-36).”) I did not touch it. Now < I swear > neither by the launching of arrows which were sent against him, as stated (in Gen. 49:23): ARCHERS HAVE HATED HIM (Joseph); nor by the stripping with which they stripped him, as stated (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH OF HIS TUNIC; nor by the throwing with which they threw him into the cistern, as stated (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; nor by the selling with which they sold him to the Ishmaelites (in vs. 28); nor by the dipping with which they dipped his tunic in the blood (in vs. 31). < By none of these do I swear > that they did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. Joseph said: Who will make known to me that you are swearing truthfully about your brothers? He said to him: You can know how much I love him from the names of my sons, since I set names for them on the basis of what I feared for < each one >. (Sot. 36b (bar); Gen. R. 93:7; Tanh., Gen. 11:40.) He said to him: And what were the names of your sons? He said to him (in agreement with Gen. 46:21): BELA, BECHER, ASHBEL, GERA, NAAMAN, EHI, ROSH, MUPPIM, HUPPIM, AND ARD. He said to him: Why Bela (BL')? He said to him: Because my brother was swallowed up (rt.: BL') from me. Becher (BKR)? Because he was my mother's first-born (rt.: BKR). Ashbel ('ShBL)? Because my brother was captured (NShBH). Gera? Because my brother was a sojourner (ger) with < merely > the privileges of a transient. (Gk.: xenia, i.e., “rights of a foreigner” or “guest privileges.”) Naaman (N'M)? Because his words were pleasing (N'M). Ehi ('HY)? Because he was my brother ('HY) from < the same > mother, and I had none but him. Rosh (which means "head")? Because he was older than I. Muppim (MPYM)? Because he learned Torah from our father's mouth (MPY) and taught it to me. When all his brothers would return to shepherding, he would sit with my father and learn the traditions which he had received from Shem and Eber. Huppim (rt.: HPP)? Because he has been covered over (rt.: HPP) until this day. Another interpretation of Huppim: Because I did not see his wedding canopy (huppah) nor did he see my wedding canopy. Another interpretation of Huppim (rt.: HPP): Because until now I have been mourning over him and going barefoot (rt.: YHP). And Ard ('RD)? Because he brought (rt.: YRD) all of us down here. Another interpretation of ARD (from Gen. 37:35): NO, I WILL GO DOWN ('RD) MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. Will you please not bring down ('RD) Daddy to Sheol through grief! And so Judah said (in Gen. 44:34): FOR HOW SHALL I GO UP UNTO MY FATHER < IF THE LAD IS NOT WITH ME >? When Joseph heard that, he was not able to suppress his compassion, as stated (in Gen. 45:1-3): JOSEPH COULD NOT RESTRAIN HIMSELF…. AND HE WEPT ALOUD…. THEN JOSEPH SAID UNTO HIS BROTHERS: I AM JOSEPH. When he said to them: I AM {YOUR BROTHER JOSEPH} … (in vs. 3, cont.): HIS BROTHERS COULD NOT ANSWER HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE DISMAYED BECAUSE OF HIM. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said in the name of R. Eleazar ben Azariah: (Gen. R. 93:11.) Now, if in the case of Joseph, when he said to his brothers: I am Joseph, they knew what they had done with him and were unable to answer him; how much the less will a creature be able to stand when the Holy One comes to dispute with each and every one of < his > creatures and to tell him his deeds, just as it is written (in Amos 4:13): FOR BEHOLD, THE ONE WHO FORMS THE MOUNTAINS, < CREATES THE WIND, AND TELLS ONE WHAT HIS THOUGHT IS > … !

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that the word "asher" in Leviticus 4:22 can indicate time or reason, and the verse emphasizes the importance of a prince acknowledging his sin. Yosef's struggle over his tunic in Genesis 37:23 symbolizes his essence being violated, and Rashi on Ecclesiastes 8:16 clarifies that "k'asher" can denote time rather than example.

Ramban on Leviticus 4:22:1

ASHER’ A PRINCE SINNETH. “The word asher is [here] derived from the expression ashrei (happy). Happy is the generation whose prince brings an offering for atonement [even] for his error. (Our Rashi adds: “How much the more certain is it that he will do penance for any sin he committed wilfully.”) [Torath Kohanim]. (Torath Kohanim, Vayikra Chobah 5:1.) 23. ‘O’ HIS SIN BE KNOWN TO HIM — ‘if’ his sin be known to him. There are many verses where the word o (or) is used in the sense of im (if), and conversely where im is used in the sense of o. Similarly, ‘o’ it be known that the ox was wont to gore (Exodus 21:36.) [means ‘if’ it be known, and the word o which ordinarily means ‘or’ is here used in the sense of ‘im,’ meaning ‘if’].” Thus the language of Rashi. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “The sense of asher nasi yechta is as if the expression were inverted, making it read: asher yechta nasi (if ‘he who sins is the prince’), and it is connected with [the section] above, And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err. (Verse 13.) It is thus as if He had stated here: ‘and if he who sins is the prince [and he knows it of himself], or his sin be made known to him by others.’ Scripture, however, adopts a short form of expression, [omitting to state ‘that he knows the sin himself,’ or that it was made known to him ‘through others’], but the meaning is that either it becomes known to the prince by himself that he sinned, ‘o hoda eilav’ (or it be made known to him) — i.e., that another man who saw him doing it informed him of it. The grammatical form of hoda is then a past causative [like hodi’a — a man ‘informed’ him], this being similar to ‘v’heitzar lecha’ (Deuteronomy 28:25.) [the meaning of which is as if it said ‘v’heitzir lecha’ in the causative, i.e., and he will besiege thee]. The subject, however, is missing [for it should have said here, or ‘another man’ inform him, and there it should have stated, and ‘the enemy’ will besiege thee], just as ‘asher’ bore her to Levi” (Numbers 26:59.) [which should have read ‘asher ishto’ (whose wife) bore her to Levi]. [All these are the words of Ibn Ezra.]. But there is no need for all this, since the uses of the word asher are many. In some cases it indicates time, such as: ‘ka’asher’ (when) Joseph came unto his brethren; (Genesis 37:23.) ‘ka’asher’ (when) they had eaten up the corn, (Ibid., 43:2.) and the like. Similarly, here too [asher is like ka’asher and indicates time]: ‘when’ a prince sinneth, with the kaf of cognizance [which would make it ka’asher — “when”] missing. So also, The blessing, ‘asher’ ye shall hearken unto the commandments of the Eternal, (Deuteronomy 11:27.) means ‘ka’asher’ (when) ye shall hearken. ‘Asher’ ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more, (Exodus 14:13.) means ‘ka’asher’ (when) ye have seen them [today ye shall see them no more]. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread ‘asher’ I commanded thee, (Ibid., 34:18.) means ‘ka’asher’ (when) I commanded thee. At times this word [asher] is missing [not a kaf but] a beth. Thus: And also Maacah his mother he [King Asa of Judah] removed from being queen, ‘asher’ she made an abominable image for an Asherah (I Kings 15:13.) means ‘ba’asher’ she made an abominable image for an Asherah, which denotes “because,” just like, ‘ba’asher’ (because) thou art his wife. (Genesis 39:9.) The expression o hoda eilav [is thus not a causative, as Ibn Ezra would have it, which would make it to mean “or that it was made known to him by another person;” rather, it] refers to the guilt, stating that when a person will do any one of all the things which the Eternal his G-d hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty, (Verse 22 here.) and deserving of punishment, or it be known to him and he will achieve atonement by means of an offering. The sense of the verse is thus: “he will either be guilty [and deserving of punishment], or bring an offering and he will be forgiven.” The reason for the expression: the Eternal his G-d, is to state that even though he is the king, and the lord upon whom there is no fear of mortal man, he is yet to fear the Eternal his G-d, for it is He who is the Lord of lords. (Deuteronomy 10:17.) Similarly, that he (the king) may learn to fear the Eternal his G-d, (Ibid., 17:19.) means that the king is to take to heart [the knowledge] that there is a Supreme One above him, Who is his G-d and in Whose power is his life and kingdom.

Rashi on Ecclesiastes 8:16:1

When I applied my heart. This “כַּאֲשֶׁר” is not used as an expression of an example, as in, “as כַּאֲשֶׁר he did, so shall it be done,” (Vayikra 24:19. ) rather it is an expression of time, as in, “When כַּאֲשֶׁר Yoseif came,” (Bereishis 37:23. ) [and as in,] “when כַּאֲשֶׁר they finished eating, etc.” (Ibid. 43:2. ) This too is so, When כַּאֲשֶׁר I applied my heart “to know, to explore, etc.,” (Above 7:25. ) then, “I saw all the works of God.”

Redeeming Relevance; Exodus, CHAPTER 6 Clothing Aharon 49

Most significant for us in the Yosef story’s opening scene is that he has his clothes taken off by others (Bereshit 37:23). (Bereshit 37:23.) In contrast to his future encounters with clothing as well as in clear contrast to Tamar, Yosef appears unready to take them off himself. Not only that; according to several commentators, the choice of words here indicates that the struggle with Yosef over his tunic was so intense that it required his brothers to rip off all of his other clothes as well. (Op. cit. note 215.) In this way, Yosef was telling his brothers that separating him from his clothing was unthinkable and that the attempt to do so was, in actual fact, tantamount to violating his very essence.

Targum

When Joseph arrived, his brothers stripped him of his colorful coat. (Onkelos Genesis 37:23, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:23)

Onkelos Genesis 37:23

When Yoseif came to his brothers, they stripped him of his coat, the long, colorful coat that he had on.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:23

And when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his garment, the figured garment that was on him,

וַיִּ֨קָּחֻ֔הוּ וַיַּשְׁלִ֥כוּ אֹת֖וֹ הַבֹּ֑רָה וְהַבּ֣וֹר רֵ֔ק אֵ֥ין בּ֖וֹ מָֽיִם׃ 24 E and took him and cast him into the pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it.
The Mishnah in Avot emphasizes man's ability to choose to serve God and achieve righteousness, contrasting with those who choose a path away from God. The rejection of Yosef's leadership by his brothers led to his descent for future elevation. The pit Joseph was thrown into lacked water, protecting him from drowning and highlighting potential dangers. Those who do not involve themselves with Torah will face punishment in Gehinnom. The pit symbolizes fear and emptiness in Kabbalah, representing the lack of fear of God and the fourth exile. Joseph's story parallels Zion's hardships, symbolizing the lack of Torah. Abraham's kindness allowed him to enter the domain of love, contrasting with Adam's sin of consuming grapes. The word "הרקות" in Genesis 41:27:2 refers to the pit lacking water. Psalms 30:4 expresses gratitude for being saved from Sheol and the Pit. Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan describe Joseph being thrown into an empty pit with no water, potentially containing dangerous creatures.

Chasidut

The Mishnah in Avot emphasizes that man has the ability to choose to serve the Creator, adding to God's glory by following His commandments, establishing a connection to Him and achieving righteousness. Conversely, those who choose a path that leads them away from God are considered "dead" even while alive. The Sefat Emet commentary on Genesis highlights the rejection of Yosef's leadership by his brothers, leading to his descent for the sake of future elevation, as God tests and elevates individuals only after testing them. The Tzava'at HaRivash commentary on Mishnah Avot discusses the importance of doing mitzvot in a humble and hidden manner, rather than for the sake of receiving honor from others.

Kedushat Levi, Numbers, Sh'lach 16

This is the true meaning of what the Mishnah in ‎‎Avot 6,11 tells us when the author states that everything ‎the Lord has created has as its objective the enhancing of His ‎glory. Maimonides in the Moreh Nevuchim when explaining ‎the line in our prayers about G’d being ‎יוצר אור ובורא חושך‎, ‎‎“fashioning light, while having created the element of darkness,” ‎explains the word ‎ברא‎, as related to the word ‎בור‎, as in Genesis ‎‎37,24 ‎והבור רק אין בו מים‎, “the pit was empty and did not contain ‎any water;” in other words, by withdrawing light there remains ‎darkness. This “darkness” would be what is left from the original ‎chaos, ‎תהו ובוהו‎, of which the Torah speaks in the first verse of ‎Genesis prior to G’d creating light. In spite of this ‎commentary by Maimonides, what the Mishnah meant refers ‎only to the creatures. i.e. man, to whom G’d had given ‎בחירה‎, the ‎ability to make their own decisions as to whether they would live ‎their lives in accordance with the wishes of the Creator or not. ‎When man rises above the temptations offered in this world and ‎chooses to serve his Creator this adds to G’d’s glory. We know that by carrying out G’d’s will as expressed by the ‎commandments He gave us in the Torah, we establish a “lifeline” ‎to Him, and as the Talmud says in B’rachot 18, the ‎righteous are considered as “great,” because they are called ‎‎“alive” even after their bodies have already been interred. The ‎same is not true for the wicked, who our sages describe as “dead” ‎even while still walking around on earth. The wicked, by choosing ‎a path which eventually results in their forfeiting their afterlife, ‎have already identified themselves with “death,” even while ‎onlookers do not yet realize this. [We hardly need any ‎proof for his after reminding ourselves that Esau declined the ‎benefits of birthright for precisely this consideration (Genesis ‎‎25,32). Ed.]‎

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 12:4

"And they took him and threw him into a pit" (Bereishis 37:24). The phrase "and they took him" might seem redundant. It signifies their attempt to assume Yosef's role, as indicated by "they sat and ate bread." Though Yosef is the provider, they rejected his leadership and took his place. Yosef was destined to reach a higher level, but the brothers retained their positions, with Binyamin filling Yosef's role, as noted in the Zohar. The brothers couldn't sustain Yosef's elevated level, leading them to bring negative reports about him to their father. Yosef's severe testing was necessary, as Hashem elevates a person only after testing them. His apparent descent was actually for future elevation—“a descent for the sake of ascent” (ירידה לצורך עליה).

Tzava'at HaRivash 122:1

It states in the Mishnah, (Mishnah Avot 2:1) “Rebbi said: which is the straight path that a person should choose for himself? That which is honorable to himself and brings him honor from others. Be careful with a light mitzvah as with a major one, for you do not know the reward of the mitzvot.” The explanation is as follows: “Which is the straight path that a person should choose-שיבור” may be interpreted as, “Which is the straight path that a person should avoid,” for the term SheYavor-שיבור also means, “empty,” as in the verse, (Genesis 37:24) “And the pit-בור was empty,” which is to be avoided. It then continues and answers, “That which honorable to himself.” That is, he does the mitzvah in a hidden manner so that others should not know about it, but in his heart, he thinks to himself that he is an exemplary servant of HaShem, and is proud of it. This is certainly so regarding a person who does mitzvot openly, “to bring honor from others.” This refers to a person who fulfills the mitzvot openly to receive honor from others, that is, so that others should consider him to be God fearing. Both these characteristics must be avoided.

Commentary

The pit Joseph was thrown into did not contain water, but instead was empty of water, potentially filled with other dangerous inhabitants such as snakes and scorpions. The absence of water in the pit was crucial, as it prevented Joseph from drowning and highlighted the potential dangers he faced inside. Despite the presence of these dangers, the brothers were unaware of them and proceeded to throw Joseph into the pit, unaware of the miraculous protection he would receive.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:24:1

אין בו מים, “there was no water in it;” the Torah mentions this to tell the reader that if the pit had been filled with water the brothers would not have thrown him into it, as it would have been equivalent to drowning him with their own hands. They had already ruled out doing something like that, (verse 27).

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:24:1

והבור רק אי בו מים, “the pit was empty, not containing any water.” Rashi comments that this is to tell us that while there was no water in the pit in which he could have drowned, there were other hazardous inhabitants in that pit such as snakes and scorpions. (based on B’reshit Rabbah 84,16.) This interpretation is based on the principle that when two negatives follow one another this indicates that we are being told something positive, even if not beneficial. It would have sufficed to describe the pit as simply: “empty.” If you were to ask why did it have to refer to the presence of scorpions? What hint is there of that? Maybe there were merely stones inside the pit? The expression רק for empty, instead of ריק means that it was empty on occasion but filled with water at other times. Scorpions take refuge there when it has been emptied from water.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:1

ויקחהו, “they took, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,15 use the absence of the letter ו behind the letter ח in ויקחהו, i.e. only one person actually seized Joseph to surmise that the person in question was Shimon. This is why later on (Genesis 42,24) Joseph chose to imprison only Shimon.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:2-5

והבור ריק, אין בו מים, “and the pit was empty, it did not contain any water.” Even if it did contain some water it would still qualify for the description “empty;” this is why the additional words “there was no water in it,” mean that there was absolutely no water in it. Our sages in Shabbat 22, however, use these words to deduce that whereas here was no water in the pit, i.e. that Joseph could not drown in it, to mean that there were other dangerous inhabitants in that pit such as vipers, etc. The reason the sages in the Talmud interpreted the verse in this way is that the verse actually contains two limitations. The first such limitation are the words “and the pit was empty; the second limitation are the words: “there was no water in it.” Whenever we find two limitations the rule is that there was something compensating for these limitations, i.e. deadly dangers other than water. Rabbeinu Tam, one of the Tossaphists, explained that the reason the sages picked examples such as deadly snakes as the inhabitants of that pit Joseph was thrown in may have been derived from the Torah saying in Deut. 8,15 במדבר הגדול והנורא נחש שרף ועקרב וצמאון אשר אין מים בו, “through the great and awesome wilderness of snakes, fiery serpent, and scorpion; and thirst where there was no water.” The absence of water in the desert is contrasted there with the presence of deadly snakes. Nachmanides writes: the snakes in the pit were concealed in holes which were not visible to people looking into it. Had the brothers noted these snakes and observed that they did not harm Joseph they would have realized that Joseph enjoyed the special protection of G’d and that He had performed a miracle on his account. They would not have dared lay a hand on the person whom G’d had so obviously selected for a special role. We observe the presence of such considerations elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Daniel 6,23 where the miraculous escape of Daniel from the den of lions told the king that “G’d had sent an angel and shut the lions’ mouth so that they did not even wound him because merit was found for me before Him.” Bereshit Rabbah 84,16 understands the wording as allegorical. The word “empty” was a simile for Yaakov’s reservoir of spiritual powers being drained through his favorite son being dumped into the pit, whereas the words “there was no water in it,” refer to the absence of the words of Torah which have often been compared to the life-giving properties of water. They base themselves on Isaiah 58,4 “come O thirsty one, go to the source of water!” The brothers were unaware of what would later on be written in the Torah (Deut. 24,7) “If someone be discovered who has sold (kidnapped) a member of his brethren the Children of Israel, and he enslaves him...that kidnapper shall die.” The brothers had thus made themselves guilty of a potentially capital offence.

Radak on Genesis 37:24:1

ויקחהו, there is a letter ו missing in this word, making it appear as if only one brother took him. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,16 this is an allusion to who the brother was who seized Joseph and threw him into the pit. It was Shimon, which was the reason why later on Joseph locked up Shimon as a hostage (42,24 ויקח מאתם את שמעון, he took Shimon from them.)

Radak on Genesis 37:24:2

אין בו מים. If there had been water in the pit, Joseph would have drowned and throwing him into the pit would have been outright murder. The reason why the Torah mentions that there was no water in the pit, having already said that the pit was empty, והבור ריק, could be that there was sticky mud inside it, as for instance in Jeremiah 38,6 where the King’s servants threw the prophet into טיט, meaning a slime pit. That pit is also described as devoid of water, although Jeremiah is described as sinking into the mud. However, it did not cause his death. The allegorical explanation of the sequence of the words in our verse is well known, i.e. though water, one lethal ingredient, was not present in that pit, other potentially worse dangers such as scorpions, etc., were. If this explanation corresponds to the facts, throwing Joseph into such a pit was no better than killing him. The brothers had no way of knowing that G’d would save him by a miracle, i.e. that the scorpions and snakes would not attack him.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:24:1

אין בו מים. If the pit had been full of water the brothers would not have thrown him into the pit, as they then would have been guilty of drowning him, i.e. killing him with their own hands, as it were. They had said themselves “let not our hands be on him.”

Rashi on Genesis 37:24:1

והבור רק אין בו מים AND THE PIT WAS EMPTY, THERE WAS NO WATER IN IT — Since it states, “the pit was empty”, do I not know that “there was no water in it”? What then is the force of “there was no water in it”? Water, indeed it did not contain, but there were serpents and scorpions in it (Shabbat 22a).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:24:1

No water in it but there were snakes and scorpions in it. Rashi deduces [that it had snakes and scorpions] because it is written, “The pit was empty.” If sticks and stones or the like were in it, this would not be called empty. But with snakes and scorpions, the pit could well be called empty, as they crawl into the holes and cracks, so the pit looks like it is empty although they are there. [Alternatively], it is derived from a gezeirah shavah. In Devarim 8:15 it is written: “Snake, serpent, and scorpion... there was no water.” Just as there, “there was no water” describes a pit with snakes and scorpions, so too here, “there was no water” describes a pit with snakes and scorpions. But it seems to me that “there was no water” cannot teach us that sticks and stones were there, because what difference would that make? Perforce, it comes to tell us that other dangers were there, and they threw him in nevertheless. (R. Meir Stern) We need not ask: If there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, how was Reuven going to rescue him? The snakes and scorpions would kill him! For the answer is: The brothers did not know about this. They thought the pit did not contain even snakes and scorpions. Otherwise, how could they want to sell him after seeing the miracle Hashem performed for him, that he was not harmed or killed? (Re’m)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:24

They took him and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it. It is not known during which season this event transpired. However, given that the brothers had gone out to pasture their flocks, it would seem that this incident occurred at the beginning of the summer, at the very latest. During this time of year, it is still possible to find pits filled with rainwater. Nevertheless, the brothers refrained from drowning Joseph in such a pit. 6

Torah Temimah on Torah, Genesis 37:24:1

There was no water in it. The pit was twenty cubits deep, so they could not see that it was filled with snakes. That is why his miraculous survival did not cause them to repent.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 36

“Took and threw him into the pit” [37:24]. Simeon took Joseph and threw him into a pit in which there was no water, but there were snakes in it. However, the brothers did not see the snakes. That is why the verse says, “the pit was empty, there was no water in it” [37:24]. One asks a question here. If you say that the pit was empty, I would know that it is empty and I would know that there is no water in it. Why does the verse have to say there was no water in it? It is obvious that when it is empty, then I would know that it also doesn’t have water in it. The explanation is that the verse shows us that it was empty of water, but there were snakes in it. If you want to ask that if it is full of snakes, then it is not empty. The explanation is that the snakes had holes in the pit into which they ran, at times. At that time, the pit was empty. That is also why the brothers did not see the snakes. If they had seen them, they would not have thrown Joseph into it. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:24.) As Hizkuni also writes, if there had been water in the pit, they would not have thrown Joseph into it. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:24.)

Jewish Thought

The text from Nefesh HaChayim explains that those who do not involve themselves with Torah in this world will be forced into Gehinnom after death, a place without mercy. Torah is compared to water, and those who abandon Torah are punished, as seen in the exile of Israel from the Holy Land for abandoning Torah.

Nefesh HaChayim, Gate IV 23:4

And in parshat Va-yei-shev (185a), after expounding at length about the great praiseworthiness and the high level of one who is involved with Torah, in both this world and the next, it stated after that: “Come and observe: the person who doesn’t merit to be involved with Torah in this world, and who goes around in darkness, when he leaves this world they take him and force him to enter Gehinnom, the place below where they will not have mercy on him, that is called the ‘raging water pit, the slimy mud’, as it is stated in T’hillim (40:3): ‘He raised me from the raging water pit, from the slimy mud…’. And because of this, what is written about one who doesn’t involve himself with Torah in this world and who defiles himself with the defilements of the world? ‘And they took him and cast him into the pit’ (Bereshit 37:24)—This is Gehinnom, the place where those who don’t involve themselves with Torah are judged. ‘And the pit was bare’—just as he is empty. Why? Because it has no water (Water being a metaphor for Torah, per Yeshayahu 55:1: “Ho, everyone who is thirsty, go to the water…”.) within it. And "water" is non other than Torah (as is written in Bava Kama chapter 2). And come and observe: how great is the punishment of Torah, for Israel were not exiled from the Holy land for any reason other than they separated themselves from the Torah and abandoned it, this being what is written (Yirmiyahu 9:11): ‘Who is the wise person who will understand…?’—Why did the land perish? God-YHV”H stated: ‘because they abandoned my Torah’.”

Kabbalah

The text discusses the concept of the pit as a symbol of fear and emptiness, representing the lack of true fear of God and the fourth exile filled with evil people who uproot the words of the sages. This is seen in the story of Yosef being thrown into a pit, symbolizing the male and female aspects of emptiness and lack of Torah, filled with snakes and scorpions representing scoundrels. The end of exile will be marked by the descent into the great abyss, symbolizing poverty and death.

Tikkunei Zohar 6a:1

"and the earth was uninformed and void" (Gen. 1:2) - [this fear comes] from the side of the tree of good and evil, and this is the empty land, the bad maidservant, similar to the four basic examples of damages, one of which is the pit, similar to the pit [bor] of Yosef, which is the Pit. "And the pit was empty, there is no water in it" (Gen. 37:24). The bad maidservant is the pit, and "the pit" is the male, and we tech regarding this "a boor [bor] cannot fear sin" (Avot 2:5), this is because this boor has no [true] fear of God.

Zohar, Ki Teitzei 12:64

[The fourth exile] is called a pit where an ox has fallen. This is why it is written of Yosef, "The firstling of his herd, grandeur is his" (Deut. 33:17), of him it says, "And they...cast him into a pit" (Gen. 37:24), which is the female; "and the pit was empty" is the male, which is empty, without Torah, but with snakes and scorpions in it. This is the fourth exile, which is a generation of evil people, filled with snakes and scorpions that are scoundrels like snakes and who are scorpions (akrabim) since they uprooted (akru) the words of the sages and give false judgments. Of them it says, "Her adversaries have become the chief" (Eichah 1:5). "And he looked this way and that, and when he saw that there was no man" (Shemot 2:12) of Yisrael among the wicked mixed multitude. This will be at the end of exile. And because of that the end, the time of redemption bores all the way to the great abyss. And the Faithful Shepherd: Tehom [abyss see Gen. 1:2] is Hamavet [the death'] spelled backwards, and death is no other than poverty. It has been clarified up high, before the Tannaim and Amoraim, that they will all descend for your sake into the deep [the fourth exile], to help you.

Midrash

Joseph came to his brothers, who threw him into a pit full of serpents and scorpions, but the Lord protected him. Joseph pleaded with his brothers for mercy, but they ignored him. Reuben tried to save Joseph, who was later sold by his brothers. This story is paralleled with Zion and Joseph, where similar events occurred. Joseph's brothers hated him, stripped him of his coat, and threw him into a pit, just as Zion faced similar trials. The pit was empty, with no water, symbolizing the lack of Torah. Joseph's brothers sold him, similar to how Zion was sold to the Greeks. Both Joseph and Zion faced hardships and were eventually redeemed.

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:16

“It was when Joseph came to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the fine tunic that was upon him” (Genesis 37:23). “It was when Joseph came to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his tunic” – Rabbi Elazar said: He came with praise. (Joseph came with praise for his brothers, i.e., in a conciliatory state of mind, as implied in the verse: “Joseph came to his brothers.”) “They stripped Joseph” – this is the cloak. “Of his tunic” – this is his shirt. “The fine tunic” – this is the tunic. “That was upon him” – this is his undergarment. “They took him [vayikaḥuhu] and cast him into the pit, and the pit was empty; there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24). “They took him [vayikaḥuhu]” – it is written “he took him [vayikaḥehu].” Who was it? It was Simeon. When did [Joseph] repay him? It was later: “He took Simeon from them [and incarcerated him before their eyes]” (Genesis 42:24). “And cast him into the pit, and the pit was empty; there was no water in it” – there was no water in it, but there were serpents and scorpions in it. There were two pits, (This is based on the fact that the verse mentions “the pit” twice. ) one filled with stones and one filled with fiery snakes and scorpions. Rav Aḥa said: “The pit was empty” – Jacob’s pit was emptied. (This is a reference to Jacob’s sons. ) “There was no water in it” – there were in it no matters of Torah, which are likened to water, just as it says: “Ho, everyone thirsty, go to water” (Isaiah 55:1). It is written: “If a man is found abducting any of his brethren…[and he sold him, that thief shall die]” (Deuteronomy 24:7), and you are selling your brother?

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Khagigah 1:2

Raba expounded: "What is the meaning of the passage (Songs 6, 2) How beautiful are thy steps in sandals. It means. How beautiful were the steps of Israel, when they made a pilgrimage to celebrate the festival. The prince's daughter, daughter of Abraham, our father, who was called a prince; as it is said (Ps. 47, 10) The princes of the people are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham. Why is the God of Abraham [mentioned], and not the God of Isaac or Jacob? The God of Abraham [is mentioned, because Abraham] was the first proselyte." R. Cahana said that R. Nathan b. Minyumi expounded in the name of R. Tanchum: "What is the meaning of the passage (Gen. 37, 24) And the pit was empty; there was no water in it. Since the passage says the pit was empty, do I not know that there was no water in it? And what is intimated by saying there was no water? Indeed there was no water, but there were serpents and scorpions in it."

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Shabbat 2:4

(Fol. 22a) R. Cahana said that R. Nathan b Minyumi expounded in the name of R. Tanchum: "What is meant by the passage (Gen. 37, 24.) And the pit was empty; there was no water in it. Since the text says The pit was empty, do I not know that there was no water in it? And what is intimated by saving There was no water? Indeed there was no water but there were serpents and scorpions in it."

Ein Yaakov, Khagigah 1:2

There were two dumb men in the neighborhood of Rabbi, who were sons of the daughter of R. Jochanan b. Gudgada, and others say, sons of his sister, who, when Rabbis entered the house of learning, went in also, shook their heads, and muttered with their lips. Rabbi prayed for them and they were healed; and it was found that they were well versed on Halacha, and on the entire six sections of the Mishnah...

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:10

(Gen. 37:24:) THEN THEY TOOK HIM AND CAST HIM INTO THE PIT, BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT. There was no water in it; yet there were snakes and scorpions in it. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 37:24; Shab. 22a.) What did Simeon do? When they had put him within the pit, Simeon commanded them to throw great stones upon him in order to kill him; but, when < Simeon > fell into Joseph's hand, Joseph tossed fattened < fowl > upon him.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 7:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 44:18): When Judah saw that Joseph was not appeased, he began saying to his brothers: [Why] are we standing around? We will begin with this one and wind up with Pharaoh! Now they did not know that Joseph understood their language, as stated (in Gen. 42:23): NOW THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT JOSEPH UNDERSTOOD. When Joseph saw that, he began to talk to them with supplications and with gentle language. He said to them: About this Benjamin, I want only to know who < it was that > advised him to steal the goblet. Did you perhaps advise him to steal the goblet? When Benjamin heard that, he said: They did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. He said to them: Swear to me. He began to swear to him. By what did he swear to him? By the separation of my brother Joseph from me, (This clause may also be translated as follows: “By the scriptural section on the separation of my brother Joseph from me (in Gen. 37:18-36).”) I did not touch it. Now < I swear > neither by the launching of arrows which were sent against him, as stated (in Gen. 49:23): ARCHERS HAVE HATED HIM (Joseph); nor by the stripping with which they stripped him, as stated (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH OF HIS TUNIC; nor by the throwing with which they threw him into the cistern, as stated (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; nor by the selling with which they sold him to the Ishmaelites (in vs. 28); nor by the dipping with which they dipped his tunic in the blood (in vs. 31). < By none of these do I swear > that they did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. Joseph said: Who will make known to me that you are swearing truthfully about your brothers? He said to him: You can know how much I love him from the names of my sons, since I set names for them on the basis of what I feared for < each one >. (Sot. 36b (bar); Gen. R. 93:7; Tanh., Gen. 11:40.) He said to him: And what were the names of your sons? He said to him (in agreement with Gen. 46:21): BELA, BECHER, ASHBEL, GERA, NAAMAN, EHI, ROSH, MUPPIM, HUPPIM, AND ARD. He said to him: Why Bela (BL')? He said to him: Because my brother was swallowed up (rt.: BL') from me. Becher (BKR)? Because he was my mother's first-born (rt.: BKR). Ashbel ('ShBL)? Because my brother was captured (NShBH). Gera? Because my brother was a sojourner (ger) with < merely > the privileges of a transient. (Gk.: xenia, i.e., “rights of a foreigner” or “guest privileges.”) Naaman (N'M)? Because his words were pleasing (N'M). Ehi ('HY)? Because he was my brother ('HY) from < the same > mother, and I had none but him. Rosh (which means "head")? Because he was older than I. Muppim (MPYM)? Because he learned Torah from our father's mouth (MPY) and taught it to me. When all his brothers would return to shepherding, he would sit with my father and learn the traditions which he had received from Shem and Eber. Huppim (rt.: HPP)? Because he has been covered over (rt.: HPP) until this day. Another interpretation of Huppim: Because I did not see his wedding canopy (huppah) nor did he see my wedding canopy. Another interpretation of Huppim (rt.: HPP): Because until now I have been mourning over him and going barefoot (rt.: YHP). And Ard ('RD)? Because he brought (rt.: YRD) all of us down here. Another interpretation of ARD (from Gen. 37:35): NO, I WILL GO DOWN ('RD) MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. Will you please not bring down ('RD) Daddy to Sheol through grief! And so Judah said (in Gen. 44:34): FOR HOW SHALL I GO UP UNTO MY FATHER < IF THE LAD IS NOT WITH ME >? When Joseph heard that, he was not able to suppress his compassion, as stated (in Gen. 45:1-3): JOSEPH COULD NOT RESTRAIN HIMSELF…. AND HE WEPT ALOUD…. THEN JOSEPH SAID UNTO HIS BROTHERS: I AM JOSEPH. When he said to them: I AM {YOUR BROTHER JOSEPH} … (in vs. 3, cont.): HIS BROTHERS COULD NOT ANSWER HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE DISMAYED BECAUSE OF HIM. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said in the name of R. Eleazar ben Azariah: (Gen. R. 93:11.) Now, if in the case of Joseph, when he said to his brothers: I am Joseph, they knew what they had done with him and were unable to answer him; how much the less will a creature be able to stand when the Holy One comes to dispute with each and every one of < his > creatures and to tell him his deeds, just as it is written (in Amos 4:13): FOR BEHOLD, THE ONE WHO FORMS THE MOUNTAINS, < CREATES THE WIND, AND TELLS ONE WHAT HIS THOUGHT IS > … !

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 38:10

And (Gabriel) said to him: What seekest thou? He said to him: I seek my brethren, as it is said, "And he said, I seek my brethren" (Gen. 37:16). And he led him to || his brethren, and they saw him and sought to slay him, as it is said, "And they saw him afar off" (Gen. 37:18). Reuben said to them: Do not shed his blood, as it is said, "And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness" (Gen. 37:22). And his brethren listened to him, and they took Joseph and cast him into the pit, as it is said, "And they took him, and cast him into the pit" (Gen. 37:24). What did Reuben do? He went and stayed on one of the mountains, so as to go down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit. And his nine brethren were sitting down in one place, all of them like one man, with one heart and one plan. Ishmaelites passed by them, and (the brethren) said: Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they will lead him to the end of the wilderness, and Jacob will not hear any further report concerning him.

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 4

And when Joseph came amongst his brothers he sat down before them; and they took hold ‎upon him and threw him to the ground and stripped off the coat of many colors which was ‎upon him. And they took him and cast him into a pit, and in the pit was no water, but it was full ‎of serpents and scorpions. And Joseph was greatly afraid of the serpents and scorpions, and ‎he cried out with a loud voice, and the Lord hid the serpents and scorpions in the walls of the ‎pit, so that they could do Joseph no harm. And Joseph cried out from the pit unto his brothers, ‎saying: What have I done unto you and what is my sin, and why do you not fear the Lord ‎concerning me? Am I not your bone and flesh and is not Jacob, your father, my father also? ‎Why are ye doing this thing unto me this day, and how will you ever be able to look unto Jacob ‎our father? And he was crying and calling unto his brothers from the midst of the pit, and he ‎said: Oh Judah, and Simeon and Levi, my brothers, raise me from this darksome place where ‎into ye have put me, and come and have mercy upon me this day, ye children of the Lord and ‎sons of my father Jacob ' And supposing that I have sinned against you, are you not the sons of ‎Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who when they saw an orphan they had pity with him, and when ‎they found one hungry they gave him bread to eat, and if he was thirsty they gave him water ‎to drink, and if he was naked they covered him with garments. And how can ye withdraw your ‎compassion from your own brother, of your own flesh and bone, and even if I have sinned ‎against you, surely you ought to do it for the sake of my father. And Joseph spoke all these ‎words from the midst of the pit but his brothers hearkened not nor did they incline their ears ‎to Joseph’s sup plication and he was still crying and weeping in the pit. And Joseph said: Oh ‎that my father knew the thing that my brothers have done unto me and what they said unto ‎me this day. And Joseph’s brothers heard the weeping and lamentation of their brother, and ‎they moved away in order not to hear his crying in the pit. And they seated themselves at a ‎distance of about a bow-shot, and they sat down there to eat.‎

Musar

Abraham's main attribute was kindness, which allowed him to enter the domain of love. God's kindness is shown by pronouncing doom over negative forces, symbolized by impure waters, which are cleansed by pure waters. Justice treats each person according to their merits, as seen in the name Rebekah. Adam's sin of consuming grapes symbolizes the loss of holiness and the fall from grace, leading to the need for righteousness, as exemplified by Noah.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Chayei Sara, Torah Ohr 18

This is an allusion to דין, i.e. Justice. It is not the function of Justice to uproot or to destroy, rather it is the function of Justice to treat each person on his merits. The very letters of the name רבקה reflect this even-handedness of the attribute of Justice. The two letters רק allude to a person who is Reyk, empty of merits, whereas the two letters בה allude to someone who has content. Together this is what Justice is all about. G–d pays man כדרכו כפרי מעלליו, "according to his way with the fruit of his deeds” (Jeremiah 17,10). Abraham alluded to this when he used the word רק when he forbade Eliezer to take Isaac back there. Eliezer, in recognition of that hint, used the word בה when he described the kind of girl he considered suitable as a marriage partner for Isaac. He also referred to Abraham's attribute of חסד when he said: 24,14) בה אדע כי עשית חסד עם אדוני).

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Noach, Torah Ohr 4

Adam ruined this state of affairs by interfering with the סוד היין, the mystical properties of the grapes. [I suppose that this is based on the tree of knowledge having been a grape bearing tree. Ed.] He followed an evil path by squeezing a cluster of grapes (and consuming its juice). Had he not done so, that "wine" would have remained in the state of what our sages call the יין המשומר בענביו, "the wine that remained preserved within its grapes (compare Berachot 34).” In that event he would have been like "the cistern that does not lose a single drop” [hyperbole for total recall, see Avot 2,11. Ed.]. He would have retained all the holiness that had been his when he was created. When Adam sinned, he did not only lose some of his former glory, fall from a "high roof" (to the ground), but he fell into a "very deep pit" (below the ground). This was a בור רק, an empty pit [allusion to the pit Joseph had been thrown in. Genesis 37,24], since it did not even contain the ingredients for the survival of the species. The species was wiped out at the time of the deluge as a direct consequence of Adam having polluted that "drop of sacred semen," and made it "evil smelling." Due to G–d's personal intervention, Noach was saved seeing he was righteous, and the righteous are the foundation of the universe. The present universe was founded by him as a result.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr 18

Remember that Abraham's principal attribute was his characteristic of חסד. The mystical element of חסד is found in the מים העליונים, pure unpolluted waters of the Celestial Regions. The attribute of חסד is also the mystical domain of אהבה, love, as we shall explain. Once Abraham had acquired the virtue of חסד he could enter the domain of אהבה, love, and that is why G–d called him אוהבי. We are told in Song of Songs 8,7 that even מים רבים, many waters, cannot extinguish love. The waters referred to are the מקור מים חיים, the source of truly life-giving waters. There are, however, many cisterns, broken and yet filled, which cannot retain the waters in them. In Kabbalistic jargon these are called קליפות; they are alluded to in Genesis 37,24 as והבור רק אין בו מים, "the pit was empty it did not contain any water." We know from Psalms 52,3: חסד אל כל היום, that "G–d's חסד lasts all day long," though we also have a verse in Psalms 7,12 which appears to contradict this, namely א-ל זועם בכל יום, "G–d pronounces doom each day." The answer is simply that G–d pronounces doom over these קליפות, negative forces, reducing them to impotence. This is the חסד G–d performs all day long. Ezekiel 36,25 may have alluded to this when he says: וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם מכל טמאותיכם, "I shall sprinkle on you pure waters and you will be cleansed from all your impurities. These waters wash off the accumulated pollution known as קליפות, the result of sins. It is these waters which are called מעטים, little. The reason that "a little water" is sufficient is that קליפות do not increase or multiply naturally, as opposed to קדושה, which increases and multiplies naturally; that is why מים רבים, many waters, are unable to extinguish the "fire" of love, and love continues forever. The principal aspect of the virtue of kindness is deeply rooted in the mystical domain of those מים רבים discussed above On occasion some of these waters have to be used in order to rinse off the קליפות and to "humble" such outgrowths due to sins. This is why Abraham spoke about "a little water to be taken."

Quoting Commentary

Radak explains that the word "הרקות" in Genesis 41:27:2 comes from "ריק," empty, as in the pit that did not contain water. Rabbeinu Bahya discusses the order in which the tribes are listed in Numbers 1:20:1, linking it to their familial relationships and bravery. Rashi praises the beauty of a woman's cheeks in Song of Songs 4:3:3, comparing them to a pomegranate. Ramban interprets Reuben's words in Genesis 37:22:1 regarding not shedding blood and the pit Joseph was thrown into. Sulam delves into the mystical meaning of a pit being empty in Zohar, relating it to the concept of not drawing supernal light.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 1:20:1

ויהיו בני ראובן בכור ישראל, “The members of the tribe of Reuven, Yaakov’s firstborn were, etc.” The Torah gave the number of members of the tribe of Reuven first, although in the list of encampments it listed Yehudah first, (2,3) seeing that Reuven was the biological firstborn. Shimon was listed next, in accordance with seniority of birth. Gad was listed next as he was the firstborn of Leah’s maidservant. Next the Torah lists the tribes which were grouped around the flag of Yehudah. Issachar and Zevulun who formed part of the army group are listed in that order as part of the camp of Yehudah. Subsequently the Torah lists Ephrayim followed by the tribes who were part of his camp, i.e. Menashe and Binyamin. Finally, the Torah lists Dan followed by Asher and Naftali who were part of his camp and flag. The tribes’ camps (Dan, Asher, Naftali last) are listed in the same order as here when the offerings on the occasion of the inauguration of the Altar in the Tabernacle are recorded in Numbers chapter 7. The number of tribes listed and counted here are 12, seeing Levi is not included and two separate tribes are counted as Joseph. They were encamped facing the four directions East, South, West, North. Each army group comprised three tribes. Among the twelve tribes the tribe of Yehudah and Dan were the ones best known for their bravery; this is why they traveled at the head and at the rear of the Israelites respectively. Both of these tribes have been described at different times as גור אריה, “lion cub” (Genesis 49,9 and Deut. 33,22). The word לגלגלותם, “according to their heads,” an expression used by the Torah only in connection with the tribes of Reuven and Shimon (verse 20 and 22), is one that applied to all the tribes. The reason that it was spelled out only with these two tribes may be that both of these tribes required atonement for sins committed by their respective founding fathers against Yaakov, and this is why the word פקודיו, “its numbered ones,” is also repeated in Shimon’s case, indicating that by now they were on a par with all the other tribes. Perhaps in the case of Shimon that word may not mean “numbered,” but may be a reference to the use of the word in the Ten Commandments, where G’d speaks about “remembering the sins of the fathers to the later generations” (Exodus 20,5). Verse 22 then ought to be translated as follows: “The matters remembered for the tribe of Shimon and his offspring according to their families and their fathers’ houses were, etc.” The words במספר שמות, “according to the number of names,” belong to what follows, to the word פקודיהם. The Torah wished to convey that actually the descendants of Shimon carried the burden of the sin of their founding-father and his part in the sale of Joseph (instigator) and by rights they should have paid for that unatoned for crime. Proof that Shimon had been the instigator of the violence committed against Joseph at the time is the fact that he was the only one detained by Joseph in Egypt after he permitted the other brothers to return and to bring Binyamin to Egypt on their next trip. (Compare Genesis 37,24, 42,24, Bereshit Rabbah 84,16).

Radak on Genesis 41:27:2

השבלים הרקות, here the word הרקות is derived from the word ריק, empty, as in והבור רק אין בו מים, “the pit was empty, it did not contain water.” (Genesis 37,24)

Ramban on Genesis 37:22:1

SHED NO BLOOD. Reuben said to them: “I would have been tolerant of you when you thought to kill him by your subtle intrigues, for I too hated him and desired that he be killed by others. But do not spill blood with your hands. Far it be from you!” And Reuben’s intent in all this was to rescue him and restore him to his father. Now Scripture relates that which Reuben told them when they paid heed to him. However, originally he told them other things which they did not accept, as he said to them afterwards, Spoke I not unto you, saying: Do not sin against the child and you would not hear? (Further, 42:22.) Now when he saw that they would not listen to the extent of releasing him, he said to them, “If so, shed no blood with your own hands.” Now Reuben did not say, “Shed not his blood,” [but instead, he said, “Shed no blood,”] in order to make it appear that he is not saying it because he loves him, but in order that they should not spill blood. Thus he taught them that the punishment of he who indirectly causes death is not as great as that of he who personally spills blood. The meaning of the expression, This pit that is in the wilderness, is that this pit is deep and he will not be able to get out of it, and it is in the desert, and if he cries for help there is no one to rescue him as no one passes by there. Now Scripture relates that the pit was empty and did not contain water. (Verse 24 here.) Had there been water in it they would not have drowned him as they had already avoided spilling his blood. Now Rashi writes: “Since it states that the pit was empty, do I not know that there was no water in it? Why then does it say that there was no water in it? It means to state that water indeed was not in it, however it did contain serpents and scorpions.” This is Rashi’s language quoting from the words of our Rabbis. (Shabbath 27a.) If so, the serpents and scorpions must have been in the cracks of the pit, or it was deep and they did not know about them. Had they seen them and known that they did not harm Joseph, it would have become clear to them that a great miracle had been done to him, and that he was indeed a perfectly righteous man. They would then have known that his merits would save him from all evil, and how would they touch the anointed one of G-d in whom He delights and whom He saves, even as it says, My G-d hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not hurt me; for as much as before Him innocency was found in me. (Daniel 6:23.) But, we must therefore conclude, they did not know anything about it. In line with the simple meaning of the verse, it states that the pit was empty and completely devoid of water, for even if there were a little water in it, it would still be called “empty.” (Therefore, the verse specifies that there was no water in it to indicate that there was no water at all in it.) Similarly, For thou shalt die and not live, (II Kings 20:1.) which means “not live at all, under any circumstances.” Such redundancies are all for the purpose of clarification and emphasis.

Rashi on Song of Songs 4:3:3

Your cheeks. This is the upper part of the face, called pomels in O.F., next to the eyes. And in the language of the Talmud, it is called “ the pomegranate of the face.” (‘רקתך’, from ‘רק’, meaning empty; see Bereishis 37:24. ) It resembles the split half of a pomegranate from the outside, which is red and round. This is a praise in terms of a woman’s beauty. Our Rabbis explained the allegory as follows: Even the worthless (See Verse 1 above. ) ones רֵיקָנִים among you are full of mitzvos as a pomegranate. (Iyov 35:11. )

Redeeming Relevance; Genesis 6:14

(Bereshit 37:21–22, 24)

Sulam on Zohar, Introduction 97:3

[The Zohar] continues: “‘Into the pit, ’ in the eyes of the Other Side, the evil one.” For the root of receiving for oneself is in the eyes, in the mystical meaning of “the eye sees and the heart covets” (Rashi, end of Parashat Shelaḥ). This aspect of receiving is called a “pit” because it is [an expression of]: "The pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24), as the supernal light is not drawn there, in the mystical meaning of: “He and I cannot dwell in the same abode” (see Sota 5a).

Talmud

A Hanukkah lamp, sukka with a roof over 20 cubits high, and an alleyway with a beam over 20 cubits high are invalid because people do not usually look up that high. The verse about Joseph being thrown into a pit emphasizes that there were no snakes and scorpions in it.

Chagigah 3a:14

The Gemara cites another statement of Rabbi Tanḥum. Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24). By inference from that which is stated: “And the pit was empty,” don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, this teaches that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it.

Shabbat 22a:1

A Hanukkah lamp that one placed above twenty cubits is invalid, just as a sukka whose roofing is more than twenty cubits high, and just as an alleyway whose beam, its symbolic fourth partition in order to place an eiruv, is more than twenty cubits high, are invalid. The reason is the same in all three cases: People do not usually raise their heads and see objects at a height above twenty cubits. As there is a requirement to see all of these, they are deemed invalid when placed above that height. And the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rav Tanḥum: What is the meaning of the verse that is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24)? By inference from that which is stated: And the pit was empty, don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, why does the verse say: There was no water in it? The verse comes to emphasize and teach that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it.

Tanakh

Psalms 30:4 expresses gratitude to the Lord for saving from Sheol and the Pit. Jeremiah 38:6 describes Jeremiah being put in a pit with mud and no water. Zechariah 9:11 mentions the release of prisoners from a dry pit in connection with the blood of a covenant.

Jeremiah 38:6

So they took Jeremiah and put him down in the pit of Malchiah, the king’s son, which was in the prison compound; they let Jeremiah down by ropes. There was no water in the pit, only mud, and Jeremiah sank into the mud.

Psalms 30:4

O LORD, You brought me up from Sheol, preserved me from going down into the Pit.

Zechariah 9:11

(Exact meaning and connection of this verse and the next uncertain.) You, for your part, have released (released Taking shillaḥti as a second-person singular feminine form, with Septuagint; cf. Judg. 5.7 with note.) Your prisoners from the dry pit, (dry pit I.e., a pit that serves as a dungeon rather than a cistern (both are called bor in Heb.).) For the sake of the blood of your covenant,

Targum

Onkelos Genesis 37:24 describes Joseph being thrown into an empty pit with no water. Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:24 adds that the pit was not only empty of water, but also contained serpents and scorpions.

Onkelos Genesis 37:24

They took him and threw him into the pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:24

and took and threw him into the pit; but the pit was empty, no water was therein, but serpents and scorpions were in it.

וַיֵּשְׁבוּ֮ לֶֽאֱכׇל־לֶ֒חֶם֒ וַיִּשְׂא֤וּ עֵֽינֵיהֶם֙ וַיִּרְא֔וּ וְהִנֵּה֙ אֹרְחַ֣ת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים בָּאָ֖ה מִגִּלְעָ֑ד וּגְמַלֵּיהֶ֣ם נֹֽשְׂאִ֗ים נְכֹאת֙ וּצְרִ֣י וָלֹ֔ט הוֹלְכִ֖ים לְהוֹרִ֥יד מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃ 25 J E Then they sat down to a meal. Looking up, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, their camels bearing gum, balm, and ladanum to be taken to Egypt.
The Ishmaelites, recognized by the brothers as a caravan carrying spices and balms from Gilead, sold Joseph to Egypt after being bought by the Midianites. Eating should be for sustenance and to keep the body healthy, with Joseph's example of eating only to break hunger serving as a lesson in reverence and fear of God. The story of Joseph parallels Zion, highlighting the consequences of actions and the importance of forgiveness. Ramban, Onkelos, Rashi, Chizkuni, and Bartenura provide interpretations of various terms related to spices and balms in different biblical texts. The Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, and Jerusalem describe traders from different regions carrying spices and products to Egypt. Rebbi Tarfon used the story of Joseph's sale into slavery as an example of God's mercy towards the righteous.

Commentary

The Ishmaelites were recognized by the brothers as a caravan traveling to Egypt with spices and balms from Gilead. The Midianites, who were merchants, bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites and sold him to Egypt. The brothers saw no fault in their actions and sat down to eat while Joseph was in the pit. The camels of the Ishmaelites were carrying fragrant spices specifically for Joseph, showing the reward of the righteous. The term "nekhot" refers to a collection of spices, while "tzeri" means balm and "lot" refers to ladanum. The brothers intended to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites but the Midianites intervened, ultimately leading to Joseph being sold to Egypt.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:25:2

וישבו, they sat down; some distance away from the pit, in order to eat their midday meal and not to have to listen to his pitiful pleas.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:25:1

AND THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD. The nine brothers. (Neither Reuben nor Benjamin was there.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:25:2

A CARAVAN OF ISHMAELITES. Orechat is to be rendered caravan as Onkelos does. A caravan is so called because it travels on the roads (orechot).

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:25:3

SPICERY. Rabbi Moses Ha-Kohen the Spaniard (See notes to I.E.’s comments on Gen. 1:26.) explains nekhot (spicery) to mean a precious thing. Bet nekhoto (his treasure house) in and showed them all his treasure-house (bet nekhoto) (II Kings 20:13) is similar. Nekhot (Spelled nun, caf, alef, tav.) and nekhoto (Spelled nun, caf, vav, tav. The problem is that the word is not so spelled in II Kings 20:13. Krinsky and Cherez suggest that since the word is pronounced nekhoto, it is as if a vav is placed after the caf.) are similar because the vav and the alef are interchangeable since they are quiescent letters. (The alef and vav in nekhot are not pronounced. Hence they are quiescent. I.E. refers to the alef, vav, heh, yod as quiescent letters (otiyot ha-nach) because they are not always enunciated.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:25:4

AND BALM. The word for balm is encountered in Scripture vocalized with a quiescent sheva beneath the tzadi (utzri). (It is so found in our verse but not so found elsewhere in Scripture. I.E.’s basic point is that balm is spelled with a sheva in our verse, tzeri. However, there is an important grammatical aside in this note. I.E. calls our sheva a quiescent sheva, a sheva nach. However, according to standard grammatical usage a sheva following a long vowel is vocal. Thus our sheva should be a vocal sheva, a sheva na, and not a quiescent one. Therefore our word should be read u-tzeri and not utzri. William Chomsky points out that the vocal pronunciation of the sheva following a long vowel was introduced by the Kimchis and that the pre-Kimchi grammarians had no such concept. I.E.’s note seems to bear this out. Cf. W. Chomsky, “The pronunciation of the Sheva,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. LXII, October, 1971. For an alternate interpretation see Cherez.) We also find it vocalized with a chataf kamatz beneath the tzadi, viz., Is there no balm (ha-tzori) in Gilead? (Jer. 8:22). It also appears with the tzadi vocalized with a cholem, viz., and honey, and oil, and balm (ve-tzori) (Ezek. 27:17). Saadiah Gaon explained that tzeri (balm) (He said that it is identical to an Arabic medicine called triak (Weiser).) is a mixture of 75 roots. Others say that tzeri is a type of fruit. Still others say that it is either a fruit or the oil of a tree (Balsam (Weiser).) that, according to Joseph ben Gurion, (Jossipon. A medieval work based on Josephus.) was brought from Jericho to Egypt. However, Rabbi Ishmael (Cf. Kritot 6a; Shabbat 26a. However, in the Talmud this opinion is quoted in the name of Rabbi Simeon. Either there is a scribal error in our text or I.E. was quoting from memory.) says that it means resin. We will rely on the latter opinion.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:25:5

AND LADANUM. Saadiah Gaon says that lot (ladanum) is the same fruit that in Arabic is similarly called with the addition of a bet. (Belut (Weiser).) Perhaps it is so.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:25:1-2

וישבו לאכול לחם, “they sat down to eat their meal.” These words are a reflection of some degree of stoppage, permanence. They arrested their previous activities and emotional turmoil by sitting down to eat. Midrash Tehillim chapter 10 states that G’d’s reaction to the brothers “calmly” sitting down to eat as if nothing had happened was: “Your children will be sold as a result of a meal to be consumed at Shushan,” as we know from Esther 1,3 :”in the third year of the king’s reign, etc.” Haman came and took the Israelites who had felt emancipated away from the feast the king had prepared and at which the Jews had participated. The decree to wipe out the Jews was followed by the King and Haman sitting down to drink. (Esther 3,15)

Radak on Genesis 37:25:1

נכאת, according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11, wax.

Radak on Genesis 37:25:2

צרי, according to the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the word refers to resin, sap found in the trunk of the balsam tree. The word לוט according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 is מצטכי, Lotus?.

Ramban on Genesis 37:25:1

AND, BEHOLD, A CARAVAN OF ISHMAELITES CAME FROM GILEAD. When they looked up and saw at a distance men approaching from the direction of Gilead, (Ramban’s intent is to explain why Scripture refers to these men first as Ishmaelites, then as Midianites (Verse 28), and again as Ishmaelites (ibid.), and finally as Midianites (Verse 36).) they recognized them as a camel caravan of Ishmaelites on their way to Egypt, for it was from Gilead that balms and spices came, and it was their custom to bring it to Egypt. This was why Judah said to them, “Behold these men come from afar and are travelling to a distant country. Let us sell him to them so that the matter should not become known.” And when they came near they discovered them to be merchants of spices and balms — Midianites, merchantmen (Verse 28 here.) — who had hired the camels from the Ishmaelites. They sold Joseph to the Midianites who purchased him for profit, but the company of Ishmaelites, the lessors of the camels, would not purchase him for their own investment purposes. The verse which states, And they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, (Verse 28 here.) means that it was to them that the Midianites who bought him turned him over, for they were the ones who transported the merchandise to Egypt. This is also the meaning of the verse, From the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither, (39:1.) for he was in their care. But the Midianites were his masters, and they made trade with him. This is the sense of the verse, And the Midianites sold him to Egypt. (Verse 36 here.) All stories in Scripture are written in this manner: sometimes it is told in the name of the authority who commands that it be done, and other times in the name of the agent who performs the act. Such a case is the verse, All the great work of the Eternal which He did, (Deuteronomy 11:7.) while elsewhere it states, Which Moses did in the sight of all Israel. (Ibid., 34:12.) Similarly it says, Thus all the work that king Solomon did in the house of the Eternal was finished, (I Kings 7:51.) but it was Hiram that did it, as it is written, And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work. (Ibid., Verse 14.) In the case of Joseph himself, the verse says, And whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it, (Further, 39:22.) thus ascribing the action both to he who commanded it and the one who did it. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that the Midianites are called Ishmaelites, just as Scripture, in speaking of Midianite kings, says, Because they were Ishmaelites. (Judges 8:24.) But the matter is not as Ibn Ezra considered it to be since the verse which states, For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites, (Judges 8:24.) alludes to “the children of the east” whose war it was, as it is written, Now all the Midianites and Amalekites and the children of the east assembled themselves together, (Ibid., 6:33.) and “the children of the east” are Ishmaelites, for concerning all the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, it is said, And he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. (Above, 25:6.) It is also possible that the kings were Ishmaelites who ruled over Midian. Otherwise, why should “kings of Midian” (Judges 8:26.) be called by the name of Ishmael their brother? In line with the literal sense of Scripture the correct interpretation concerning the sale of Joseph is as we have said. But our Rabbis have said (Bereshith Rabbah 84:2.) that he was sold several times [and have thereby explained why his captors are alternately referred to as Midianites and Ishmaelites].

Rashi on Genesis 37:25:1

ארחת means what the Targum says — A CARAVAN; this is called ארחת with reference to the travelers on the road (ארח) who compose it.

Rashi on Genesis 37:25:2

וגמליהם נשאים AND THEIR CAMELS WERE BEARING etc. — Why does Scripture specially announce what they were laden with? It is to tell you how great is the reward of the righteous: it is not usual for Arabs to carry anything but naphta and itran (tar) which are evil-smelling, but for this one (Joseph, the righteous) it was specially arranged that they should be carrying fragrant spices so that he should not suffer from a bad odour (Genesis Rabbah 84:17).

Rashi on Genesis 37:25:3

נכאת SPICERY — Every collection of many kinds of spices is called נכאת. So, too, (2 Kings 20:13) “and he showed them all the house of his נכתה which means the house where his spices were mixed. Onkelos translates it as meaning wax (perhaps an aromatic gum).

Rashi on Genesis 37:25:4

צרי AND BALM — a resin that exudes from the wood of the balsam-tree: it is the נטף that is enumerated among the ingredients of the incense used in the Tabernacle (Exodus 30:34; cf. Keritot 6a).

Rashi on Genesis 37:25:5

ולט AND LADANUM — This is called Lotos in the language of the Mishna. Our Rabbis have in treatise Niddah 8a explained that it is a vegetable root; it bears the name aristolochia (birthwort).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:25:1

נשא עינים ist nie ein zufälliges, sondern ein absichtliches Ausschauen. Auch ihnen, da sie sich zum Essen niedersetzten, ließ doch das Gefühl keine Ruhe. Sie schauten nach der Grube hin. — Die Ismaeliten waren ein verwandter Stamm, und da dies keine "Kaufleute" waren, die mit allem und auch mit Menschen Geschäfte machten, so durften die Brüder, indem Josef den Ismaeliten verkauft wurde, erwarten, daß er bei ihnen bleiben und mit ihnen, nachdem sie ihre Gewürze in Mizrajim verkauft haben würden, in ihre Heimat, Arabien, zurückkehren würde. Es erklärt dies, weshalb die Brüder später gar keine Ahnung davon hatten, daß Josef in Ägypten sein könne. Es würde dies sich noch mehr bestätigen, wenn, wie es immerhin möglich ist und auch von manchen so aufgefasst wird, die Brüder ihn an die Ismaeliten verkauft hätten, von denen sie, wie gesagt, erwarten durften, daß sie ihn mit sich in die Heimat nehmen würden, und diese es auch getan hätten, wenn nicht inzwischen midianitische Kaufleute schon vorauf gezogen wären, die ihn von den Ismaeliten auf Spekulation kauften und ihn dann in Ägypten wieder verkauften. Dem würde dann anscheinend der Bericht V. 36 entsprechen, demzufolge die Medaniten, vermutlich gleichbedeutend mit Midianiten, ihn in Mizrajim verkauften. Wenn es dann Kap. 39, 1 heißt, daß Potiphar ihn von der Hand der Ismaeliten, die ihn dort hinabgebracht hatten, gekauft habe, so müsste dies dann nur indirekt verstanden werden: vermittelst der Midianiten, an welche jene ihn verkauft hatten. Es dürfte dann aber darum auf die Ismaeliten dort als die erste Hand hingeblickt werden, in welche Josef durch die Brüder gebracht worden war, weil eben dadurch die irrige Meinung der Brüder motiviert ist, die ihn gar nicht in Ägypten erwarteten, eine Voraussetzung, die zu dem Verfolg der Geschichte nicht unwesentlich ist. Da jedoch jedenfalls entweder V. 36 oder Kap. 39, 1 in uneigentlichem Sinne verstanden werden muss, das מיד הישמעאלים aber viel weniger eine indirekte Vermittlung, als das מכרו אתו אל מצרים zulässt, wo vielmehr das אל, "nach Mizrajim hin", nicht במצרים, in Mizrajim, ganz eigentlich eine indirekte Vermittlung ausdrückt, da ferner der Wortlaut des V. 28 durchaus berichtet, nicht die Brüder, sondern diese midianitischen Kaufleute hätten Josef aus der Grube gezogen und ihn an die Ismaeliten verkauft: so hat diese Auffassung viel mehr für sich. Die Brüder wollten ihn an die Ismaeliten verkaufen, inzwischen kamen ihnen die Kaufleute zuvor, holten Josef heraus und verkauften ihn an die Ismaeliten. Immerhin meinten die Brüder, er befinde sich in deren Händen und sei mit ihnen in ihre Heimat zurückgekehrt. Es war gleichwohl eine ihnen unbekannte Fügung, daß diese ihn dennoch in Ägypten verkauften. Der ganze Verkauf fällt gleichwohl den Brüdern zur Last, da er in ihrem Sinne geschah und sie ihn gerne geschehen ließen, ohne ihn zu hindern, was ihnen ja ein leichtes gewesen wäre.

Sforno on Genesis 37:25:1

וישבו לאכול לחם, to demonstrate that what they had done was no crime in their eyes, or that the incident was not something that should interfere with their regular meal. When righteous people become aware of having inadvertently committed a sin, they not only do not celebrate it by eating, but they impose a fast day or more upon themselves. A prominent example of people imposing a fast day upon themselves, although they did not feel guilty for having done something wrong, were the Jewish tribes after having practically wiped out the tribe of Binyamin. We read about this in Judges 21,2-3 as well as about the fact that they imposed a fast upon themselves in spite of being convinced that they had done the right thing in going to war against that tribe. We also find something parallel when the King Darius threw Daniel into a pit full of starving lions. (Daniel 6,19). [The King had acted in accordance with the constitution of his country which demanded that a “heretic” such as Daniel be thrown to the lions, and the king’s efforts to have the law changed were rejected by his advisers. In spite of being legally correct, the king felt so badly that he went to bed hungry as a kind of penance for doing what was legally correct. Ed.] If the brothers sat down to eat immediately after throwing Joseph into the pit, this is clear evidence that in their minds they had certainly not committed any wrong. WE, who were not part of Yaakov’s household, and who know that these brothers were unanimously elevated to become the founding fathers of the Jewish nation, must therefore accept the premise underlying their actions as being that they had truly felt themselves personally threatened by Joseph, someone who was considered so mature that his own father had appointed him as manager over his senior brothers. The brothers had made strenuous efforts to put physical distance between themselves and Joseph in order to avoid any altercation. When he had sought them out in spite of their having signaled clearly that they wanted to avoid him, they felt understandably very threatened.

Sforno on Genesis 37:25:2

הולכים להוריד מצרימה, these Ishmaelites were camel owners, they did not own the merchandise described which was carried by their camels. As soon as they would deliver the merchandise to the appropriate address in Egypt their mission was completed.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:25

They sat to eat bread. The brothers saw no fault in their actions, nor did they consider their actions something done in a moment of weakness. Their consciences did not prevent them from sitting down for a meal while their brother cried out from the pit. 7 And they lifted their eyes and saw, and behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad on the eastern side of the Jordan River. Until recent times, it was common practice for those traveling from the north down to Egypt, to cross the Jordan River and continue through the Dotan Valley, which borders the Yizre’el Valley, and then on toward the coastal plain. And their camels were bearing various spices [ nekhot ] ; 8 alternatively, nekhot refers to a specific spice. They were also bearing balm, a very valuable spice, and labdanum, a plant used for manufacturing perfume. The caravan was going to take them, these spices, down to Egypt to sell them there .

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:25:1

והנה אורחת ישמעאלים, ”and here there was a caravan of Ishmaelites, etc.” Nachmanides explains that when the brothers looked around they saw a group of people and camels in the distance whom they immediately identified as Ishmaelites, though they were still quite distant. They knew that these Ishmaelites were headed for Egypt as it was their custom to bring these various spices named in our verse to Egypt. This is why Yehudah said that seeing these people come from a distant land and are headed for a distant land, they could sell Joseph to them and this matter would never become known. When these people drew near, they realized that they were not the people whom they had thought them to be, but that they were merchants who traveled these regions all the time. These merchants had bought the spices from the Ishmaelites and had rented camels from them. They sold Joseph to these merchants, who bought him to trade him off, just as they traded their other merchandise. The caravan of Ishmaelites they had espied earlier were in the business of renting out camels, never buying merchandise for their own consumption. This is the meaning of the words: מיד הישמעאלים אשר הורידוהו שמה, “from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down to Egypt.” (39,1) Joseph was under the control of the Ishmaelites, although he was owned by the Midianites, prior to his sale to Potiphar. The style of the whole paragraph i.e. the repetition of the events related therein, must be understood as once described from the Ishmaelties’ perspective, and once from the Midianites’ perspective. We encounter something of a similar nature at the very end of the Torah (Deuteronomy 34,12) ולכל היד החזקה וכל המורא הגדול אשר עשה משה לעיני כל ישראל, where all the miracles performed by Moses are attributed to him, whereas previously in Deuteronomy 11,3 all of these miracles are attributed to G’d Himself.” Ibn Ezra (on verse 28) says that the Midianites are called here Ishmaelites, as they are in Judges 8,24, [although Gideon had been fighting the 5 Kings of the Midianites. Ed] seeing that their founding mother was Hagar. [if she was identical with Keturah. Ed.] Rash’bam writes that the brothers did not sell Joseph at all, but they sat down to eat, and while they were eating they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites in the distance. They then decided that after they would have completed their meal they would sell Joseph to these Ishmaelites. Before being able to do so, the Midianites arrived on the scene (the brothers not being within earshot of Joseph’s cries for mercy) and pulled Joseph out of the pit. They proceeded to sell him to the Ishmaelites. As to Joseph saying to his brothers in Genesis 45,4: “I am your brother whom you have sold to Egypt,” Joseph simply blamed what the brothers had done to him for his having been sold to Egypt. Some commentators interpret the word ומדנים as not referring to Midianites, but as being a derivative of the word מדון, strife as in ריב ומדון, Chabakuk, 1,3 where it describes strife and contention. The Torah meant that the strife and contention between the brothers ultimately resulted in Joseph being sold to Egypt. Yet another view expressed by some commentators is that the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, but they were afraid of raising him from the pit as they themselves might be bitten by the snakes; they therefore waited until the Midianites had raised him from the pit, as the Midianites were snake charmers and could safely venture into the pit. We know about all this from the Midianites who brought their charms with them when they visited Bileam as part of the delegation from Balak. (Numbers chapter 22) Joseph wound up being owned jointly by the Midianites and the Ishmaelites Some commentators say that the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to Potiphar who had accused them of having kidnapped him. The Midianites guaranteed to Potiphar that Joseph was theirs to sell, and had not been kidnapped. This is why the Torah attributes the actual sale to the Midianites who acted as guarantors for the validity of the sale. The Ishmaelites are also described as selling him, as 1) they had physical possession of him, and 2) they had paid 20 silver pieces for him to the brothers. The reason why so little money changed hands was that Joseph, because of his traumatic experience in the pit, no longer looked nearly as handsome as he had before his trauma.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:25:2

מה בצע, “what financial advantage?” There is a view expressed in the Midrash (Pessikta Rabbati Parshat Ki Tissa) according to which the brothers asked Yehudah to break the bread and to pronounce the blessing to G’d, לבצוע, at the meal, and he replied to them that it was most inappropriate to do so while they planned to commit murder.

Halakhah

Eating is seen as an illusion, with real eating being the attachment of one's thought to wisdom and intellect, as exemplified by the Israelites' vision of God before eating and drinking. The Torah warns against being drawn to physical pleasures during eating, as it can lead to sin and forgetting the commandments. Eating should only be for sustenance and to keep the body healthy, with the intention to bear the yoke of Torah and its commandments. Joseph's example of eating only to break hunger, not for pleasure, is highlighted as a lesson in reverence and fear of God.

Shulchan Shel Arba 2:5

And it is necessary that you know that human eating is nothing but an illusion, that it is not a true thing or a real activity, that it is something deceptive, something that keeps changing as it goes through the internal organs in a sequence of causes and effects. But ideas refined through wisdom, and by the attachment of one’s thought to the light of the intellect to the Upper Wisdom is itself “real and lasting eating,” as in the way that our Sages of blessed memory interpreted the verse: “‘And they envisioned God, and they ate and drank.’ (Ex 24:11.) R. Yohanan says, ‘real eating,’ [akhilah vada’it], as it is said, ‘In the light of the face of the King – life!’ (Prov.16:15.) And it is necessary for you to think hard about this verse, why it was necessary to say, ‘they envisioned,’ and why wasn’t it written as it was just before, ‘they saw? (Ex. 24:10.) But rather because it specified ‘they saw’ so you would not understand [what happened next] as actual seeing with the sense of your eye, it follows that it was necessary to say ‘they envisioned’ immediately afterward to teach you that this wasn’t this prior kind of ‘seeing’ [re’iyah], but rather seeing by means of prophecy, and that is why it said, ‘And they envisioned [va-yehezu] God, and they ate and drank,’ from the term for prophetic “vision” [mahzeh]. And the explanation of the Scripture ‘And they envisioned God, and they ate and drank,’ is that the leaders merited to see with the prophecy of ‘a glass that does not reflect,’ without a barrier, while the rest of Israel had a barrier, and Moses really “saw” directly. (That is, the leaders’ prophetic vision was better than the Israelites’, but not as direct as Moses.’) “And they ate and drank,” that is to say that their eating and drinking by this vision was indeed “real eating.” And it is also possible to interpret “And they ate and drank” as that they saw by prophecy the very attribute from which they “ate and drank,” that is, from the very same attribute from which the manna came to them, which is the principle behind all their material support, about which matter it is written, “She rises while it is still night,” (Prov. 31:15.) and it is written “Here I am causing it to rain down.” (Ex 16:4.) And you already knew that this was material support that occurred at night, for this is to what ‘She rises while is still night’ is referring. And thus the manna used to come down during the third watch of the night, when the Israelites were sleeping in their beds in the desert. And on the next day they would get up early in the morning and find their sustenance ready for them. This is the meaning of what is written: “So they gathered it every morning.” (Ex 16:21.) And thus you will find in First Temple that the rains used to fall on Wednesday and Shabbat nights, and on the next day they would get up early in the morning to do their work, without wasting any time. And so you also find with King Hezekiah, who said, “Master of the World, I myself don’t have the power in me to pursue enemies, or to sing a victory song, but I sleep on my bed, and you do it.” And the Holy One Blessed be He replied to him, “You sleep in your bed while I do it,” as it is said, “That night, an angel of the Lord struck down 185,000 in the Assyrian camp.” (2 Kings 19:35. This story about Hezekiah is a midrash from Lam. R. 30.) It was about him (or this) David spoke when he said, “In vain do you rise up early and stay up late…He provides as much for His loved ones while they sleep.” (Ps 127:2.) The meaning of the Scripture is that what the other peoples achieve through hard work, by getting up early and staying up late to eat the bread for which they toil, (An allusion to Ps 127:2. R. Bahya hints here that food “served” to Israelites without any toil, that is, good things God prepares for them while they are asleep, is angelic food. As R. Bahya put in his preface, “Our food is not their food. Their [the angelic beings’] food is conceived in their mind, when they see the face of their Maker. Our food is meager bread, water, and tears, gotten by hard work and toil.” It is like the food Adam ate before the Fall.) God provides to His loved ones while they sleep! This is the thing the Holy One provides to the one He loves, at the hour when he’s asleep, with no need to bother about it at all. And from now on any reference to “they ate and drank” means nothing other than a reference to “real eating,” or to eating the manna that was the offspring of the Upper Light – which is “real eating.”

Shulchan Shel Arba 2:6

Therefore the reverent person ought to have his intention connected to the higher things, and have his eating be to sustain his body alone and not to be drawn to physical pleasures, for being drawn to physical pleasures is the cause for the loss of both body and soul, and the cause for forgetting the point, for out of eating and drinking he will become full of himself [lit., lift up his heart] and stumble into great pitfalls and sins, and do things which should not be done. See how Joseph’s brothers sold him only in the middle of eating and drinking, as it is said, “They sat down to a meal, and looking up…” (Gen 37:28. While eating the brothers looked up and saw the Ishmaelites to who they sold Joseph. R. Bahya expands upon this more fully in his commentary to the Torah on this verse.) And for this reason the Torah said not to eat on Yom Kippur, which is the day of judgment for criminal cases involving people, because one’s eating might cause his soul to sin. And they even said in civil cases dealing with monetary compensation: “akhal ve-shatah al yorah” – “Don’t instruct right after eating and drinking!” (A rhyming proverb in the Hebrew. Yorah, which means to instruct or teach, is the same verb used in the Biblical passage from Lev. 10:11 that R. Bahya cites. It is from the same Hebrew root as the word Torah. R. Bahya subtly makes another point here besides the obvious one that people are inclined to make bad judgments right after they’ve eaten and drunk. Namely, with this wordplay and the analogy to the Biblical priests, he’s reiterating his general contention that engaging in torah is a sacramental priest-likeactivity, even when done by non-priests – i.e., rabbinical torah scholars, or even ordinary Jews fasting on Yom Kippur.) Why is this so? From what is written, “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons,” (Lev 10:9, addressed to Aaron and his sons, that is, the priests.) and connected to it, “to instruct [le-horot] the Israelites.” (Ibid., 10:11.) When they were commanded to instruct [le-horot], they were warned to avoid wine, because wine confuses the mind, and it does not distinguish between the holy and the profane, which is why it is written “to distinguish.” (Ibid., 10:10.) All this is proof that eating and drinking causes human beings to move themselves away off the track of Torah and worship, and to cast aside all the statutes of Ha-Shem, may He be Blessed. All this is caused when one has eaten and is satisfied, and therefore the Torah commanded, “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless” (Deut 8:10). That is to say, after you will have eaten and have been satisfied, and you are close to throwing off the yoke of the commandments, “You shall bless YHWH your God” at the very moment you need to bless Him, so that you will take upon yourself the yoke of His rule and bless His name. And this in my opinion is the meaning of the Scripture, “In all your ways, know Him;” (Prov 3:6.) it means even at the time of eating when you are close to forgetting Him and to severing your reason from your mind, at that very moment, “know Him” and cleave to Him. And if you do this, “He will straighten your paths,” (Prov 3:6.) He will straighten your ways on the paths of life, namely, the soul’s successful attainment of the world to come. If so, then a person ought to eat only for the sustenance of his body alone, and it is forbidden for him to pursue any sort of pleasure unless it is to make his body healthy and make the eyes of his intellect clear-sighted. In order for his body to be healthy and strong, he should pursue what pleases [his intellect] and his Creator, for his organs are combined and possess the capacity exactly in the measure that enables him to bear the yoke of the Torah and its commandments, which is the point of the verse written about the tribe of Issachar, “he bent his shoulder to bear the burden” (Gen 49:15), which is the same language used to refer to the giving of the Torah, “He [God] bent the sky and came down” (2 Sam 22:10). And anyone whose intention is this, is an angel of the Lord of Hosts, but whoever does not direct their intention to this end, is “likened to the beasts that perish.” (Ps 49:13,21). “You can see for yourself” (1 Sam 24:12: Re-eh gam re-eh – “you can see for yourself” (JSB).) Joseph the righteous, who was noted for his quality of reverence [yir’ah], from what is written, “I am a God-fearing man” (Gen 42:18.) and “Am I a substitute for God?” (Ibid. 50:19.) hinted at this point when he said, “take something for the hunger of your houses and be off.” (Ibid. 42:33.) He comes to instruct and to teach people to know that they should only eat to break their hunger, not to fill their belly and be drawn by the taste, which is base and to be scorned, because that is a disgrace to us, utter waste, and a thing which has no point to it. And do not say that this because it was a time of famine, because when Joseph was “a prince and commander of peoples,” (Is 55:4.) and the treasuries of the king were under his control, he had the power to supply bread and food to his father and brothers, as in the other the years of plenty. However, instead he made it known to us that this is the way of Torah and fear of Ha-Shem (may He be blessed!), that a person should only eat, satisfy himself, and fill his belly to satisfy his soul.

Midrash

The text discusses the parallels between the story of Joseph and Zion, highlighting how events in one story mirror events in the other. The sale of Joseph by his brothers led to his appointment as viceroy in Egypt and his role in providing food during a famine, which helped the world. The mention of Zion in the story signifies how the merit of the righteous can come to their aid. The text also explores how the actions of the tribes in selling Joseph were mirrored in the punishment they faced later on. The narrative emphasizes the consequences of actions and the importance of forgiveness.

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:17

“They sat to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balm, and ladanum, going to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). “They sat to eat bread” – Rabbi Aḥva bar Ze’eira said: The transgression of the tribes is remembered forever; it gave hope to the world. “They sat to eat bread” – he gave everyone in the world bread to eat. (The sale of Joseph led to his appointment to viceroy in Egypt and to his role as dispenser of food during the famine.) “And they lifted their eyes and saw…” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: But is it not typical of the Ishmaelites to bear only hides and tar? Rather, see what the Holy One blessed be He prepared for that righteous one at that moment: Sacks filled with spices, so that the wind would blow through them [and provide a pleasant smell] to counteract the odor of the Arabs. (Because the Ishmaelites generally transported foul-smelling substances, they and their equipment had an unpleasant odor. God arranged for the caravan carrying Joseph to Egypt to have pleasant-smelling spices in order to mask the foul, unpleasant odor. ) “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood” (Genesis 37:26). “Judah said to his brothers…” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: The verse is speaking in praise of Judah. In three places, Judah spoke before his brothers and they crowned him king over them. (They accepted his advice or his leadership. ) “Judah said to his brothers”; “Judah and his brothers came [.…And Judah said]” (Genesis 44:14); (This was after Benjamin was caught with Joseph’s goblet; Judah led the brothers in their return to Joseph and spoke as their representative.) “Judah approached him [and said]” (Genesis 44:18). (This was after Joseph informed them that Benjamin would be his slave. Judah again spoke on behalf of the brothers, argued for Benjamin’s release, and offered to take Benjamin’s place as a slave. ) “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers heeded him” (Genesis 37:27). “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” – they said: Let us adopt the way of the world. Canaan, who sinned, (Canaan reported Noah’s nakedness to Noah’s sons (see Bereshit Rabba 36:7). ) was he not cursed to be a slave? This one, too, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites. (Joseph had slandered his brothers (Genesis 37:2; see above, section 7). Therefore, they considered him worthy of a similar fate to that of Canaan. ) “His brothers heeded him.”

Esther Rabbah 7:25

“The couriers went out urgently by the king’s command, and the order was issued in the Shushan citadel; the king and Haman sat to drink, and the city of Shushan was confounded” (Esther 3:15). “The couriers went out urgently by the king’s command… the king and Haman sat to drink.” Rabbi Ḥanin said: Anyone who says that the All-Merciful is forbearing, his innards will be forborne. Rather, He withholds His anger, but [later] collects His due. He said to the tribes: ‘You sold your brother while eating and drinking. I will do the same to you;’ (Joseph’s brothers “sat down to eat a meal” (Genesis 37:25) when they came up with the idea of selling Joseph into slavery.) that is what is written: “And the king and Haman sat to drink.” There was a certain man of Israel who went to the marketplace to purchase a litra of meat or a bunch of greens; a Persian choked him and said to him: ‘Tomorrow I will kill you and spend your money’; that is what is written: “And the city of Shushan was confounded.” Rabbi Yissakhar of Kefar Mandi said: See how long it takes for the resolution [of the statement] of one who forgave, saying: “It was not you who sent me here, but rather God…” (Genesis 45:8). (Joseph to his brothers.) The punishment for the sale of Joseph was in effect until the days of Mordekhai; for one who does not forgive, all the more so.

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Vayehi Beshalach 6:5

R. Tarfon and the elders were once sitting in the shade of the grove of Yavneh when this question was once asked before them: Why need it be written (Genesis 37:25) "and their camels laden with spices, balm, and myrrh"? (He answered:) To apprise us of the extent to which the merit of the righteous comes to their aid. For if this "loved one" (Joseph) had gone down with (the usual wares of) the Arabs, would he not have died of the stench of the camels and the itran (a kind of resin)? But the Holy One Blessed be He "arranged" for him (a transport of) sacks full of spices and all goodly fragrances so that he not perish of their stench. (At this,) they said to him: You have taught us, our master, that this transpired in the merit of Joseph. They asked him: Our master, what is the blessing for one who drinks water to slake his thirst? He answered: "Who creates manifold beings and (supplies) their wants. (We thank you for) all that You have created — Life of the worlds!" They: You have taught us, our master, the blessing for one who drinks water to slake his thirst. Our master, in what merit did Judah attain to kingdom? R. Tarfon: You say. They: In the merit of his saying (Genesis, Ibid. 26) "What profit is it if we kill our brother, etc." by which he saved him from death. R. Tarfon: It suffices that this saving atone for his counsel to sell Joseph and not return him to his father.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Ki Tisa 13:1

(Exod. 32:1:) WHEN THE PEOPLE SAW THAT MOSES WAS LATE . What is the meaning of WAS LATE (boshesh)? (Shab. 89a; Gen. R. 18:6; Exod. R. 41:7; cf. PR 11:12.) six (shesh) hours had passed (bo) without Moses having come down, for Moses had made an agreement with them and said to them: After forty days I will bring you the Law. As soon as six hours had passed and he had not come down, immediately (ibid., cont.): THE PEOPLE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST AARON. Our masters have said: Satan came, confounded the world, (See also Tanh., Exod. 9:19.) and showed them something like Moses suspended from the earth, i.e., in the air (Avir; cf. Gk.: aer.) beneath it. (Cf. the parallel in Exod. R. 41:7, which reads, “suspended between heaven and earth.”) Then they pointed a finger at him and said (ibid., cont.): FOR THIS IS THE MAN, MOSES. (The biblical context would suggest the following translation: FOR REGARDING THIS MAN MOSES .) At that time Hur said to them: O stiff-necked < people >, do you not remember what he did for you? (Lev. R. 10:3. According to Exod. 24:14, Moses left Aaron and Hur in charge while he was up on the mountain.) They arose and killed him. (Below, Exod. 10:4; Exod. R. 41:7; 42:1; 48:3; Numb. R. 9:45.) Then they gathered together against Aaron, as stated (ibid.): THE PEOPLE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST AARON…. (Sanh. 7a; Exod. R. 51:8.) They said to him: If you make a god for us, well and good; but if not, we will do to you just as we did to Hur. (Exod. 32:5:) WHEN AARON SAW THIS, he saw what they had done to Hur, (ibid., cont.) HE BUILT (YBN) AN ALTAR (MZBH), he understood (HBYN) from the slaughtered (MZBWH) one. (So also Lev. R. 10:3; cf. Gen. R. 34:9, which gives the same interpretation of BUILT, in Gen. 8:20.) They wanted to build along with him. He said to them, leave me alone, and I will make it by myself, for no one is to build it along with me. Now Aaron had a plan. saying : While I am building it, Moses will come down. (So also Exod. R. 37:2.) Immediately (in Exod. 32:6): SO THEY ROSE EARLY THE NEXT DAY, < OFFERED BURNT OFFERINGS, AND BROUGHT PEACE OFFERINGS>; [AND THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK.] In every place that you find sitting, there you find degradation. (Exod. R. 41:7; similarly Sanh. 106a; Gen. R. 38:7; Tanh., Gen. 9:1; Sifre, Numb. 131; PRE 47.) Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD. What degradation happened there? that they sold Joseph. It is also written (in Numb. 25:1): WHILE ISRAEL WAS STAYING (literally: SITTING) AT SHITTIM. And what was the degradation there? (Ibid., cont.:) THE PEOPLE BEGAN TO GO WHORING . And here too (in Exod. 32:6): THEN THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN, the sitting of idolatry. The Holy One said to Moses; They have risen to revel in idolatry, while you are sitting . (Exod. 32:7:) GO AND GET DOWN. At that time Moses was going to go down, but he saw the angels of destruction and was afraid to go down. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 9:19): FOR I WAS AFRAID OF ANGER AND RAGE. What did he do? He went and grasped the throne, as stated (in Job 26:9): HE (Moses) GRASPS THE FACE OF A THRONE; [HE (the Holy One) SPREAD HIS CLOUD UPON HIM]. So the Holy One protected him and spread some of the radiance of his Divine Presence over him. Come and see how many troubles they caused. Yesterday Moses had shoved them (the angels of destruction) aside, (According to Shab. 88b-89a and Exod. R. 28:1, because the angels wanted the Torah for themselves, they tried to prevent Moses from receiving it.) and now he was afraid of them. (Deut. 9:19:) FOR I WAS AFRAID OF [ANGER AND RAGE]. The five angels of destruction were Af (Anger), Qetsef (Wrath), Meshabber (Smasher), Mashhit (Destroyer), and Hemah (Rage); (Cf. Tanh., Exod. 9:20.) Moses mentioned three patriarchs, and three went away. (See also Exod. R. 44:1.) But ANGER AND RAGE remained behind. Moses said to the Holy One: Sovereign of the World: You stand up to one and I to one, as stated (in Ps. 7:7 [6]): RISE UP, O LORD, IN YOUR Af (ANGER). (A more traditional translation would be: RISE UP, O LORD IN YOUR ANGER.) The Holy One said to him (in Exod. 32:7): GO AND GET DOWN; you have a descent (i.e., degradation). He said to him: Why? HE SAID TO HIM: BECAUSE YOUR PEOPLE HAVE ACTED BASELY. Moses said to him: Now are they my people and not your people! (Exod. 32:12:) TURN BACK FROM YOUR WRATHFUL ANGER. R. Simeon ben Johay said: Moses did not move from praying until the Holy One was reconciled to them. The Holy One said: In this world you sinned against me because the evil drive was ordering you; but in the world to come I am rooting it out of you, as stated (in Ezek. 36:26): I WILL REMOVE THE HEART OF STONE FROM YOUR FLESH AND GIVE YOU A HEART OF FLESH. (Below, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 1:12; above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:40; Tanh., Exod. 9:19; Tanh., Lev. 1:6.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 14:3

Another interpretation (of Ps. 37:28): FOR THE LORD LOVES JUSTICE < AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS >. [THEY ARE PROTECTED FOREVER]. < The verse > speaks about Joseph. And how did he protect him? [See] what is written (in Gen. 37:28): WHEN MIDIANITE TRADERS PASSED BY, < THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, THEN SOLD JOSEPH FOR TWENTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE ISHMAELITES >. And with what were they laden? (Gen. R. 84:17.) Now is it not the custom for camels to bear only < foul-smelling > 'itran? (One of various kinds of tar products or tree resin used for lighting, etc.) Yet it is written here (in Gen. 37:25): < WITH THEIR CAMELS BEARING > SPICE, BALSAM, AND LABDANUM! It is simply that the Holy One said: Should this righteous man be set in the midst of a bad odor? Instead, I will order a good odor for him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28) AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS. (Ibid., cont.:) BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. This refers to Potiphar, who did not take him for work but for something else. (I.e., for sodomy. So Rashi on Sot. 13b; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 39:1; Gen. R. 86:3.) What did the Holy One do? He castrated him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28): BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. Now CUT OFF only denotes castration. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 22:24): < ANYTHING WITH ITS TESTICLES > CRUSHED, SMASHED, TORN OUT, OR CUT OFF < YOU SHALL NOT OFFER TO THE LORD >. And where is it shown that he was not a eunuch < already >, but that the Holy One had castrated him? Where it is stated (in Gen. 39:1): < WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT >, POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 2:8

And they sat down to eat bread (ibid., v. 25). R. Judah the son of Shalum said: This is a notable instance of many sitting down together in unity, with a single thought in mind; to sell Joseph. Yet he fed the world for seven years, through two famines. If despite their sin he could feed the world and cause it to endure, how much more beneficial would have been the result if they had acted meritoriously. Similarly, observe what happened to the tribes in the chapter Shekalim, when they were permitted to atone for the incident of the golden calf. If the heinous sin they committed could lead to the performance of a worthy act, how much more so if they had acted meritoriously.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1:1

And Jacob sat in the land (Gen. 37:1). Whenever Scripture uses the expression and he sat (also translated “and he dwelt”), it connotes misfortune: And Israel sat in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen, … and the time drew near that Israel must die (Gen. 47:29); And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to make merry (Exod. 32:6); And there fell of the people on that day three thousand men (Exod. 32:28); And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:25); And Judah and Israel sat safely (I Kings 5:5); And the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon (ibid. 11:14); And Israel sat among the cedars, etc., and the people began to commit harlotry (Num. 25:1). You may explain every other use of “and he sat” with this negative implication. In this instance And Jacob sat is followed by and Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:2).

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Midrash Tehillim 10:3

"The arrogance of the wicked kindles the poor. This refers to Lot who was caught with the people of Sodom. The tribes thought they had devised a plan, but they were caught in their own schemes. Rabbi Yudan said: The one who says 'the merciful One will forgive' is not forgiven until he appeases his friend. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the tribes: You sold your brother for food and drink, as it says, 'And they sat down to eat bread' (Genesis 37:25). Behold, your children will be sold in Shushan during a feast, as it says, 'And the king and Haman sat down to drink' (Esther 3:15). Rabbi Yissachar said: What if Joseph had not forgiven his brothers, as it says, 'It was not you who sent me here, but God' (Genesis 45:8)? See how this is corrected for them! He who does not forgive his friend, even for a minor offense, is guilty of many sins. Rabbi Chanin said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the tribes: You said, 'Let us sell Joseph as a slave.' By your lives, you will be called slaves every year. Rabbi Pinchas said in the name of Rabbi Hosea: The tribes caused their father's coat to be torn, and they were punished in Egypt, as it says, 'And they tore their clothes' (Genesis 44:13). Joseph caused the tribes to tear their clothes, and his descendant, Joshua, was punished, as it says, 'And Joshua tore his clothes' (Joshua 7:6)."

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 38:10

And (Gabriel) said to him: What seekest thou? He said to him: I seek my brethren, as it is said, "And he said, I seek my brethren" (Gen. 37:16). And he led him to || his brethren, and they saw him and sought to slay him, as it is said, "And they saw him afar off" (Gen. 37:18). Reuben said to them: Do not shed his blood, as it is said, "And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness" (Gen. 37:22). And his brethren listened to him, and they took Joseph and cast him into the pit, as it is said, "And they took him, and cast him into the pit" (Gen. 37:24). What did Reuben do? He went and stayed on one of the mountains, so as to go down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit. And his nine brethren were sitting down in one place, all of them like one man, with one heart and one plan. Ishmaelites passed by them, and (the brethren) said: Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they will lead him to the end of the wilderness, and Jacob will not hear any further report concerning him.

Shemot Rabbah 41:7

“The tablets were the work of God and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets” (Exodus 32:16). “The tablets were the work of God.” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Each and every day, a Divine Voice emerges from Mount Ḥorev and proclaims: ‘Woe unto the creations for the affront to the Torah, as anyone who does not regularly engage in the Torah is ostracized from before the Holy One blessed be He,’ as it is stated: “The tablets were the work of God.” (God’s occupation, as it were, is involvement in Torah, and therefore anyone who ignores Torah ignores God (Matnot Kehuna; see Tanḥuma, Ki Tisa 16). ) “Engraved [ḥarut] on the tablets.” Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yirmeya, and the Rabbis, Rabbi Yehuda says: Do not read it as ḥarut, but rather as ḥerut – freedom from the exiles. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Freedom from the angel of death. The Rabbis say: Freedom from suffering. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said: If the angel of death were to come and say before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘You created me in this world for naught,’ He would say: ‘I granted you dominion over every nation in the world except for this nation, to whom I granted freedom.’ That is, “ḥarut on the tablets.” “The people saw that Moses tarried in descending from the mountain, and the people assembled around Aaron and said to him: Rise, make us a god that will go before us, because this man Moses, who took us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him” (Exodus 32:1). “The people saw that Moses tarried [boshesh].” What is “tarried [boshesh]”? Six hours had passed [ba’u shesh] and he had not descended. Why? It is because he had stipulated to them: In forty days I will bring you the Torah. When six hours passed [on the fortieth day] and Moses had not descended, immediately, “the people assembled around Aaron.” The Rabbis say: The accuser found his opportunity at that moment, as Moses was seen suspended between the heavens and earth, and they were pointing at him with a finger and saying: “Because this man Moses.” At that moment, Ḥur confronted them and said to them: ‘You fools, (Literally, you whose heads were severed at the neck.) do you not recall what miracles the Holy One blessed be He performed on your behalf?’ Immediately, they arose against him and killed him. They surrounded Aaron, as it is stated: “The people assembled around Aaron.” They said to him: ‘Just as we did to that one, so we will do to you.’ When Aaron saw that, he was afraid, as it is stated: “Aaron saw and he built an altar [mizbe’aḥ] before it [lefanav]” (Exodus 32:5). What is mizbe’aḥ? Due to the one who was slaughtered before him [min hazavuaḥ shelefanav]. Another matter, “he built an altar,” they sought to build an altar with him, but he did not allow them to do so. He said to them: ‘Allow me, and I will build it myself, as it is not in keeping with the honor due the altar for another to build it.’ But Aaron intended to delay matters. He said: ‘By the time I build it by myself, Moses will descend.’ He built it, but Moses did not descend. Immediately, they arose early the next day, as the prophet cries out: “However, they arose early and corrupted all their exploits” (Zephaniah 3:7). “The people sat to eat and drink, and they rose to revel” (Exodus 32:6) in idol worship. Wherever you find sitting [yeshiva], you find a mishap, as we found regarding the generation of the Dispersion, as it is stated: “They found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they settled [vayeshvu] there” (Genesis 11:2). What mishap was there? “They said: Come let us build us a city” (Genesis 11:4). “They sat [vayeshvu] to eat bread” (Genesis 37:25), and it is written: “They sold Joseph” (Genesis 37:28). “Israel settled [vayeshev] in the Shitim” (Numbers 25:1). What mishap was there? “The people began to engage in licentiousness with the daughters of Moav” (Numbers 25:1). What was their end? “Those who died [in the plague were twenty-four thousand]” (Numbers 25:9). Here, too, it is sitting, [implying] idol worship: “The people sat to eat….” The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘They rose to revel in idol worship, and you are sitting here? “Descend!”’ (Exodus 32:7). At that moment, Moses sought to descend, but he encountered angels of destruction. He feared them and he did not descend, as it is written: “For I was in dread due to the wrath and the fury” (Deuteronomy 9:19). What did Moses do? He went and grasped the [Divine] throne, as it is stated: “He grasps the surface of His throne and spreads His cloud over it” (Job 26:9); the Holy One blessed be He spread [His cloud] and protected him. He said: “Rise, descend quickly from here” (Deuteronomy 9:12). [Moses] said: ‘I am afraid.’ Come and see how potent iniquities are. In the past he had overcome them, but now he feared them. (In the past Moses had disputed with and overcome the angels, but now he was afraid of them (see Maharzu). ) “For I was in dread due to the wrath and the fury,” five angels of destruction were there: Wrath, fury, anger, destruction, and annihilation. At that moment, the three patriarchs came, and overcame three of them. Wrath and fury remained. Moses said: ‘Master of the universe, please, arise from Your Throne of Glory and overcome one, and I [will overcome] one,’ as it is stated: “Arise, Lord, in Your wrath” (Psalms 7:7). (This is understood to mean: ‘Arise, Lord, and hold back Your wrath’ – i.e. the angel of wrath, one of the angels of destruction that remained. ) And I will overcome fury, as it is stated: “He said to destroy them, had it not been for Moses, His chosen one, who stood before Him in the breach to turn back His fury” (Psalms 106:23). Immediately, the Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Descend, it is a demotion for you.’ He said to Him: ‘Why?’ [God said:] “For your people…have acted corruptly” (Exodus 32:7). Moses said to Him: ‘Now You are calling them my people; they are only Your people. “Relent from Your enflamed wrath and reconsider the evil for Your people”’ (Exodus 32:12). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: Moses did not move from prayer until the Holy One blessed be He called them His people, as it is stated: “The Lord reconsidered the evil that He had spoken of doing to His people” (Exodus 32:14). The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘In this world, because the evil inclination is in them, they craft idols. But in the future, I will uproot the evil inclination from within them and I will grant them a heart of flesh,’ just as it says: “I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26).

Sifrei Bamidbar 131:1

(Bamidbar 25:1) "And Israel sat in Shittim, and the people began to stray after the daughters of Moav. "sitting" in all places connotes subversion (of morality), as in (Shemot 32:6) [in connection with the golden calf] "And the people sat down to eat and to drink," and (Bereshit 37:25) [in connection with the selling of Joseph] "And they sat down to eat bread." R. Akiva says: Every section (in the Torah) which is juxtaposed with another is meant to be learned from. It is written above (Bamidbar 24:14) "Come, I (Bilam) will counsel you" (how to undo Moav). He said to them: The G-d of this people hates harlotry, and they lust after flaxen garments. Come and I will counsel you. Put up tents for them, and seat old women outside and a young girl inside, and let them sell them flaxen garments, etc." Rebbi says: There are many adjoining sections n the Torah which are as far from each other as east from west. To wit (Shemot 6:12) "Behold, the children of Israel have not listened to me, etc." — (Shemot 6:13) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and He commanded them unto the children of Israel." What does one verse have to do with the other? What did He command them? What He had already told them, viz. (Shemot 3:18) "And they will listen to you, etc." Similarly, (Vayikra 21:9) "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profane herself by harlotry" — (Vayikra 21:10) "And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A centurion served his term but failed to enter his primipilate (a high office) and fled. The king sent and had him returned and sentenced to decapitation. Before his execution the king says: Bring a heap of golden dinars before him and tell him: If you had done as your fellows did, you would have been granted this heap and your life. Now, you have lost both your life and your money. Likewise, the daughter of a Cohein who played the harlot. The high-priest goes out before her and says to her: If you had conducted yourself as your elders did, you would have merited bearing a high-priest such as I. Now you have lost both yourself and your honor. This is the intent of "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, etc." and "And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers, etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 1:9) "You are not my people" — (Hoshea 2:1) "And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted, and in place of their being told 'You are not My people,' etc." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A king gets angry with his wife and sends for a scribe to write her a divorce. But before the scribe arrives, the king is reconciled with his wife, whereupon the king says: "Shall the scribe leave here empty-handed? Tell him to come and write that I am doubling her kethubah." This is the intent of "for you are not My people, etc." and "And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 14:1) "Shomron shall bear her guilt, for she has defied her G-d" — (Ibid. 2) "Return, O Israel to the L-rd your G-d." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A province rebels against the king, who sends for a general and orders him to devastate it. The general, being wise and seasoned tells them: "Put together something for me to relay to the king, or I will do to you what I did to this and this province." This is the intent of "Shomron shall bear her guilt for she has defied her G-d" and "Return, O Israel, etc."

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that the balm mentioned in Exodus 30:34:2 is the sap dripping from the balsam tree, not the compound called theriac, which contains forbidden ingredients. Onkelos translates the term "n'choth" in II Kings 20:13 as "spices," and Rashi interprets "נכאת" in Isaiah 39:2 as the storehouse of spices. Chizkuni notes that the term "פרא אדם" in Genesis 16:12 refers to a trader in distant places, and in Genesis 43:11, "מעט צרי" means a little balsam. Bartenura translates "בשיירא" in Mishnah Tevul Yom 4:5 as "in the desert," and Bartenura also explains that "לוטם" in Mishnah Sheviit 7:6 is resin or chestnut, possibly known as TZINBAR in Arabic.

Bartenura on Mishnah Sheviit 7:6:4

לוטם (resin – used as a perfume; Maimonides calls it a chestnut or hazelnut) – It is the Aramaic translation of (Genesis 37:25): “[their camels bearing] gum, balm [and ladanum to be taken to Egypt];” And there are those who say that it is TZINBAR in Arabic; PANYULISH in the foreign language.

Bartenura on Mishnah Tevul Yom 4:5:6

בשיירא – in the desert/wilderness. (Genesis 37:25): “[Then they sat down to a meal. Looking up, they saw] a caravan of Ishmaelites [coming from Gilead].” We translate in Aramaic an Arab caravan.

Chizkuni, Exodus 16:3:2

בשבתנו על סיר בשר, “when we had been sitting besides a pot of meat.” They did not imply that they actually had meat in Egypt, but that they had adequate food. Another example of where לחם does not literally mean “bread,” but a meal, is found in Genesis 37,25. The same is true for the expression סיר בשר.

Chizkuni, Genesis 16:12:1

פרא אדם, an anonymous trader who travels to distant places where he is not known; compare Genesis 37,25 where the Torah describes such a caravan of Ishmael’s descendants to whom Joseph was sold. The word פרא also occurs as the definition of a person in Job 11,12. ועיר פרא יולד, i.e. an infant born and not yet named is a פרא. A person who lacks the intelligence and senses of ordinary people is called there: עיר פרא, “a wild ass;”[I am not sure about the difference between פרא אדם and אדם פרא. What seems clear is that the adjective פרא appears to diminish the degree of צלם אלוקים, Divine image that ordinary people have been equipped with from birth. It may be noteworthy that both Kayin and Hevel when born, the first human beings to have been born by woman, were not described as possessing this Divine image as opposed to Sheth, Chavah’s third son. This may explain a great deal about both of these sons experiencing either premature death, or ongoing tragedy in their lives. Ed.]

Chizkuni, Genesis 43:11:1

מעט צרי, “a little balsam;” something not available in Egypt. We have read that caravans used to transport this material to Egypt in Genesis 37.25.

Depths of Yonah 4:4:10

Rashi (to Bereishit 37:25), following Chazal (citing Bereishit Rabbah 84:17), explains that normally Arab caravans carried foul-smelling items such as resin and tar. Hashem arranged that the caravan transporting Yosef would feature fragrant spices so that Yosef need not suffer from the malodorous wares.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:4

According to Midrash Tanchuma 1 on our portion, examination of the occurrence of the word וישב throughout the Torah will reveal that this term is always used when some unhappy event was associated with such “settlement.” The following examples illustrate the point. Exodus 32,6 speaks of וישב העם לאכול ושתו ויקומו לצחק, “the people settled down to eat and to drink and they arose to make sport (worship the golden calf).” On that day three thousand of the people were slain on account of this sin). Genesis 37,25 reports that after throwing Joseph into the pit, וישבו לאכול לחם וישאו עיניהם והנה אורחת ישמעלים באה.....וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “when the brothers had settled down to eat their meal they raised their eyes and here a caravan of Ishmaelites arrived,......and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites.” In Kings I 5,5 we read וישב יהודה וישראל בטח,...ויקם ה' שטן לישראל, “when Yehudah and Israel had settled safely,...G’d made an adversary against Solomon” (11,14) [as a punishment for transgressing certain commands in the Torah, Ed.] In Numbers 25,1 we read וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “when the Israelites settled down at a place called Shittim, the people started debasing themselves by whoring” (with the Moabite women which resulted in G’d killing 24,000 of them). In our instance too Yaakov’s “settling” in the land of Canaan had in its wake his traumatic experience of the loss of Joseph. G’d had said (according to the Midrash) “is Yaakov not satisfied with inheriting the world to come that he must now also inherit this terrestrial world. It is not appropriate for the righteous to enjoy the best of both worlds.” According to Tanchuma when Yaakov became aware of the extent of the kings and chiefs listed in the Torah as descendents of from Esau he became worried about not having anything to counter such physical prowess of the Edomites. The matter may be explained in the form of a parable. A caravan of camels was heavily laden with straw. The onlookers could not imagine that there were storage facilities large enough to accommodate all this straw and they were worried that the owners would demand their own (the onlookers’) facilities to accommodate all that excess straw. An old man amongst the onlookers told his compatriots not to worry seeing that it would require only a single match to set fire to the entire mass of straw carried by the camels. Similarly, G’d put Yaakov’s mind at rest telling him that Esau would go up in flames just as straw would go up in flames. This is what the prophet Ovadiah 18 described when he compared the fate of the house of Esau and the fate of the house of Joseph in the future. The “match” in our instance would be Joseph, whose descendants would vanquish the descendants of Esau.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 38:25:2

Having established all this we can now address the amount of silver Haman offered to pay King Ahasverus in exchange for permission to destroy the Jews in his kingdom. Seeing that he offered 10.000 talents of silver, this was equivalent to 50 shekel for every Jew assuming that there had been 600.000 Jews at the time. The number 50 shekel is the maximum amount per adult male between the age of 20 and 60 prescribed by the Torah (Leviticus 27,3) that someone “donating” his own equivalent to G’d has to give to the Temple treasury. Another way of understanding why Haman picked on this amount of silver may be that when the Israelites sold their brother Joseph and received 20 pieces of silver in exchange, i.e. an amount of 5 shekel, or half a shekel each, and their guilt had not yet been atoned, he concluded that in exchange for the amount he offered he could legally make all the Jews his slaves (again by assuming that there were a total of 600.000 Jews). He felt certain that he would succeed seeing that the brothers had never been punished by G’d for selling Joseph into slavery. He presumably reasoned similar to what we have been told in Midrash Tehillim 10 that because the brothers sat down to eat their meal (Genesis 37,28) after throwing Joseph into the pit but before selling him, acting as if nothing out of the ordinary had just occurred, G’d was so angry that He said: “seeing you have sold your brother as a result of feasting, your descendants will be sold as a result of their having feasted (participating in the banquet given by King Ahasverus).” This is why the Book of Esther makes such a point of telling us that the King and Haman sat down to a feast after having concluded the deal in which Haman acquired authority to do to the Jews whatever he wanted.

Ramban on Exodus 30:34:2

NATAPH’ — is tzori (balsam). Now in Rashi’s commentary it is written: “The balm itself is called triga, (In our Rashi: theriaque. — To this term Ramban will object, since a theriac is an electuary [a medical compound] composed of many ingredients.) but because it is merely the sap which ‘drips’ from the wood of the balsam it is called nataph (dripping).” But I do not know whether this is the scribe’s mistake, or the one who so told Rashi misinformed him. For theriac [the triga mentioned by Rashi] is not one ingredient but is a compound of many ingredients, containing leaven and honey, the flesh of forbidden animals and reptiles, for the powder of dried scorpions and the flesh of the viper go into it, this being the reason why it is so called [theriac], for “poison” in Greek is called theriac. So also in the language of the Talmud: (Shabbath 109b.) “Torkai (stung by) a serpent.” Similarly this compound is mentioned in the language [of the Rabbis]: (Nedarim 41b.) “as theriac is good for the whole body.” And Heaven forbid that there should be in the incense the flesh of forbidden animals and reptiles, leaven and honey, for it is written, for ye shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire unto the Eternal. (Leviticus 2:11.) Rather, the tzori is the oily sap which drips from the balsam tree, called in the language of the Sages k’taph. It is this which we have been taught: (Kerithoth 6a.) “Rabban (The title “Rabban” [instead of “Rabbi”] signifies that he was the Nasi (Prince) of the Sanhedrin.) Shimon ben Gamaliel says: The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap which exuded from the k’taph (balsam) tree.” Perhaps it is called k’taph (plucking off) because they break off its branches on days in the hot season, and the balm runs down from the place where it is broken. In the Gemara of Chapter Bameh Madlikin (“With what may they light” [the Sabbath lamp]? — Shabbath 26a.) it is stated: “Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: We do not light [the Sabbath lamp] with tzori, and so did Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar (In Ramban manuscripts: “Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.” So also in some manuscripts of the Talmud (see Dikdukei Sofrim, Shabbath, p. 48 Note 1).) say: The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap exuding from the balsam tree.” And there in the Gemara (Ibid., 25b.) the Sages explained the reason [why that balm is not used for the Sabbath lamp], because its fragrance spreads and he may come to use it as food [and taking off oil from a burning lamp is considered the same as extinguishing it]. Thus it is clear that the tzori mentioned [for the incense] is that good oil mentioned [in the above Gemara]. And I wonder! For Onkelos translated: ‘n’choth’ (spicery) ‘u’tzri’ (and balm) and labdanum (Genesis 37:25.) — sh’aph u’ktaph. Similarly he rendered: a little ‘tzori’ (balm) (Ibid., 43:11.) — k’taph. But nataph [here in this verse] he translated n’tupha, and did not translate it as he did in the case of the word tzori! (For since Onkelos translated (in Genesis 37:25) the Hebrew tzori as the Aramaic k’taph, he should have translated likewise here the Hebrew nataph, for as said above nataph is tzori, and so why did he translate it as k’topha?) And Yonathan [ben Uziel] translated everywhere tzori as sh’aph, which is a term for an anointing oil in the language of the Talmud, such as in their saying: (Chullin 111b.) “[for him whose eyes hurt] they make shipha (an ointment of various components) in a vessel,” the word shipha being short of the letter ayin, which would make it she’ipha. A similar example is: (Beitzah 16a.) “D’sha’yeiph (he anoints) him with the same kind he gave him” to eat. Here too, the word d’sha’yeiph is like d’sha’iph [with the letter ayin]. It appears from their opinions (From Onkelos who translated (in Genesis 37:25) tzori as k’taph, and from Yonathan who translated it as sh’aph.) that both the balsam tree and its fruit are called tzori in the Sacred Language, just like t’einah (fig), rimon (pomegranate), ethrog, and many other names like them. The term n’choth (Genesis 37:25.) is thus, according to them, [Onkelos and Yonathan], a generic name for all notable and fragrant oils. That is why Scripture states, and he [Hezekiah] showed them all the house ‘n’chothoh’ (of his treasure), (II Kings 20:13.) because the treasure-house where the precious oil is stored is called by that name, seeing that it is the choicest of all treasure, and there in fact it is also written, and the precious oil. (II Kings 20:13.) Therefore Onkelos said in the case of the present that Jacob sent to Joseph, that they brought him sh’aph [which is the Aramaic translation for the Hebrew n’chot], (Ibid., 43:11.) which is the term for that notable oil. And they further brought [in the present for Joseph] from the branches of the tzori-tree called k’taph. (This explains Onkelos’ translation in Genesis 43:11.) In other places where Scripture mentions tzori alone, speaking of it as a beneficial medicine — such as in the verse, Is there no ‘tzori’ in Gilead? (Jeremiah 8:22.) — Yonathan translates it as referring to the oil called sh’aph. Onkelos translated [here] nataph as netupha, which is an oil called by that name because it “drips” from the broken branches. There is no justification here to translate nataph as sh’aph, for the incense did not contain any ointment. Now I have seen that Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Klei Hamikdash 2:4.) included in the incense the bark of a tree called in Arabic od balsan. From this it would appear that he was of the opinion that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel who said: (Kerithoth 6a.) “The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap which exuded from the k’taph-tree” thereby intended to differ with the Sages [who counted the tzori among the eleven components of the incense], and to say instead that tzori was not one of the ingredients of the incense, since tzori is nothing but a sap, and it was not the sap [of the k’taph] that was put into the incense, but the [bark of the] k’taph itself.

Ramban on Genesis 25:3:1

ASSHURIM, AND LETUSHIM, AND LEUMMIM. Rashi comments: “These were the names of clan chieftains. But I cannot reconcile Onkelos’ translation with the language of the text.” (Onkelos translates Asshurim as meaning “camps,” Letushim as “owners of tents who spread about in all directions,” and Leumim as “islands” or “sea-districts.” Upon this Rashi comments that he cannot make Onkelos’ translation fit in exactly with the words of the text. Ramban now proceeds to explain Onkelos’ understanding on the verse and also the reason why he was forced to make this translation.) It appears to me that Onkelos was of the opinion that Asshurim means camps, companies that travel the roads from city to city, just as it says, a company of Ishmaelites. (Further, 37:25.) Onkelos thus considered Asshurim as being derived from the expressions, To His steps (‘ba’ashuro’) hath my foot held fast; (Job 23:11.) His steps (‘ashurav’) do not slide. (Psalms 37:31.) And Onkelos’ opinion of Letushim is that they are the ones who dwell in tents that are scattered over the face of the earth, resting today in one place and tomorrow in another, for the letter lamed and nun interchange in many places, [thus Letushim would be like Netushim (scattered ones)] just like lishchah and nishchah, (Nehemiah 13:7.) [both of which mean “chamber”]; And on that day men were appointed over ‘haneshachoth’ (the chambers). (Ibid., 12:44.) From this root is derived the expression, a sword ‘netushah,’ (Isaiah 21:15.) which is the same as letushah (sharpened). And of the word Le’ummim Onkelos said ulenagvon, [which is Aramaic for the Hebrew word] iyim (islands). (See Isaiah 41:1 and Targum.) Onkelos was stirred to this translation by the word hayu [and the children of Dedan ‘hayu’ (were) Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim], when it would have been proper to express it similarly to the verse, And Mitzraim begot Ludim, and Ananim, and Lehabim, and Naphtihim. (Above, 10:13.) And in Bereshith Rabbah we find: (61:4.) “Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rav Nachman said that even though we translate these names and say, ‘Merchants, flaming ones, and heads of peoples,’ all of them were heads of peoples.” The matter is as I have explained. The translators rendered Asshurim as “merchants, those who walk the road.” From the word Letushim (sharp, shiny) they derived “men of wickedness,” their faces are faces of flame, (Isaiah 13:8.) burning as torches, from the roots: to sharpen ( liltosh ) his plowshare, and his coulter; (I Samuel 13:20.) He sharpened ( yiltosh ) his eyes upon me. (Job 16:9.) But Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rav Nachman said that even though they are accustomed to thus translate these names, they are still only the proper names of the heads of people, there being no descriptive name among them at all. And such is the case.

Rashi on II Kings 20:13:1

His treasure house. The storehouse of his spices, (נכאת is a term used to describe choice possessions. Accordingly, the Gemara presents different opinions. Some say נכאת is “his treasure house,” others say, “his most powerful weapons,” i.e., his armory. Yet others say that he had his wife [=בית נכתה] wait on them and pour their drinks. See Maseches Sanhedrin 104a and Rashi there) as in, “spices [=נכאת], balm, and lotus.” (Bereishis 37:25..)

Rashi on Isaiah 39:2:1

his entire treasure house (נְכֹתֹה) the storehouse of his spices, like (Gen. 37:25) “spices (נְכֹאת), balm, and lotus.”

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 16:12:3

ויד כל בו, “and everyone’s hand will be against him.” They would hate him and provoke strife with him. Nachmanides writes that in the expression פרא אדם the word פרא is in the construct mode to the word אדם, meaning that he will be more like a mule than a human being in character. He will constantly look for someone or something to attack and destroy, whereas people, as a result, would constantly be looking for him to neutralize him. The prediction of the angel was to characterize not so much Yishmael himself but the descendants, the Muslim nations and their method of spreading their religion with the fire and the sword. Ibn Ezra understands the word פרא as an alternate for the word חפשי, “free,” in the sense of “unable to submit to anyone’s authority.” The words ועל פני כל אחיו ישכון, Ibn Ezra understands to mean that Yishmael will dwell wherever his brothers, the sons of Keturah will dwell. Some commentators understand the term פרא אדם to mean that Yishamel will be a merchant forever in search of merchandise to buy or sell. Indeed we find that most of the Ishmaelites during the period of Yaakov already engaged in long distance trade, traveling in caravans with camels etc. (compare Genesis 37,25-27).

Targum

The Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, and Jerusalem on Genesis 37:25 all describe a group of traders, either Yishmaelites, Arabians, or Saracens, coming from Gilod with camels carrying various spices and products on their way to Egypt.

Onkelos Genesis 37:25

They sat down [reclined] to eat bread. They raised their eyes and saw—behold a Yishmaelite [Arabian] caravan was coming from Gilod. Their camels were carrying spices, balsam and lotus, bringing them down to Egypt.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 37:25

A band of Saracens

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:25

And they sat around to eat bread. And they lifted up their eyes, and looked, and behold a band of Arabians were coming from Gilead with their camels, carrying wax, resin, balsam and stacte, proceeding to go into Mizraim.

Tosefta

Rebbi Tarfon asked his students what blessing to say before drinking water to quench thirst, teaching them to say "Borei Nefashot Vechesronan." He then used the story of Joseph being sold into slavery as an example of God's mercy towards the righteous, even in times of anger.

Tosefta Berakhot 4:14

It happened [once] with Rebbi Tarfon, that he was sitting in the shade of a dovecote, on Shabbat, in the afternoon. They (i.e. the servants) brought in front of him a bucket of cold [water to drink]. Rebbi Tarfon said to his students, “[A person] who drinks water to quench his thirst, what Beracha does he say [before drinking the water]?” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “Borei Nefashot Vechesronan (Who Created Souls and Made Them Lack).” [Then] he said to them, “I will ask [you another question].” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “It says [in the Torah], ‘And they sat down to eat bread, and they lifted up their eyes, and they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, and their camels are carrying gum, balsam and resin, transporting them to Egypt.’ (Genesis 37:25) Is not it the way of the Arabs to [usually] carry bad smelling skins and tar? But rather [what happened was that God] placed that righteous man (i.e. Yosef) among favorable things. Is not this a Kal Vechomer (a derivation from minor to major)? Just like at the time when [God] is angry [at] the righteous [people, He still] has mercy on them, then at the time [of God’s] mercy, how much more so.”...

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהוּדָ֖ה אֶל־אֶחָ֑יו מַה־בֶּ֗צַע כִּ֤י נַהֲרֹג֙ אֶת־אָחִ֔ינוּ וְכִסִּ֖ינוּ אֶת־דָּמֽוֹ׃ 26 J Then Judah said to his brothers, “What do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood?
Chasidut discusses Yehuda's wisdom in advising against killing Yosef based on the lack of benefit and potential consequences, while the Midrash highlights his leadership role. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda ben Korha interpret texts from Genesis, with Rabbi Meir connecting Judah's actions to the kingship of Israel. Various commentators discuss the implications of Judah's actions, including the importance of completing commandments and the consequences of not forgiving lashon hara. The Talmud and Tosefta also delve into Judah's actions and their significance in Jewish thought and law.

Chasidut

Yehuda's wisdom in advising against killing Yosef, even though it seemed permissible, was based on the idea that there would be no benefit in killing him and that their father would love them more if they spared his life. This advice was considered counsel outside of the realm of Torah, only to be used in times of testing when no other option is available. Those who always follow Yehuda's example are considered compromisers with the Torah.

Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Genesis, Vayeshev 4

“And Yehuda said to his brothers, what will we profit in killing our brother?” (Bereshit, 37:26) It is written in the Gemara (Sanhedrin, 6b), “whoever blesses [congratulates] Yehuda is called a compromiser.” (“sells out.”) Concerning this, it is said in the Gemara (Nedarim, 32b), “at the time of the evil inclination, no one remembers the inclination to good.” When God wants to test man, He causes him to forget the very basis of the prohibition in which he is being tested. So it was with the tribes when they wanted to kill Yosef; then the basis of the prohibition against killing was hidden from them, and he was only saved from counsel outside the realm of Torah. This also saved his brothers from sin. Yehuda was a great sage in the wisdom of this world, therefore he devised advice and said, “what profit [ma beitsa].” This means, even though that it seemed to him that it was lawfully permitted to kill him, as will be explained, still, what benefit will we receive by killing him? (And this was the “counsel outside of the realm of the Torah.”) , (Would I suppose that my father would give me the coat? The coat of many colors was only meant for Yosef. Tashlum.) And from not killing him our father will love us so much more. And immediately when they decided among themselves not to kill him, they saw the basis of the prohibition, that from the side of the law it was also forbidden. One is forbidden to defend himself by means of this advice based on the wisdom of this world anytime he wants to, he may only do this at a time that he is being tested and there is no other advice to be used. However, he is not to separate from the prohibition at a time when he remembers that it is forbidden, for it is forbidden for him to separate himself based on this kind of counsel unless it a direct commandment from the blessed One. This is the explanation of the Gemara, “all who congratulate Yehuda,” meaning for one who thinks that it always proper to do as Yehuda did, is called a compromiser (or one who compromises with the Torah), for even Yehuda used such advice only at a time of testing.

Commentary

Various commentators on Genesis 37:26:1 discuss the meaning of the phrase "what profit" used by Judah in regards to killing Joseph, with interpretations ranging from financial gain to the lack of benefit in killing their brother. Additionally, there is a discussion on the intention behind concealing Joseph's blood, with some suggesting it was a euphemism for concealing his death while others argue it was to avoid the remorse and repercussions of the act. Judah's statement reflects a consideration of the consequences of their actions and the potential guilt and repercussions that would follow.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:26:1

מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו, “what will it profit us to kill our brother?” They did not consider killing Joseph a worthwhile act of revenge, as all dead people become forgotten in short order, as David has stated explicitly when he said to G-d in Psalms 59,12: “Do not kill them lest my people will forget them, bring them low, instead;”

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:26:2

מה בצע, the Talmud in Sanhedrin 6, states that anyone who blesses Yehudah for having said this (i.e. saving Joseph’s life) is guilty of insulting him instead, because the reason he gave for saving Joseph’s life was not in order to do him a favour but the reverse. He had implied that if killing him would be profitable they would certainly kill him. The only reason why they did not was because they could not see any advantage in it for themselves in doing so. The Torah spells this out in the next phrase:

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:26:3

וכסינו את דמו, “first we would have to cover up his blood,” (so that we could not even take credit for our deed.) We have to cover up his death and cannot boast about the absence of Joseph or our part in having accomplished this because of our father’s sorrow. When one has fought a war and killed one’s enemy, the revenge is only sweet when the victor can boast about it.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:26:1

WHAT PROFIT. Mah betza means what profit. Betza (profit) is close in meaning to chefetz (desire). What profit (betza) is there in my blood (Ps. 30:10) is similar. (Ps. 30:10 continues, Shall the dust praise Thee? Shall it declare Thy truth? Hence what desire (mah betza) is there in my death? Similarly the meaning of mah betza in our verse is: what desire is there in slaying our brother.)

Radak on Genesis 37:26:1

?מה בצע, “what financial advantage,” as per Onkelos.

Radak on Genesis 37:26:2

כי נהרוג את אחינו, what does this mean seeing Reuven had already prevented them from killing their brother outright? We must therefore understand Yehudah’s words as meaning: “what are we going to do with him? If we leave him in the pit this is just as bad as having killed him.”

Radak on Genesis 37:26:3

וכסינו את דמו, and cover his blood. He meant they had to conceal his death from their father.

Ramban on Genesis 37:26:1

AND WE SHALL CONCEAL HIS BLOOD. “We shall hide the fact of his death.” This is Rashi’s language. And Onkelos similarly says, “and we shall cover up his blood.” The correct interpretation is as its literal sense indicates. It is the custom of those who kill in secret to slay the victim, bury him, and conceal his blood in the earth, even as it says, And he hid him in the sand. (Exodus 2:12.) This was why Judah said to them, “By casting him into the pit we shall kill our brother and cover his blood with dust, for it will so be accounted to us.” (Judah was arguing against throwing him into the pit, for this act would also be accounted to them as murder. This explanation is developed further on in the text.) Now Reuben had instructed them not to spill blood with their hands. Rather, they should throw him into the pit and let him perish there, since the punishment of he who causes bloodshed is not the same as the punishment of one who actually commits the murder. Judah now came and said, “This too will be accounted to us as murder, as if we had killed him.” Such indeed is the truth, as the verse says, And him [Uriah] thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon. (II Samuel 12:9.) The difference between actual murder and causing death is that there is a greater punishment for a murderer and a lesser punishment for the one who indirectly causes death. Thus, the two of them [Reuben and Judah] spoke the truth.

Rashi on Genesis 37:26:1

מה בצע means WHAT PROFIT— just as the Targum renders it.

Rashi on Genesis 37:26:2

וכסינו את דמו AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD — this signifies and we hide the fact of his death (for they had not shed his blood, but had cast him into a pit to die).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:26:1

מה בצע, was böte uns der Tod unseres Bruders für unsere Zwecke mehr Vorteile, als wenn wir ihn weit in die Fremde hin von uns entfernen!

Sforno on Genesis 37:26:1

What will we gain. By this we will do harm not only to Yoseif but to ourselves, because we will be filled with remorse.

Sforno on Genesis 37:26:2

And cover up his blood. Moreover, the deed will not even serve as a deterrent to our other adversaries because we will have to conceal it for our own honor and out of fear of our father.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:26:1

What profit? as Onkelos translates it. I.e., we should not explain בצע as “theft.”

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:26:2

And we will conceal his death. Rashi is answering the questions: He was not a wild animal or a bird, [whose blood there is a mitzvah to cover. Why does it say, “Cover up his blood”?] Furthermore, they threw him into a pit. What blood was there to be covered?

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:26

Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it, what would we gain, 9 if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:26:1

וכסינו את דמו, ”and we will conceal his blood.” According to Rashi these words are a euphemism for “let’s conceal his death.” According to Nachmanides the words may be taken at face value, as it was the custom of murderers ever since the first one, Kayin, to bury the victim under a heap of earth and thus to conceal his blood.

Jewish Thought

Rabbi Meir interprets a text from Genesis as referring to Yehuda, while Rabbi Yehuda ben Korha discusses the importance of arbitration in achieving justice and peace. The blessings and prophecies given by Jacob to his sons in Akeidat Yitzchak 33:1:9 provide insight into the character and future of each son, highlighting Yehudah's leadership role, Shimon and Levi's actions, and Joseph's rise to greatness. The text also discusses the circumstances surrounding Jacob's death, the embalming of his body, and Joseph's interactions with his brothers after their father's passing.

Akeidat Yitzchak 33:1:9

(1) When calling in his sons concerning the events in the distant future, Jacob had in mind what happens to the souls after death. The second call concerned happenings during Messianic times, on this earth. Concerning Reuben, the statement yeter se-eyt refers to additional responsibilities which Reuben should have shouldered being a firstborn, instead of assuming an additional portion of negative virtues. Since the nature of his error was such that it could not be undone, like water which, if it has once hit the ground, cannot be retrieved, Reuben's sin of entering his father's bedroom constituted an irreversible desecration. This deprived him of the birthright, which was transferred to Joseph. Possibly, the hastiness and lack of mature judgment criticized here in Reuben's character may account for the equally hasty decision of the tribe of Reuben later in claiming their part of the ancestral inheritance in the territory formerly belonging to Sichon. It was the tribe of Reuben who was the first to experience exile and dispersion in later years. (2) Shimon and Levi are bracketed together because of the similarity of their actions. Their error was the opposite of that of Reuben. Reuben had acted hastily, without mature judgment. Shimon and Levi's action against Shechem was reprehensible precisely because it was preceded by careful planning. Aristo in Ethics 7, Section 9, already discusses the relative merit of impetuosity versus the person who is in perfect control of his actions who, though carrying out carefully planned deeds, has given no thought to the possibility that he may be wrong. At Shechem, Shimon and Levi sinned because they had planned. When it came to the violence done to Joseph, they could not even claim that their action had been thoroughly thought out. Concerning the first action, Jacob condemns an anger of the aph variety, something that would not evaporate until they had taken collective revenge. In the case of their treatment of Joseph, their action was the result of ratzon, free will, impetuous behavior. When both of these characteristics are found side by side, they spell too much danger for society. Jacob did not want to be associated with this. Therefore, the two have to be separated to reduce their potential for causing harm. Although anger is a negative virtue, it can on occasion be most helpful, since it awakens people to their duty who would otherwise have remained inactive, on the sidelines. Having Levi scattered throughout Israel would ensure that when the occasion would demand it, there would be people that would galvanize the rest of the population into taking action. When Isaiah (63,5) says, "My arm brought me salvation, and my fury upheld me," he refers to exactly such instances of the usefulness of fury. Similarly, the Talmud in Ketuvot 103 reports how Rabbi Yehudah taught his son Rabbi Gamliel how to conduct himself in the office of the President. He told him, "Conduct your office among the exalted and strike fear into the students." (3) Yehudah is the first of the sons whose heroic deeds did not manifest themselves in turning against his own flesh and blood when angered; rather, "Your hand was against the neck of your enemy." Therefore, it is fitting that his brothers pay homage to him. "A young lion;" subsequently he is described as a fully grown lion (both in verse 9). This suggests that Yehudah's personality development proceeded according to accepted norms. He develops from strength to strength, unlike other crowned heads, many of whom experience their greatest moment of glory at the moment they are crowned and ascend the throne. Miteref beni aleeta, you overcame, surmounted the confused thinking of my other sons. Even though you were young in years, you showed mature judgment at the moment it was called for ("What profit is there in killing our brother" 37,26). Jacob proceeds to assure Yehudah that royalty will be hereditary in his descendants throughout the ages. However, just as the lion may crouch ready to pounce, but lacks the power, so the royal descendants of Yehudah will similarly be found lacking in strength on occasion. Such weakness will reflect Yehudah's lack of religious observance during such periods. The Talmud (in Sanhedrin 5) tells us that the term "king" is not used here for Yehudah to convey the idea that in the long years of exile when there will be no Jewish king, leadership functions will still devolve upon the descendants of Yehudah; "The sceptre will not depart," "the lawgiver," refer to such men as the Exilarch, i.e. the leader of the Jews in the Babylonian exile who were members of the tribe of Yehudah, often in a direct line from David. Once the era of Shilo commences, the condition of Yehudah being merely kore-a, crouching, will be over, and the whole world will pay homage to him. The reference then is to Yehudah's restricted leadership role in the interval, not the cessation of such status. The reason that Zevulun in this blessing is mentioned ahead of Issachar is that since the former provides the funding for the latter's sacred vocation, that of devoting himself to Torah, the former is the prime mover, and deserves to be recognized first. Issachar who is like a beast of burden weighed down under its load, represents the qualities without which Torah study devoid of ulterior motives cannot be undertaken successfully. A donkey accepts ever greater burdens without protest, is undemanding in manner, and modest in upkeep. (4) The reason that both sons of Zilpah are mentioned in between the sons of Bilhah, is to prove that Zilpah really was supposed to have become pregnant before Bilhah. Only Laban's trickery had prevented this at the time he tricked Jacob into marrying the wrong girl. (5) Issachar realized the kind of menuchah, rest, that is "good." The reference is to the serenity attainable only through the diligent study of Torah, which ensures that one will reap the ultimate "good" at the end of one's endeavours. (6) After having mentioned the sons of Leah in the order of their birth, Jacob addresses himself to the oldest son of the maids. Samson, descendant of Dan would achieve the position of leader amongst his people, and become the first one to begin and shake off the yoke of the Philistines. Samson's activities were not accompanied by the glory and pomp of a royal Court, but like a snake, a loner, were simply acts of revenge perpetrated as acts of terror from ambush. This is just like the action of a snake which always seems unconcerned about its own fate. Samson died at the site of his greatest triumph, just as a snake presumably gets killed when the horse and rider it has bitten fatally kills the snake near the site of their own death. Since a victory in which the pursuer dies himself is hardly a true victory, the victor not surviving to enjoy the fruits of his deed, Jacob adds the words, "In Your help I trust," expressing the hope that the defender of his people will be spared by Divine intervention. "Gad will form units of troops," even though Gad will be the first of the tribes to be led into captivity (Kings II 10,33), he will eventually re-emerge at the time of redemption. Asher is blessed by being promised material blessings that are rarely found side by side, namely both grain and fruit. Perhaps during the reign of Solomon, he was called upon to supply the royal palace. "He will supply the delicacies for the king." The comparison of Naftali to "a hind let loose," i.e. fleet-footedness, may hint at the climatic conditions in his territory giving rise to earlier harvests than elsewhere in Israel. Possibly, Naftali had silver-tongued men, bearers of good tidings who would lead Israel in thanksgiving to the Lord. (7) Because Joseph was like a beautiful fruit, flourishing by a fountain, attracting admiration from all sides, he also attracted jealousy and envy. As a result, he was quarrelled with and persecuted. He himself, however, kept his ammunition in check instead of fighting back. Thus, he proved himself stronger than his adversaries. His hands were strengthened by the same G-d who had proven His might when aiding Jacob. Therefore, he possessed the merit to become the provider (ro-eh) for his family, his clan. "May you receive your reward from the G-d of your father, may it be stored with the G-d Shadday, and may you receive the bountiful blessings from the heavens above and the depths that lie below, which are typified by the blessings of the breasts and the womb. The blessings of your father (Jacob) are greater than those of my parents (Isaac) in that I may select one of my sons for a special blessing, though all of them deserve blessings.” Each one of the sons of Jacob had a morally justifiable claim to givaut olam, high positions in the world; Joseph, however, had proven outstanding. Therefore, "on his skull more than on that of his brothers," the special blessing. Since the tribe of Levi had not yet been given its special designation replacing the firstborn, and the number of tribes was not to exceed twelve, the blessings for Menashe and Ephrayim are here incorporated in the blessings pronounced on their father Joseph. At the time when Moses blessed the nation, singling out Levi for its share of recognition, Ephrayim and Menashe are once again not mentioned separately, to avoid exceeding the number twelve. Moses therefore only alludes to them by stating that bechor shoro, the firstborn, his ox, are the tens of thousands of Ephrayim and the thousands of Menashe. The importance of Benjamin is alluded to by the fact that he rates the opening of a new paragraph (the paragraph could easily have ended at verse twenty-nine). Just as the word "Yehudah" is usually found at the beginning of a "page," so both of the brothers in whose territory the holy temple was to stand later, share the distinctive treatment in the manner in which their blessings are recorded in the Torah. Since the Priests and Levites will constantly be found in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to expect the members of those tribes to pursue the wisdom obtainable by keeping company with the priests, like wolves that rob in the morning and share the booty at night. Benjaminites will share in the knowledge obtained through close association with the tribe of Levi, and will teach others. Since in this manner they will both learn and teach, they are privy to the essence of all blessings. After all, success in any endeavor is based on study and dissemination of knowledge. The verse "the tribes of Israel are twelve," means that "although Joseph was divided into two tribes, the total still does not exceed twelve tribes, rather Levi is to be regarded as in a class by himself." This is what is meant by the words (verse 28), "Which their father said to them" (perhaps for this reason the scattering of Levi's cities was of quite a different nature than the dispersal of Shimon who had contiguous tribal territory, though it was an enclave within Yehudah). Since seventeen years had elapsed since Jacob and his family had left Canaan, Jacob was concerned lest any claim against the burial place of Abraham should have been registered during the family's absence from the country. Therefore, Jacob repeated all the details of his justified claim to the lands in question. Should any claim originate with the Canaanites, the fact that Ephron had sold to Abraham was essential; should the descendants of Ishmael claim the cave as theirs, the fact that Isaac had been buried there would prove that they had no valid claim thereto. To forestall any claim of Esau to be buried there, the fact that Leah had already been buried there, would attest to its ownership by the family of Jacob. Should the argument be used that the sale by an individual such as Ephron was invalid, since he was merely an individual and it was not in the national interest to sell off land to outsiders, the fact that the beney chet, a national group had approved the sale to Abraham, would invalidate any such claim in the future. (4) We have explained when Abraham died, that geviyah is the failure of one's faculties to function (clinical death), whereas meetah is the destruction and decay of the body's whole structure. Assiphah refers to the return of the soul to its hidden origin. Meetah is not mentioned in connection with Jacob. The reason our Rabbis may not have quoted this passage when they made the statement that "Jacob did not die," is so as not to allow the misconception that the elaborate measures taken to embalm Jacob's body were what is meant by the absence of the term meetah. The impression could easily have been formed that preventing decay of the body is equivalent to preventing meetah, i.e. death. Joseph appears to have had his own royal embalmers, and instead of the standard thirty-day procedure, Jacob was given the royal treatment, i.e. seventy days. This made the removal of the intestines and brain unnecessary (possibly). It appears that during the mourning Joseph observed for his father for seventy days, he did not permit himself to communicate with anyone at the royal court, and spoke to Pharaoh only through intermediaries (50,4). (5) It seems that as soon as Jacob had passed on, his sons were ready to return to the land of Canaan with their families and livestock, but were prevented by the Egyptians who were already planning to eventually enslave Jacob's entire offspring (Midrash Rabbah Tzav). We are told therefore, that the reason the Parshah dealing with Jacob's "death" is closed, i.e. is not separated from the preceding Parshah by a paragraph or line, is to indicate that true independence was lost as soon as Jacob closed his eyes for the last time. The Jews already felt that their freedom of movement had become subject to restrictions, and that is why even a Joseph on his deathbed had to invoke the time when G-d would lead the Jews out of Egypt as the time when his own remains should be transferred to the holy land (50,24). (6) The words va-ya-al immo in 50,9 may refer to the Shechinah leaving Egypt, having accompanied Jacob on his journey to Egypt seventeen years earlier (compare "I will go up with you," 46,4). The Canaanites saw a bad omen in all of this; they emphasized to their deities that this was an Egyptian affair, no business of theirs, and that any harmful fallout should befall Egypt. From then on, the brothers carried Jacob on their shoulders, just as their father had instructed. (7) The brothers had convinced themselves by and by that Joseph's rise to greatness was due entirely to their own action against him, and that because of that he owed them good treatment (as compensation). Their reasoning ran thus: "If only Joseph would hate us and pay us back for the kind of harm (may it happen so to all Jewish children) we have done him." They hoped to receive good in return for evil as a matter of right, not as a gesture of generosity. (8) When speaking in the name of Jacob then, they referred to their treatment of Joseph as evil (50,17), but they referred to themselves as "servants of the G-d of your father," who had acted presumably in consonance with G-d’s will, hence such eminently successful outcome of their actions. (9) Joseph realized that all this convoluted reasoning was the result of his brothers' fear, and he wept at their fear and discomfort. However, Joseph, answering his brothers along the line of their own argument, said, "I am not in place of G-d, so you need no forgiveness from me since your intention was indeed wicked. However, it was G-d who arranged for the outcome to be good not just for me alone but for everyone concerned. Despite your moral guilt however, do not worry, I will look after your needs.” (10) Joseph's raising Ephrayim's grandchildren on his knees is reported to show that Jacob's blessing concerning such grandchildren had been fulfilled. Since Joseph died at a younger age than his brothers, his reassuring remarks on his deathbed concerning the Providence of the Lord are of prime importance. Since his embalming was different from the method employed for his father, his physical death is mentioned. Since his remains were going to be interred in Egypt immediately, the treatment described would be quite adequate.

What is the Talmud, VII What is written in the Talmud?, 5 Jurisprudence 25

R. Meir says: This text refers to none but Yehuda, for it is written (Gen 37:26), And Yehuda said to his brethren, What profit [betza] is there if we slay our brother? And whosoever praises Yehuda, blasphemes, as it is written, He who praises the man who is greedy of gain [botzea] blasphemes against the Lord. R. Yehuda ben Korha says: Settlement by arbitration is a meritorious act, for it is written (Zech 8:16), Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates. Surely where there is strict justice there is no peace, and where there is peace, there is no strict justice! But what is the kind of justice with which peace abides? — We must say: arbitration. So it was in the case of David, as we read, And David executed justice and righteousness [charity] towards all his people. Surely where there is strict justice there is no charity, and where there is charity, there is no justice! But what is the kind of justice with which charity abides? — We must say: arbitration!…

Midrash

Judah's leadership is highlighted in the Midrash, as he merited sovereignty through his actions regarding Tamar and Joseph. In another Midrash, it is explained that starting a commandment without finishing it leads to negative consequences, as seen in Judah's case when he did not complete a mitzva. The text also discusses how Joseph's descent to Egypt was a result of his brothers' jealousy, and Judah's role in the events that unfolded.

Aggadat Bereshit 61:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:17

“They sat to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balm, and ladanum, going to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). “They sat to eat bread” – Rabbi Aḥva bar Ze’eira said: The transgression of the tribes is remembered forever; it gave hope to the world. “They sat to eat bread” – he gave everyone in the world bread to eat. (The sale of Joseph led to his appointment to viceroy in Egypt and to his role as dispenser of food during the famine.) “And they lifted their eyes and saw…” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: But is it not typical of the Ishmaelites to bear only hides and tar? Rather, see what the Holy One blessed be He prepared for that righteous one at that moment: Sacks filled with spices, so that the wind would blow through them [and provide a pleasant smell] to counteract the odor of the Arabs. (Because the Ishmaelites generally transported foul-smelling substances, they and their equipment had an unpleasant odor. God arranged for the caravan carrying Joseph to Egypt to have pleasant-smelling spices in order to mask the foul, unpleasant odor. ) “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood” (Genesis 37:26). “Judah said to his brothers…” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: The verse is speaking in praise of Judah. In three places, Judah spoke before his brothers and they crowned him king over them. (They accepted his advice or his leadership. ) “Judah said to his brothers”; “Judah and his brothers came [.…And Judah said]” (Genesis 44:14); (This was after Benjamin was caught with Joseph’s goblet; Judah led the brothers in their return to Joseph and spoke as their representative.) “Judah approached him [and said]” (Genesis 44:18). (This was after Joseph informed them that Benjamin would be his slave. Judah again spoke on behalf of the brothers, argued for Benjamin’s release, and offered to take Benjamin’s place as a slave. ) “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers heeded him” (Genesis 37:27). “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” – they said: Let us adopt the way of the world. Canaan, who sinned, (Canaan reported Noah’s nakedness to Noah’s sons (see Bereshit Rabba 36:7). ) was he not cursed to be a slave? This one, too, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites. (Joseph had slandered his brothers (Genesis 37:2; see above, section 7). Therefore, they considered him worthy of a similar fate to that of Canaan. ) “His brothers heeded him.”

Bereshit Rabbah 85:3

Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon and Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, buries his wife and his children. From whom do you derive this? It is from Judah. “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it [if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?]” (Genesis 37:26). He should have borne him on his shoulder to his father. What did it cause for him? He buried his wife and his children. Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, but another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the second one. That is what is written: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up” (Joshua 24:32). Did Moses not take them up, as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him” (Exodus 13:19)? But since it was decreed upon him that he would not enter the land, and these [the children of Israel] tended to them, it is therefore attributed to them. “Joseph’s bones…” (Joshua 24:32) – they analogize it; to what is the matter comparable? To robbers who entered a certain wine cellar. They took a particular jug and drank. The owner of the cellar peered at them. He said to them: ‘May it be pleasant for you, may it be enjoyable for you, may it be sweet for you. You drank the wine, restore the jug to its place.’ So, the Holy One blessed be He said to the tribes: ‘You sold Joseph. Restore his bones to their place.’ Another matter: Joseph said to them: ‘To the place from which you abducted me, return me’ – “are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). (This proves that the sale of Joseph took place in or around Shekhem. ) That is what the children of Israel did: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32).

Bereshit Rabbah 99:7

“Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of villainy are their heritage” (Genesis 49:5). Reuben went out and his ears were slumped. [Jacob] began calling: “Simeon and Levi are brothers” – brothers for degradation. He said to them: ‘You were brothers for Dina, as it is written: “Two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dina’s brothers, each took his sword” (Genesis 34:25), but not brothers for Joseph, as you sold him.’ Rabbi Simlai said: In Reuben’s regard it is written: “In order to deliver him from their hand, to restore him to his father” (Genesis 37:22). Reuben was not involved in Joseph’s sale. Judah, too, said to them: “What profit [is there if we kill our brother]?” (Genesis 37:26). These were the eldest; consequently, the two of them sold him. (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah were the oldest sons of Jacob. If Reuben and Judah were not involved in the sale, it must have been Simeon and Levi who organized it. ) Know that it is so, for when they descended to Egypt, [Joseph] took from them none other than Simeon, as it is stated: “He took Simeon from them [and incarcerated him before their eyes]” (Genesis 42:24). That is why [Jacob] called the two of them as one. “Weapons of villainy” – what are weapons of villainy? He said to them: ‘They have been stolen by you; they are not yours. They belong to Esau, in whose regard it is written: “By your sword you shall live”’ (Genesis 27:40). Those are weapons of villainy, and villainy is none other than Esau, as it is stated: “For the villainy to your brother Jacob” (Obadiah 1:10). (Thus, Jacob was saying that the weapons of Simeon and Levi belong to Esau, who is the subject of the verse in Obadiah. ) “Their heritage [mekheroteihem]” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a Greek expression, makhirin, makhirin>. Some say: “Mekhuroteihen” – their residences [meguroteihem], just as it says: “Your origins [mekhorotayikh] and your birthplace” (Ezekiel 16:3). “Let my soul not come in their company; with their assembly let my glory not be associated; for in their anger they killed men, and with their will they hamstrung oxen” (Genesis 49:6). “Let my soul not come in their company” – when Zimri will arise and perform that act with Kozbi, let my name not be mentioned there, as it is stated: “The name of the man of Israel who was slain…[Zimri, son of Salu, a prince of a patrilineal house of the Simeonites]” (Numbers 25:14). (The name of Jacob is not mentioned. ) “With their assembly let my glory not be associated” – when Koraḥ will assemble his congregation to dispute, let my name not be associated with them, but rather, “Koraḥ, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi” (Numbers 16:1), but it did not say: “Son of Jacob.” “For in their anger they killed men [ish]” – did they kill one man [ish]; is it not written: “They killed all the males” (Genesis 34:25)? It is that they were all considered before the Holy One blessed be He like one man. Likewise it says: “Behold [hen], nations may be regarded like a drop from a bucket…” (Isaiah 40:16). What is hen? In the Greek language, hen is one. Likewise it says: “You will smite Midian as one man” (Judges 6:16). Similarly, “the horse and its rider He cast into the sea” (Exodus 15:1) – like one horse and its rider. (The singular terms are used in order to indicate that God cast all the many horses and riders of the Egyptian army into the sea as though they were just one. ) “Cursed is their anger, as it is fierce, and their wrath, as it is harsh; I will divide them in Jacob, and I will disperse them in Israel” (Genesis 49:7). “Cursed is their anger” – he cursed only their anger. Likewise, the wicked Bilam says: “How will I curse, where God has not cursed” (Numbers 23:8)? If at a time of anger he cursed only their anger, can I come to curse them? (If Jacob was angry at Simeon and Levi and yet, with divine spirit, Jacob cursed only their anger and not them, can I, Bilam, curse the Israelites? ) “I will divide them in Jacob” – how so? Twenty-four thousand fell from the tribe of Simeon in [the incident of] Zimri, and its widows were twenty-four thousand. They were divided into two thousand for each and every tribe, as it is stated: “I will divide them in Jacob.” Everyone who circulates among the doorways [to beg] is from the tribe of Simeon. The Holy One blessed be He said: Levi too will circulate. What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He provided him with his sustenance cleanly, and yet Jacob’s edict was fulfilled. The Holy One blessed be He elevated [Levi] and gave him one-tenth, (The first tithe of produce. ) and he circulates and says: ‘Give me my portion.’ That is why it is stated: “I will divide them in Jacob.”

Bereshit Rabbah 99:8

“Judah, you shall your brothers acknowledge; your hand will be at the nape of your enemies; your father’s sons will prostrate themselves to you” (Genesis 49:8). Simeon and Levi, too, emerged with their faces crestfallen, and Judah feared that [Jacob] would mention the incident of Tamar to him. He began calling him: “Judah, you shall your brothers acknowledge [yodukha].” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You confessed [hodeita] (Hodeita has the same root in Hebrew as the term yodukha. ) in the incident of Tamar; your brothers will acknowledge you to be king over them.’ “Your hand will be at the nape [beoref] of your enemies” – this is David, who descended from him, and in whose regard it is written: “My enemies, You had them turn their backs [oref] to me” (II Samuel 22:41). “Your father’s sons will prostrate themselves to you” – Isaac said to Jacob: “Your mother’s sons” (Genesis 27:29), as he had only one wife, Rebecca. But Jacob, who had four wives, said to Judah: “Your father’s sons.” “Judah is a lion cub; from prey, my son, you ascended. He crouches, lies like a lion; and like a great cat, who shall rouse him” (Genesis 49:9). “Judah is a lion cub; from prey, my son, you ascended” – from the prey of Joseph, as you said: “What profit [is there if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?]” (Genesis 37:26). Alternatively, “from prey” – from the prey of Tamar, as you saved four lives – you, Tamar, and her two sons. (When Tamar’s pregnancy became known, Judah sentenced her to death, thinking she had committed sexual immorality. When she proved to him that he was the father, he conceded that she was innocent and ordered her life spared, after which she gave birth to twins. See Genesis, chapter 38. ) The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You saved four; I will save four of your descendants – Daniel, Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya.’ He called him four names: “Judah is a lion cub”; “he crouched and lay like a lion, and like a great cat, [who shall rouse him?]” (Numbers 24:9). (Thus, Judah is referred to as a lion, a cub, again a lion, and a great cat. ) “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, or the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shilo arrives; and to him nations will assemble” (Genesis 49:10). “The scepter shall not depart from Judah” – this is the royal throne: “Your throne is of God forever; the staff of righteousness” (Psalms 45:7) – when? “The ruler’s staff from between his feet” – with the arrival of the one to whom kingship belongs, of whom it is written: “With feet will the crown [of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim] be trampled” (Isaiah 28:3). “Until Shilo arrives” – the one to whom kingdom belongs [shelo]. “And to him nations will assemble [yik’hat]” – the one who dulls [mak’heh] the teeth of all the nations, as it is stated: “They will place hand over mouth; their ears will be deafened” (Micah 7:16). Alternatively, “and to him nations will assemble” – the one for whom the nations of the world will assemble, as it is stated: “The root of Yishai, that stands as a banner of the peoples, nations will seek him” (Isaiah 11:10). (In other words, the verse here is a reference to the Messiah, as is the verse in Isaiah. ) “He will bind his foal to the vine, and to the branch of the vine his donkey’s foal; he launders his garments in wine, and in the blood of grapes, his clothes” (Genesis 49:11). “He will bind his foal to the vine” – when He will gather all of Israel, which is called “vine,” as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And to the branch of the vine his donkey’s foal” – this is the one in whose regard it is written: “He is humble, and riding upon a donkey…” (Zechariah 9:9). Another matter: “And to the branch of the vine his donkey’s foal” – it is the one who plants all of Israel like a vine branch. How does he do so? “I will sprinkle pure water upon you” (Ezekiel 36:25). “He launders his garments in wine” – as wine is abundant within his borders. And in the blood of grapes, his clothes [suto]” – suto is nothing other than error, as it is written: “If your brother…will entice you [yesitekha]…” (Deuteronomy 13:7). (This is referring to one who incites another to engage in idol worship.) If they err in halakha, it will be laundered within his domain. (It will be clarified before the Great Sanhedrin, in the Temple, which is located in the tribal portion of Judah.) “His eyes shall be red from wine, and his teeth white from milk” (Genesis 49:12). “His eyes shall be red [ḥakhlili] from wine” – from here you learn that wine is abundant in his domain, like a person who says to another: ‘Pour for me, and again, as my palate is sweet to me, a sweet palate for me, for me [ḥeikh li li].’ “And his teeth white from milk” – due to the merit of the Torah, “if your sins will be like scarlet, they will be whitened as snow” (Isaiah 1:18).

Devarim Rabbah 8:4

What the verse said: “For they are life for those who find them…” (Proverbs 4:22) – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: It is a salve for the eye and a remedy for a wound, and a cup of roots for the intestines. A salve for the eyes, as it is written: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, it enlightens the eyes” (Psalms 19:9). A remedy for a wound, as it is written: “It will bring health to your body” (Proverbs 3:8). A cup of roots for the intestines – as it is written: “And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8). Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [lemotzeihem]” – to one who issues them [lemotzian] out of his mouth. (Studies out loud.) There was an incident involving a certain disciple of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who would complete all his learning in one hour. (He did not say the words out loud.) One time, he fell ill and forgot all his learning. What caused this to befall him? It is because he did not recite it with his mouth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov prayed on his behalf and all his learning was restored. Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who imparts it [shemotzian] to others. Alternatively, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who completes [shemamtzi] (This is a variation of the word mematze, which means exhausts or completes.) all the mitzvot. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “All the mitzva” (Deuteronomy 8:1). What is “all the mitzva”? It is until you complete all the mitzvot. "And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8), the 248 limbs that you have. That is "For this mitzva." Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, causes that he will bury his wife and his children. From whom do you derive it? It is from Judah, who began a mitzva but did not complete it. How so? When Joseph came to his brothers and they sought to kill him, as it is stated: “Let us go and kill him” (Genesis 37:20). Judah stood and did not allow them. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “What profit is it if we kill our brother?” (Genesis 37:26). They heeded him because he was king over them. Had he said to them: ‘Let us return him to our father,’ they would have heeded him. Because he began the mitzva but did not complete it, he buried his wife and his children, as it is stated: “Bat Shua, Judah’s wife, died” (Genesis 38:12), and it is written: “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 46:12). Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: Anyone who begins a mitzva but does not complete it, and another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the one who completed it. How so? Moses began the mitzva, as he took Joseph’s bones with him. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him…” (Exodus 13:19). But because he did not take them into the Land of Israel, it is attributed to Israel, who buried him, as it is stated: “The bones of Joseph that the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32). “That Moses took up from Egypt” is not written here, but rather, “that the children of Israel took up.” Why did they bury him in Shekhem? To what is the matter comparable? It is to thieves who stole a barrel of wine. The homeowner was aware of their presence. He said to them: ‘Enjoy it, but, as you live, after you drink the wine, return the barrel to its place.’ So, when the brothers sold Joseph, they sold him from Shekhem, as it is stated: “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). The Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘You sold him from Shekhem, return him to Shekhem.’ Since they completed the mitzva, it is attributed to them. That is, “for this mitzva.”

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sanhedrin 1:3

(Fol. 6b) R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose the Galilean, says: "A court is forbidden to attempt an arbitration, and the [judge] that makes settlements commits a crime; and he who praises the mediators despises the law, as it is said (Ps. 10, 3) The robber blesseth himself when he hath despised the Lord, but let the law cut through the mountain (justice under all circumstances), as it is said (Deut. 1, 17) The judgment belongs to God." And so said Moses our master: "Let the law cut through the mountain." But Aaron [his brother] loved peace, ran after it, and used to make peace between a man and his associate, as it is said (Mal. 2, 6) The law of truth was in his mouth, and falsehood was not found on his lips, in peace equity he walked with Me, and many did he turn away from iniquity. R. Eliezer says: "If one had stolen a saah of wheat and had ground, kneaded and baked it, and separated the heave (Challa) of it, how can he recite a benediction over it? For not only is it not a benediction, but it is rather a blasphemy! Concerning this, the passage reads (Ps. 10, 3) The robber blesses … . despises the Lord." R. Maier says: "The passage, the robber, etc., refers only to Juda, for it is said (Gen. 37, 26) And Judah said unto his brothers, 'What profit (betza) will it be if we slay our brother?' And whoever praises Juda [for his advice] despises the Lord; and concerning him is said: He who blesses Botzea despises the Lord." But R. Joshua b. Karcha said: "On the contrary arbitration is a meritorious act, as it is said (Zech. 8, 16) With truth and the judgment of peace, judge ye in your gates. How is this to be understood? Usually, where there is judgment, there is no peace; and where there is peace, there is no judgment. It must then refer to arbitration, which brings peace. The same must be explained about David, concerning whom it is said (II Sam. 8, 16) And David did what was just and charitable unto all his people. How can these five terms be reconciled? For a thing that is just is not charitable, and if charitable then it is not just. We must therefore say that it refers to arbitration, which contains both." The first Tanna, however, [who said above that arbitration is prohibited], explains the passage thus: He, (David), judged in accordance with the strict law — he acquitted him who was right and held him responsible who was guilty, according to the Law; but when he saw that the loser was poor and could not pay, he used to pay from his own pocket. Hence he did justice to one and charity to the other. Rabbi, however, pointed out the following difficulty, it is written. Unto all his people, and according to the above explanation, it ought to be to the poor. Therefore, said Rabbi: "Although he did not pay from his pocket, it was nevertheless counted as justice and charity; justice to the one, for having returned his money; and charity to the other, for delivering the theft out of his hand." (Fol. 7) All the Tannaim mentioned above differ with R. Tanchum b. Chanilai, who said: "The above-cited verse (Ps. 10) was quoted in reference to the golden calf, of which it is said (Ex. 32, 5) And when Aaron saw this. What did he see? R. Benjamin b. Jepheth said in the name of R. Elazar: 'He saw Chur, who was lying killed before him.' And he thought: 'if I do not listen to them, they will do likewise unto me, and will bring about such a condition as is said (Lam. 2, 20) Shall there be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord the priest and the prophet; for which there shall never be a remedy. It is better for them that I should make the golden calf, and for that probably there will be a remedy by repenting.'" [Hence the above passage].

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Vayehi Beshalach 6:5

R. Tarfon and the elders were once sitting in the shade of the grove of Yavneh when this question was once asked before them: Why need it be written (Genesis 37:25) "and their camels laden with spices, balm, and myrrh"? (He answered:) To apprise us of the extent to which the merit of the righteous comes to their aid. For if this "loved one" (Joseph) had gone down with (the usual wares of) the Arabs, would he not have died of the stench of the camels and the itran (a kind of resin)? But the Holy One Blessed be He "arranged" for him (a transport of) sacks full of spices and all goodly fragrances so that he not perish of their stench. (At this,) they said to him: You have taught us, our master, that this transpired in the merit of Joseph. They asked him: Our master, what is the blessing for one who drinks water to slake his thirst? He answered: "Who creates manifold beings and (supplies) their wants. (We thank you for) all that You have created — Life of the worlds!" They: You have taught us, our master, the blessing for one who drinks water to slake his thirst. Our master, in what merit did Judah attain to kingdom? R. Tarfon: You say. They: In the merit of his saying (Genesis, Ibid. 26) "What profit is it if we kill our brother, etc." by which he saved him from death. R. Tarfon: It suffices that this saving atone for his counsel to sell Joseph and not return him to his father.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 8:2

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED. It is simply that our father Jacob said: See, the tribal covenant has been broken! How I have toiled to raise up twelve tribes. Now I see that, since Joseph has gone, behold the very covenant has ceased. All the works of the Holy One correspond to twelve tribes: twelve constellations, twelve months, twelve hours in the day, twelve hours in the night, twelve stones which Aaron wore < on his breastplate >. But now Joseph has gone! Behold, the tribal covenant has been broken. But did Jacob not know how to take a wife and sire a son so that there would be twelve tribes? < He did not do so > simply because he had kept a vow to Laban, as stated (in Gen. 31:50): IF YOU MISTREAT MY DAUGHTERS OR TAKE WIVES BESIDES MY DAUGHTERS, even after their death < …. > What did Laban do? He brought him outside. He said to him (ibid., cont.): THOUGH NO ONE IS WITH US, SEE, GOD IS A WITNESS…. Because of that vow, he was unable to take a wife. When his sons saw that he was complaining so and that he would not accept consolation, they went to Judah and said to him: You have made all this great misfortune for us! He said to them: I said to you (in Gen. 37:26): WHAT PROFIT < IS THERE IF WE KILL OUR BROTHER AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD >? Now are you saying: What have you done? They said to him: But did we not hearken to you < when > you said (Gen. 37:27): COME, AND LET US SELL HIM TO THE ISHMAELITES? So we hearkened to you. If you had said: Come, and let us return him to his father, should we not have hearkened to you? In that hour, therefore, they arose and expelled him. How is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Gen. 38:1): JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Midrash Tanchuma, Eikev 6:1

Another interpretation: "All of the commandment" (Deuteronomy 8:1). If you have began with a commandment, finish all of it. Why? Rabbi Yochanan said, "Anyone who began with a commandment, and afterwards another comes and finishes it, it will be called according to the name of the one who finishes it." From who do you learn [this]? From Moshe. When Israel left Egypt, what is written? "And Moses took the bones of Yosef with him" (Exodus 13:19). All of the people were involved in the plunder and he was taking care of Yosef's bones. He went and stood among the coffins. He called out and said, "Yosef, Yosef, the time has come for the Holy One, blessed be He, to redeem His children. The Divine Presence awaits [you], and Israel and the clouds of glory await [you]. If you will make yourself appear good, but if not, we will be free of your vow." [Whereupon] his coffin immediately stirred, and [Moses] took it and departed. Moshe departed in the wilderness and did not enter the Land. [So] Israel brought in Yosef's bones and buried them. And the commandment was draped upon them, as it is stated (Joshua 24:32), "The bones of Joseph, which the Children of Israel had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shekhem." Therefore He said to them, "All of the commandment." Rabbi Yannai said, "Anyone who begins a commandment but does not finish it will bury his wife and two of his sons." From who do you learn [this]? From Yehudah, [where it is stated (Genesis 37:26),] "And Yehudah said to his brothers, 'What gain (betsa) etc.?'" They sat to prepare for the bread [and eat their meal]. He said to them, "We are going to kill our brother and then recite a blessing [over the bread]?" As it is stated (Psalms 10:3), "the one that loots (botsea) and blesses reviles the Lord." Hence is it written, "What gain, etc." "Come, let us sell him to the Yishmaelites" (Genesis 37:27). And they listened to him, as he was a king. And had he said to them to bring him back to his father, they would have listened to him. But rather he began with the commandment and did not finish it. Hence one who begins with a commandment should finish all of it. Rabbi Yochanan said, "Anyone who learns Torah but does not fulfill it, it is better for him to have his placenta roll over his face [and smother him], as it is stated (Deuteronomy 8:1), 'guard to keep.'" Rabbi Acha said, "Anyone who guards it to keep it, merits that the holy spirit should descend upon him, as stated (Psalms 89:1), 'A psalm of wisdom (maskil) of Eitan the Ezrachite, etc.' And so [too] did He say to Yehoshua (Joshua 1:8), 'Let not this Book of the Torah cease from your mouth... [and then will you comprehend (taskil)].'" Hence is it written, "to guard to keep."

Midrash Tehillim 76:1

"To lead in melodies. It is known in Judah, God is in Israel. This is what the verse says (Hosea 5:9): 'Ephraim shall become a desolation in the day of rebuke; among the tribes of Israel I make known what is sure.' When the ten tribes were exiled and only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained, the nations of the world began to say that they are no different than other nations, as they are the guests of God. Therefore, they were not exiled. As it says: 'Among the tribes of Israel I make known what is sure.' At that same moment, God became known in Judah, and His name was great in Israel. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said: 'When the Israelites stood at the sea, they argued with one another, one saying, "I will go down first," and the other saying, "I will go down first." From this, Nachshon ben Aminadav jumped into the sea, and regarding him, it is written (Psalms 69:2): "Save me, O God, for the waters have come up to my neck." Moses stood in prayer, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: "The Israelites are in distress, and you prolong your prayer? Speak to the children of Israel and let them go forward." You, therefore, lift up your rod. Therefore, Judah merited to have sovereignty in Israel, as it says (Psalms 114:2-3): "Judah became God's sanctuary, Israel His dominion. The sea saw and fled." It is known in Judah, God is great in Israel, for He is great among Israel. It was said to him: "When you perform a kindness for Judah, it is as if you are performing a kindness for all of Israel, as all of Israel is called by the name of Judah." Another explanation for why Judah merited sovereignty is that his disciples asked Rabbi Tarfon in the shade of the Shukei Binyamin (an area in Jerusalem) why Judah merited sovereignty. He answered them, "Because he confessed regarding the incident with Tamar." They told him that Dia should atone for her immorality. He asked why, and they replied that it was because he had said, "What profit is there if we kill him?" (Genesis 37:26). They also told him that Dia should atone for his sale of Joseph, and he responded that it was because he had said, "Please let your servant stay as a slave to my lord instead of the boy" (Genesis 44:33). They then asked him about the evening pledge that he had fulfilled, and he replied, "By what merit did I do it? Only because I leaped into the waves of the sea." For when all the tribes were standing and none of them would descend into the sea, one tribe would say, "I will go down first," and another would say, "No, I will go down first." Benjamin, however, wanted his tribe to be the first to go down. So Nachshon ben Aminadav jumped into the waves with his tribe, even though they tried to stone him, and he was saved. The verse in Psalms (68:28) states, "Benjamin, the youngest, is their ruler. The leaders of Judah come with their throngs." This refers to the fact that the people of Judah wanted to stone him and were delayed, while Benjamin went ahead and was the first to descend. In this way, Nachshon merited to become a king, as it is written (Psalms 114:2), "Judah became God's sanctuary, Israel His dominion." Therefore, the kingship of Israel belonged to the tribe of Judah. "God is known in Judah."

Musar

Joseph's brothers did not forgive him for his lashon hara, leading to a future descendant of Judah, King David, also stumbling in accepting lashon hara, resulting in the division of the kingdom between the seed of Judah and the seed of Joseph. The tribe of Yehudah had to return on their journey to honor Miriam, who had shown selflessness and care for others, unlike Judah's past actions. This was seen as measure for measure in both instances.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 12:8

And see another extremely awesome thing which unraveled itself in the course of time, measure for measure. For Joseph stumbled in the sin of lashon hara [against his brothers] as related in the Torah. And his brothers did not want, by any means, to forgive him, relating to him in the extreme of din, saying (Bereshith 37:20): "Let us go and kill him (that is: "Let us sic the dogs on him" and the like,) and they wished to sell him as a slave because of this, though Judah defended him and did not allow them to kill him, as it is written (Bereshith 37:26): "What profit if we kill our brother, etc." Still, he by no means wanted to forgive him, saying (Ibid. 27): "Let us go and sell him." And because of this, in the succeeding generations, when one of the seed of Judah stumbled in the issur of accepting lashon hara, the distinctive one of the seed of Joseph would by no means forgive him. And who is it that stumbled in this way? No less than our lord, King David, may peace be upon him, who believed the evil that Tziva spoke of Mefibosheth, and said (II Samuel 19:30): "You [Mefibosheth] and Tziva shall divide the field" — at which a Heavenly voice came forth and said: "Rechavam [of the seed of Judah] and Yaravam [of the seed of Joseph] shall divide the kingdom." And, as it is written in Scripture, that after the death of Solomon, Yaravam and all of Israel came to Rechavam and besought him to ease somewhat his yoke upon them and they would serve him, and he answered them (I Kings 12:14): "My father [Solomon] chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpion-thorns" — whereupon all of them answered (II Chronicles 10:16): "Each to your tents, O Israel," and they crowned Yaravam. And the underlying cause was David's acceptance of lashon hara. As our sages of blessed memory said: "If David had not accepted lashon hara, the kingdom of the house of David would not have been divided and Israel would not have served idolatry, and we would not have been exiled from our land." And all of this is "measure for measure," as we have written.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Mishpatim, Torah Ohr 164

Some commentators even claim that the tribe of Yehudah had already begun its journey, but was forced to return in her honour. The author of צרור המור writes at the end of Parshat Beha-alotcha, that there was an element of מדה כנגד מדה in this, since it was Yehudah who had exclaimed at the time the brothers wanted to kill Joseph "מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו … לכו ונמכרנו" "what profit is there in killing our brother, let us rather sell him!" This comment was held against him (Genesis 37,26). Miriam, by her very nature ignored material gains, as is evident from the danger she put herself in when defying Pharaoh's instructions to kill all male Jewish babies. On the contrary, she actively helped them survive. The repetition of the statement ותחיינה את הילדים in Exodus 1,18, suggests that she provided victuals for them out of her personal funds. This is why she experienced the honour of the tribe of Yehudah returning to wait for her until she had been healed of her צרעת.

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that "hating unjust gain" refers to judges who disdain their own money to avoid any appearance of bribery, while Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im interprets it as despising abundance of money. Rashbam defines "hating ill-gotten gains" as referring to bribery and robbery. Rashi identifies Simeon and Levi as the brothers who plotted against Shechem and Joseph. Rabbeinu Bahya emphasizes the importance of judges being G’d-fearing, truthful, and despising money, citing various biblical examples. Da'at Zekenim discusses the importance of completing commandments once they are started, using the example of Moses not being able to bury Joseph's remains. The story of Judah marrying a Canaanite woman in Parashat Vayeshev is seen as a tale of moral decline.

Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 8:1:1

כל המצוה, “All the instruction, etc.” our author understands the word כל in our verse not so much as “all,” i.e. each and every, but as “the whole commandment.” Once you have begun to fulfill a commandment you must complete what you have undertaken. This rule has been spelled out specifically in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah, chapter 1, halachah 8. The text is: when someone has commenced to perform a commandment he is told to complete it. If someone has commenced to perform a commandment and it is completed by someone else, the last person gets the credit for having performed it. The source of this ruling is traced to Moses who had commenced the commandment of transferring Joseph’s remains to the land of Israel, (Exodus 13,19) but who could not complete it as he never crossed the Jordan. The credit for burying his remains in the land of Israel is therefore given to the Jewish people, as we know from Joshua 24,32: “and the Children of Israel buried Joseph’s remains which they had brought with them from Egypt, and they were interred in the city of Sh’chem on a plot of land which his father Yaakov had acquired for the price of 1000 kessito as spelled out in Genesis 37,27. This plot became an ancestral heritage to the tribe of Joseph.” (Compare Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sotah) folio 13. Rabbi Sh’muel bar Nachmani is quoted in the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 13, as saying that if someone commences to fulfill a commandment but fails to complete it (not by circumstances beyond his control), he will wind up burying his wife and his children. He adds that we know this from Yehudah (Yaakov’s son) compare Genesis 37,26, who said: “what profit is there in killing our brother Joseph.” Yehudah, of course buried both his wife and two of his sons, as we read in Genesis 38, 7-12. Some scholars add that this was why the brothers demoted him as we know from the beginning of that chapter. Instead of saving Joseph, the brothers sat down to eat their meal, and in the interval Joseph was taken out of the pit by Ishmaelites and sold as a slave. Yehudah said that they could not pronounce benedictions of G–d while planning to commit murder of their brother. They therefore interrupted, and sold Joseph, before they sat down again to eat. Yehudah is perceived as having begun to save Joseph from death but not having brought him back safely to his father. The Torah had testified that the brothers listened to him, so that it could be assumed that they would also have agreed to bring him back to his father. At any rate, this is the meaning of Moses referring to כל מצוה, “the whole commandment.”

Essays in Ethics; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayeshev; The Heroism of Tamar 10

The reason I tell this story here is that it is one of the powerful and unexpected lessons of Parashat Vayeshev. Judah, the brother who proposed selling Joseph into slavery (Gen. 37:26), had “gone down” to Canaan where he married a local Canaanite woman (38:1). The phrase “gone down” was rightly taken by the sages as full of meaning. (According to midrashic tradition (Midrash Aggada, Pesikta Zutreta, Sekhel Tov), Judah was “sent down” or excommunicated by his brothers for advising them to sell Joseph after the grief they saw their father suffer. See also Rashi ad loc.) Just as Joseph had been brought down to Egypt (39:1), so Judah had been morally and spiritually brought down. Here was one of Jacob’s sons doing what the patriarchs insisted on not doing: marrying into the local population. It is a tale of sad decline.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 49:9:1

מטרף בני עלית , “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself.” Yaakov referred to his suspicion that it had been Yehudah who had “torn Joseph like a wild beast” (37,33). Yaakov refers to Yehudah’s having had second thoughts when he had said: “what advantage is there in killing our brother?”

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 18:21:2

מכל העם אנשי חיל, “from amongst all the people men of accomplishment.” The term אנשי חיל is a collective term and presupposes that these people possessed all the individual qualities Yitro had enumerated such as being “G’d-fearing, men of truth, people despising money.” The title אנשי חיל is applied to people who can lead the nation by judging fairly. It is impossible for fair judgment to be dispensed unless those dispensing it possess reverence for G’d and His Torah, despise ill gotten gain such as bribes, and are truthful. Our sages (Sanhedrin 7) have stated that a true judge is someone who in his mind’s eye constantly sees a sword at his neck above, and gehinom opening before him below, he being in the middle. If he merits it he will be saved from both, if not he will be afflicted by both. Judges must also be “men of truth,” meaning they must love truth as a value by itself choosing to side only with truth, refusing to accept arguments based on lies. They must personify the principle expressed in Exodus 23,7 applying to judges (according to Ibn Ezra) “keep your distance from anything deceitful.” They must also be שונאי בצע, i.e. display a disdain for money. This applies to a disdain for their own money, money acquired honestly (‎Sifri on Deut. 1,17). It goes without saying that they must hate money that was taken from others illegally. (compare Genesis 37,26). The author quotes Scripture to show that the word בצע may mean simply ”money.” An alternative meaning of the word בצע may be “robbery.” The requirement of the psychological makeup of the personality of a judge would have to be a hatred against anything acquired by means of violence direct or indirect, i.e. the threat of violence. In order to appreciate how highly these virtues were esteemed by the Torah we need only look at instances of the Torah complimenting outstanding individuals. Noach (Genesis 6,9) was praised for being righteous and perfect (תמים), a contrast to the violence which permeated mankind at the time and resulted in the decree of the deluge. Avraham was praised and instructed to be תמים, (Genesis 17,1). Yaakov was described as תם, (Genesis 25,27) Moses was described as extremely ענו, humble, the opposite of arrogant, demanding. All of this goes to show that the principal quality of a judge is not his intellect but his personal virtue. Just as the trunk of a tree is not its most important component but the fruit it yields, our sages taught us that the meaning of Psalm 111,10 שכל טוב לכל עושיהם, is that not the לומדיהם, the intelligence itself, is the principal value of a clever brain but the use to which he puts such intelligence., i.e. עושיהם (Berachot 17).

Ramban on Exodus 18:21:2

HATING UNJUST GAIN. “Men who disdain their own money in a law-suit, just as we say: (Baba Bathra 58b.) ‘Any judge from whom money is collected by a judgment is not qualified as a judge.’” Thus Rashi’s language. By this, Rashi meant to explain that they disdain all money which they know can be collected from them by law, and return it themselves even though it is truly theirs, such as the case wherein one bought a slave without witnesses, (And the owner comes to reclaim him. Now even though the slave is rightfully the buyer’s, the latter knows that because he has no witnesses who can attest to the sale, the original owner will regain possession of the slave in a law-suit. The buyer therefore voluntarily returns the slave to the original owner. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 381, as to why Ramban mentioned such a specific case.) or a similar example. But the text in the Mechilta is not so, [i.e., as Rashi commented]. Rather, this is the way it is taught there: (Mechilta on the verse here.) “‘Hating unjust gain. I.e., those who, when sitting in judgment, disdain to accept money.’ These are the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im says: ‘Hating unjust gain. I. e., those who disdain their own money. If they disdain their own money, how much more will they despise the money of their friends!’” The explanation [of this text of the Mechilta] is that Rabbi Yehoshua interprets the expression hating ‘botza’ as meaning “hating bribery,” the usage of the word [betza] being similar to: Every one is greedy for ‘botza’ (gain); (Jeremiah 6:13.) Each one ‘l’bitzo’ (to his gain), one and all. (Isaiah 56:11.) Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im explained that hating ‘botza’ means that they despise abundance of money and have no desire to increase their silver and gold, something like the verse, If I rejoiced because my wealth was great, and because my hand had gotten much. (Job 31:25.) Money [or profit] is called betza [in Hebrew]: What ‘betza’ (profit) is it if we slay our brother? (Genesis 37:26.) Is it any ‘betza’ (profit or advantage) to the Almighty that thou art righteous? (Job 22:3.) And thou shalt devote ‘bitz’am (their gain) unto the Eternal, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth. (Micah 4:13.) Again, I have seen in the Yelamdeinu: (See Sifre, Devarim 17. For the name Yelamdeinu, see Seder Bo, Note 196.) “Hating unjust gain [means] those who disdain their own money, and needless to say, they disdain the money of others. They are the ones who say, ‘Even if this man will burn my stack, even if he will destroy my plants, I will render judgment correctly.’” This is the intent of Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im, who said that they disdain their own money, meaning that they pay no regard to their property when sitting in judgment, that is, if they will suffer a loss of money on account of it. Moses further admonished them on this, saying, Ye shall not be afraid of the face of any man. (Deuteronomy 1:17.) [Thus according to the Yelamdeinu], betza means money, as I have explained. Onkelos rendered it: “those who hate to receive money.” But the word “money,” [as Onkelos uses it], does not mean a bribe, [which of course is forbidden in itself]. It means rather that they should never accept money from people as a gift or loan, so that they should show them no favoritism at the time of judgment. It is similar to what the Rabbis have said: (Kethuboth 105b.) “A judge who is in the habit of borrowing things [from his neighbors] is forbidden to act as judge in a law-suit involving them.” In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, men of truth, hating ‘botza’, means those who love the truth and hate “oppression.” When they see oppression and violence, they cannot tolerate them, their whole desire being only to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor. (Jeremiah 21:12.)

Rashbam on Exodus 18:21:2

שנאי בצע, people who hated ill gotten gains. Bribery and robbery are often referred to as בצע. (compare Chabakuk 2,9). Compare also Genesis 37,26 where Yehudah when saying מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו, means: “any gain that we would derive from killing our brother would be illegitimate, illegal.” In Job 27,8 we find a similar use of the word בצע.

Rashi on Genesis 49:5:1

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9).

Talmud

Rabbi Meir states that the term "botze’a" refers specifically to Judah in the verse from Genesis, suggesting that blessing Judah for selling Joseph is akin to cursing God. Rabbi Elazar explains that one who initiates a mitzva but does not complete it is demoted, using Judah's actions towards Joseph as an example. Rebbi Ḥilqiah discusses the procedures of Gentile courts in relation to the actions of Judah and Memukhan in the story of Esther. Rebbi Meir connects the verse about blessing unlawful gain to Joseph's brothers in Genesis.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 1:1:23

(In the Tosephta (1:3) an anonymous statement.) Rebbi Meir says, why does the verse say (Ps. 10:3.) , he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal? These are Joseph’s brothers, as it is is said (Gen. 37:26.) : What is the gain if we slay our brother, etc.”

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:7:3

Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed (A more complete list of names is in the parallel, Midrash Esther ad 1:13.) . One said, our procedures are like their procedures, and one said, our procedures are not like their procedures (Whether in Gentile courts the presiding judge also votes last in criminal proceedings.) . He who said, our procedures are like their procedures, is understandable. He wo said, our procedures are not like their procedures, how does he understand Jehudah said (When the brothers discussed what to do with Joseph, Jehudah volunteered his plan not to kill Joseph (Gen. 37:26) even though he was the fourth of the brothers (but the oldest, Reuben, was absent.) Since this happened before the revelation of Sinai, one has to assume that the brothers followed general Noahide rules.) , Memukhan said (Esth. 1:13 In the trial of Washti, the last named of the Persian grandees gave his opinion first.) ? They agreed with what Jehudah said, they agreed with what Memukhan said (Since in both cases no other opinions are recorded, we do not know in which order they spoke. Only the opinion which was agreed to in the end is mentioned.) .

Sanhedrin 6b:5

Rabbi Meir says: The term botze’a employed in that verse was stated only with regard to Judah, as it is stated: “And Judah said to his brothers: What profit [betza] is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:26–27). And consequently, anyone who blesses Judah for this act is cursing God, and of this it is stated: “And the covetous [uvotze’a] blesses himself, though he despises the Lord,” interpreted homiletically as: “And whoever blesses the profiteer [botze’a] despises the Lord.”

Sotah 13b:7

Rabbi Elazar says with regard to one who initiates performance of a mitzva but does not complete it when capable of doing so: He is also demoted [moridin] from his position of greatness, as it is written: “And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down [vayyered] from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah” (Genesis 38:1). Usage of the term “went down” indicates that the rest of Judah’s brothers had demoted him from his position of greatness because he began the process of saving Joseph, but he did not complete it.

Tanakh

The speaker questions the purpose of their death and descent into the Pit, wondering if dust can praise God or declare His faithfulness (Psalms 30:10).

Psalms 30:10

“What is to be gained from my death, (Lit. “blood.”) from my descent into the Pit? Can dust praise You? Can it declare Your faithfulness?

Targum

Yehudah questions the monetary gain of killing their brother and covering up his blood. (Onkelos Genesis 37:26, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:26)

Onkelos Genesis 37:26

Yehudah said to his brothers, What [monetary benefit] will we gain if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:26

And Jehuda said to his brethren, What profit of mammon should we have if we killed our brother, and covered his blood?

Tosefta

Rebbi Tarfon asked his students why the tribe of Yehudah merited the kingship of Israel, with different explanations given by the four elders, including Yehudah's admission of impregnating Tamar, saving his brother Yosef, and sanctifying God's name at the sea. Rebbi Tarfon also discussed the Beracha for drinking water on Shabbat and highlighted God's mercy towards the righteous, using Yosef as an example.

Tosefta Berakhot 4:14

It happened [once] with Rebbi Tarfon, that he was sitting in the shade of a dovecote, on Shabbat, in the afternoon. They (i.e. the servants) brought in front of him a bucket of cold [water to drink]. Rebbi Tarfon said to his students, “[A person] who drinks water to quench his thirst, what Beracha does he say [before drinking the water]?” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “Borei Nefashot Vechesronan (Who Created Souls and Made Them Lack).” [Then] he said to them, “I will ask [you another question].” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “It says [in the Torah], ‘And they sat down to eat bread, and they lifted up their eyes, and they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, and their camels are carrying gum, balsam and resin, transporting them to Egypt.’ (Genesis 37:25) Is not it the way of the Arabs to [usually] carry bad smelling skins and tar? But rather [what happened was that God] placed that righteous man (i.e. Yosef) among favorable things. Is not this a Kal Vechomer (a derivation from minor to major)? Just like at the time when [God] is angry [at] the righteous [people, He still] has mercy on them, then at the time [of God’s] mercy, how much more so.”...

Tosefta Berakhot 4:16

[Then] he (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said to them (i.e. his students), “I will ask [you another question].” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “Why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship [of Israel]?” They said to him, “Because [Yehudah] admitted [that he impregnated] Tamar.” It happened [once] with four elders, that they were sitting in the gatehouse of Rebbi Yehoshua. [They were] Elazar Ben Matya, Chaninah Ben Chachinai, Shimon Ben Azzai, and Shimon Hateimani. And they were involved [in discussing] what Rebbi Tarfon taught to them, “Why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship [of Israel]?” “Because [Yehudah] admitted [that he impregnated] Tamar.” They have added [another source to that explanation] on their own. “[It says in the book of Iyov], ‘… that which the wise related from their fathers and did not withhold. To them alone the earth was given…’ (Job 15:18-19)” He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said to them (i.e. to the four elders), “Do they give reward for a transgression? But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” [The four elders said back to Rebbi Tarfon,] “Because he (i.e. Yehudah) saved his brother (i.e. Yosef) from death, as it is said, ‘Yehudah said to his brothers, “What benefit [will we have] if we kill our brother?”’ (Genesis 37:26) and it is written, ‘Let us go and sell him to the Ishmaelites…’ (Genesis 37:27)”8 He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said [back] to them (i.e. the four elders), “It is enough that [the act of] saving [him] should [serve] as forgiveness for the [act of] selling [him to the Ishmaelites]. But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” [The four elders said back to Rebbi Tarfon,] “Because of [Yehudah’s] humility, as it is said, ‘And now your servant (i.e. Yehudah) will become a slave to my master (i.e. Yosef) instead of the boy (i.e. Binyamin).’ (Genesis 44:33) Also [the only reason that] Shaul merited the kingship [of Israel] was due to [his] humility, as it is said, ‘… may be my father will turn his attention away from the donkeys and will start to worry about us.’ (I Samuel 9:5) [Since Shaul said “us” and not “me”] he considered his servant as [important as] himself, but Shmuel did not do so, but rather [he said], ‘Your father stopped worrying about the donkeys and is worried about you, saying “What will happen to my son?”’ (I Samuel 10:2) And when he (i.e. Shaul) runs away from [accepting his newly appointed role of] leadership what does it say? ‘And they have asked God, “Is the man even here?” and God said, “Here he is hiding by the vessels.”’ (I Samuel 10:22)” He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said [back] to them (i.e. the four elders), “Is not he (i.e. Yehudah) a cosigner? And in the end [it is the responsibility] of a cosigner to fulfill his pledge. But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “[The reason the tribe of Yehudah merited the kingship of Israel is] because they sanctified God’s name on the sea. When [all of] the tribes came and stood by the sea, this one said, ‘I will go down [into the water first]’ and this one said, ‘I will go down [into the water first].’ The tribe of Yehudah jumped up and went in first and sanctified God’s name [by doing so]. And regarding that moment it says [in Tehillim], ‘Save me God, because the water is up to my soul.’ (Psalms 69:2) And it also says, ‘When Yisrael was going out of Egypt, the children of Yakov from the nation of a foreign tongue, Yehudah was His sanctifier…’ (Psalms 114:1-2) Since Yehudah sanctified God’s name on the sea, therefore ‘…Yisrael his subjects.’ (ibid.) ”

לְכ֞וּ וְנִמְכְּרֶ֣נּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֗ים וְיָדֵ֙נוּ֙ אַל־תְּהִי־ב֔וֹ כִּֽי־אָחִ֥ינוּ בְשָׂרֵ֖נוּ ה֑וּא וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֖וּ אֶחָֽיו׃ 27 J Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves. After all, he is our brother, our own flesh.” His brothers agreed.
The brothers initially wanted to kill Yosef for speaking ill of them to their father, but Yehuda's wisdom led to them selling him instead, as seen in various commentaries such as Ibn Ezra, Sforno, Radak, Rashi, Tze'enah Ure'enah, and Chizkuni. The Midrash discusses instances of individuals being ostracized or rebuked, praising Judah for his leadership and self-sacrifice. In Tanakh, Moses pleads for Miriam after she is struck with leprosy. Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan describe the brothers deciding to sell Joseph to the Yishmaelites. Rebbi Tarfon discusses why the tribe of Yehudah merited the kingship of Israel, highlighting humility as a key factor.

Chasidut

The brothers initially wanted to kill Yosef for speaking ill of them to their father, believing it would create a separation between them and Yaakov, who represented the foundation of the world and the unity of the Jewish people. Yehuda's wisdom led him to suggest letting God judge Yosef's true nature, leading to Yosef being refined through the incident with Potiphar's wife, which purified his soul and proved his innocence of the evil speech his brothers suspected him of.

Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Genesis, Vayeshev 5

“Let us go and sell him to the Ishmaelites ….” (Bereshit, 37:27) The tribes had first sentenced him to death, since he had spoken of their evils to their father. In their view this sin was in the very root of his life, God forbid, for creating a separation between them and their father was in their eyes akin to separating the Holy One, blessed be He, from the community of Israel, the Shekhina. At that time Yaakov was the “Tsaddik Yesod Olam,” the righteous one who is the foundation of the world, on whom the entire world rests, and he was the place where God revealed himself in this world, and they were at that time all of Israel. They were all included in the word “One” in Shema Yisroel, Echad (alef, 1; het, 8; dalet, 4). One was Yaakov; eight were the eight children of Leah and Rachel; and four were the four children of the handmaids. They understood that Yosef wanted to separate this unification. Only Yehuda in his wisdom said that the judgment was not arbitrated in this way. Maybe he is good and we are mistaken about him. In that case we should not do anything about him, and only let God make it clear concerning him, and if he is good in his root then certainly God will rescue him from all sin and he will not be lost in exile. So therefore God refined him, purifying his soul through the incident with the wife of Potiphar. For the brit of the foreskin corresponds to the brit of the tongue (Sefer Yetsira, 1:43), and when he emerged refined from this, then he was also refined and clean concerning the loshan horah (evil speech) of which his brothers had suspected him.

Commentary

Judah refers to Joseph as "our brother, our flesh" since they all come from the same father, even though they did not have the same mother (Ibn Ezra). Sforno interprets the brothers' decision to sell Joseph as a measure for measure punishment for his desire to enslave them. Radak explains that selling Joseph was a way to avoid being directly responsible for his death. Rashi clarifies that the brothers agreed with Judah's suggestion to sell Joseph. Tze'enah Ure'enah suggests that the brothers did not want to kill Joseph themselves, and Chizkuni explains that they accepted Judah's logic to avoid a harsh decree affecting only Joseph.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:27:1

וישמעו אחיו, “his brothers listened to him,” i.e. they accepted his logic;” they said that already at the covenant between the pieces between Avraham and G-d in Genesis chapter 15, certain harsh decrees had been revealed as becoming the fate of Avraham’s descendants before they would conquer the land of Canaan and settle in it. Seeing that they were all part of Avraham’s seed, it would be better for them to be sold together with him else the decree would be suffered only by Joseph. (Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher item 159)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:27:1

HE IS OUR BROTHER OUR FLESH. He is as our flesh (They obviously were not all one flesh. Hence what Judah meant was: he is as our flesh, even though he did not use the word as (Weiser).) since we all came from one flesh. (We all come from the same parents who became one flesh, as in I.E.’s comment on Gen. 2:22 (Weiser). However, they did not all have the same mother. Therefore the interpretation must be as follows: we all came from the same father.)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:27:1

לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים, “come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.” He thought in his dreams that he would rule over us and that we would become his slaves; let us sell him into slavery instead.

Radak on Genesis 37:27:1

לכו, we already explained this expression on verse 20.

Radak on Genesis 37:27:2

אל תהי בו, to be the indirect cause of his death. If we are going to sell him he will not die.

Rashi on Genesis 37:27:1

וישמעו AND THEY HEARKENED — The Targum renders this by “and they accepted it from him” (i.e., they agreed with him). Wherever the verb שמע means agreeing with a person’s statement — obeying — as here, and as (28:7) “and Jacob had hearkened (וישמע) to his father”, and (Exodus 24:7) “We will do and we will obey (ונשמע)” it is translated in the Targum by קבל “accepting”, but wherever it merely means hearing with the ear, as e. g. (3:8) “And they heard (וישמעו) the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden”, and (27:5) “and Rebecca heard (שומעת;”, and (31:1) “And Israel heard (וישמע)”, and (Exodus 16:12) “I have heard (שמעתי) the murmurings of the children of Israel”, — all such cases are rendered by various forms of ושמעו: שמע “and they heard“, ושמעת “and she heard”, ושמע “and he heard”,שמיע ,קדמי “there is heard before Me” (I have heard).

Sforno on Genesis 37:27:1

לכו ונמכרנו, and this will be an appropriate measure for measure punishment for him; he wanted to make slaves out of us; now he himself will become a slave.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:27

Go and we will sell him as a slave to the arriving Ishmaelites. They will take him far away from here, and at the very least, let our hand not be directly upon him, as after all, he is our brother, our flesh, and we should not harm him. His brothers heeded Judah’s suggestion.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 37

“Let us not do away with him ourselves” [37:27]. That is to say, let us not kill him with our hands. We will not do this. Ramban writes. The snakes in the pit went into their holes. If his brothers had seen that the snakes were in the pit and were not harming Joseph, the brothers would have understood that Joseph was holy and was righteous. How would it be appropriate that they should sell Joseph? (Ramban, Genesis, 37:22.)

Midrash

The text discusses various instances of individuals being ostracized or rebuked, such as Moses being sent down from the mountain, Judah being ostracized by his brothers, and Jacob refusing to be comforted after Joseph was sold. It also highlights the consequences of starting but not finishing a commandment, as seen in the story of Judah and his brothers selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Additionally, it praises Judah for his leadership and self-sacrifice in offering himself as a slave in place of Benjamin.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:17

“They sat to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balm, and ladanum, going to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). “They sat to eat bread” – Rabbi Aḥva bar Ze’eira said: The transgression of the tribes is remembered forever; it gave hope to the world. “They sat to eat bread” – he gave everyone in the world bread to eat. (The sale of Joseph led to his appointment to viceroy in Egypt and to his role as dispenser of food during the famine.) “And they lifted their eyes and saw…” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: But is it not typical of the Ishmaelites to bear only hides and tar? Rather, see what the Holy One blessed be He prepared for that righteous one at that moment: Sacks filled with spices, so that the wind would blow through them [and provide a pleasant smell] to counteract the odor of the Arabs. (Because the Ishmaelites generally transported foul-smelling substances, they and their equipment had an unpleasant odor. God arranged for the caravan carrying Joseph to Egypt to have pleasant-smelling spices in order to mask the foul, unpleasant odor. ) “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood” (Genesis 37:26). “Judah said to his brothers…” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: The verse is speaking in praise of Judah. In three places, Judah spoke before his brothers and they crowned him king over them. (They accepted his advice or his leadership. ) “Judah said to his brothers”; “Judah and his brothers came [.…And Judah said]” (Genesis 44:14); (This was after Benjamin was caught with Joseph’s goblet; Judah led the brothers in their return to Joseph and spoke as their representative.) “Judah approached him [and said]” (Genesis 44:18). (This was after Joseph informed them that Benjamin would be his slave. Judah again spoke on behalf of the brothers, argued for Benjamin’s release, and offered to take Benjamin’s place as a slave. ) “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers heeded him” (Genesis 37:27). “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” – they said: Let us adopt the way of the world. Canaan, who sinned, (Canaan reported Noah’s nakedness to Noah’s sons (see Bereshit Rabba 36:7). ) was he not cursed to be a slave? This one, too, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites. (Joseph had slandered his brothers (Genesis 37:2; see above, section 7). Therefore, they considered him worthy of a similar fate to that of Canaan. ) “His brothers heeded him.”

Bereshit Rabbati, Parashat Vayigash 2

Now therefore, please let your servant remain instead of the youth." This is similar to what is stated in the Book of Esther (Esther 2:5), "Now there was a Jewish man in Shushan." Was he from the tribe of Judah that he is called a Jew? Wasn't it Benjamin who is described as a man of the right-hand side (Genesis 44:17)? However, when the tribes went down to Egypt and the cup was found in Benjamin's sack, he searched all of them, and it was found in Benjamin's possession. Judah said to him, "Please, my lord, we already have a bad incident. I sold my brother, as it is written, 'Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites' (Genesis 37:27), and now you want me to bring back the same evil? I sold my brother as a slave, and now I am taking him back to be a slave. I have no standing either before my father or before the Holy One, blessed be He. I must be a slave, as I sold Joseph, my brother. It is just that I should be a slave for him. This is indicated by the phrase 'Now therefore, please let your servant remain.' God said to him, 'Judah, you have offered yourself as collateral for Benjamin; therefore, the Redeemer who will arise from you over Israel will be named after you.' This is why it is written, 'Now there was a Jewish man.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 8:2

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED. It is simply that our father Jacob said: See, the tribal covenant has been broken! How I have toiled to raise up twelve tribes. Now I see that, since Joseph has gone, behold the very covenant has ceased. All the works of the Holy One correspond to twelve tribes: twelve constellations, twelve months, twelve hours in the day, twelve hours in the night, twelve stones which Aaron wore < on his breastplate >. But now Joseph has gone! Behold, the tribal covenant has been broken. But did Jacob not know how to take a wife and sire a son so that there would be twelve tribes? < He did not do so > simply because he had kept a vow to Laban, as stated (in Gen. 31:50): IF YOU MISTREAT MY DAUGHTERS OR TAKE WIVES BESIDES MY DAUGHTERS, even after their death < …. > What did Laban do? He brought him outside. He said to him (ibid., cont.): THOUGH NO ONE IS WITH US, SEE, GOD IS A WITNESS…. Because of that vow, he was unable to take a wife. When his sons saw that he was complaining so and that he would not accept consolation, they went to Judah and said to him: You have made all this great misfortune for us! He said to them: I said to you (in Gen. 37:26): WHAT PROFIT < IS THERE IF WE KILL OUR BROTHER AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD >? Now are you saying: What have you done? They said to him: But did we not hearken to you < when > you said (Gen. 37:27): COME, AND LET US SELL HIM TO THE ISHMAELITES? So we hearkened to you. If you had said: Come, and let us return him to his father, should we not have hearkened to you? In that hour, therefore, they arose and expelled him. How is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Gen. 38:1): JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Midrash Tanchuma, Eikev 6:1

Another interpretation: "All of the commandment" (Deuteronomy 8:1). If you have began with a commandment, finish all of it. Why? Rabbi Yochanan said, "Anyone who began with a commandment, and afterwards another comes and finishes it, it will be called according to the name of the one who finishes it." From who do you learn [this]? From Moshe. When Israel left Egypt, what is written? "And Moses took the bones of Yosef with him" (Exodus 13:19). All of the people were involved in the plunder and he was taking care of Yosef's bones. He went and stood among the coffins. He called out and said, "Yosef, Yosef, the time has come for the Holy One, blessed be He, to redeem His children. The Divine Presence awaits [you], and Israel and the clouds of glory await [you]. If you will make yourself appear good, but if not, we will be free of your vow." [Whereupon] his coffin immediately stirred, and [Moses] took it and departed. Moshe departed in the wilderness and did not enter the Land. [So] Israel brought in Yosef's bones and buried them. And the commandment was draped upon them, as it is stated (Joshua 24:32), "The bones of Joseph, which the Children of Israel had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shekhem." Therefore He said to them, "All of the commandment." Rabbi Yannai said, "Anyone who begins a commandment but does not finish it will bury his wife and two of his sons." From who do you learn [this]? From Yehudah, [where it is stated (Genesis 37:26),] "And Yehudah said to his brothers, 'What gain (betsa) etc.?'" They sat to prepare for the bread [and eat their meal]. He said to them, "We are going to kill our brother and then recite a blessing [over the bread]?" As it is stated (Psalms 10:3), "the one that loots (botsea) and blesses reviles the Lord." Hence is it written, "What gain, etc." "Come, let us sell him to the Yishmaelites" (Genesis 37:27). And they listened to him, as he was a king. And had he said to them to bring him back to his father, they would have listened to him. But rather he began with the commandment and did not finish it. Hence one who begins with a commandment should finish all of it. Rabbi Yochanan said, "Anyone who learns Torah but does not fulfill it, it is better for him to have his placenta roll over his face [and smother him], as it is stated (Deuteronomy 8:1), 'guard to keep.'" Rabbi Acha said, "Anyone who guards it to keep it, merits that the holy spirit should descend upon him, as stated (Psalms 89:1), 'A psalm of wisdom (maskil) of Eitan the Ezrachite, etc.' And so [too] did He say to Yehoshua (Joshua 1:8), 'Let not this Book of the Torah cease from your mouth... [and then will you comprehend (taskil)].'" Hence is it written, "to guard to keep."

Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 2:7

This they shall give (Exod. 30:12). Observe that Israel was so beloved that even their sins brought them considerable benefit. If their sins could do that, how much more so would their meritorious deeds. You find that when Jacob sent Joseph to his brethren, they watched him approach and said to one another: Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, therefore, and let us slay him (Gen. 37:19–20). They hurled him into the pit and said: Let us eat and drink, and then we will kill him. After eating and drinking, they were about to say grace when Judah said to them: We are planning to take a life, yet now we would bless God. If we should do this, we would be blaspheming against God and not blessing Him. Because of this Scripture says: And the covetous vaunteth himself, though he condemn the Lord (Ps. 10:3). Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and let not our hand be upon him (Gen. 37:27). (And they all agreed.)

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 9:7

R. Joshua the son of Levi declared: Observe that the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, are not like the ways of man. A man cuts himself with a knife and heals himself with plaster, but the Holy One, blessed be He, heals with the very thing with which he wounds, as is said: For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds (Jer. 30:17). Joseph was sold because of a dream, as is said: Behold the dreamer cometh … come, let us go and sell him to the Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:27), and he governed because of a dream, as is said: And it came to pass at the end of two full years that Pharaoh dreamed (Gen. 41:1).

Shemot Rabbah 42:3

Another matter: “Go descend” – Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: Moses was ostracized and rebuked. (He was distanced from God and sent down from the mountain, like one who is sent away in shame from a human court. ) “Descend” is nothing other than ostracism. From where do you derive this? When Joseph’s brothers sold him and they went to console their father, he was not consoled. They said: (The brothers said to each other. ) It was Judah who did all these things to us, for had he not sought it, we would not have sold him. Just as he said to us: ‘Do not kill him,’ and we heeded him, had he said: ‘Do not sell him,’ we would have heeded him. Instead, he said to us: “Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:27). They stood and ostracized him, as it is stated: “It was at that time, Judah descended from his brothers” (Genesis 38:1). It should have said only: “Judah went”; he was in descent from his brothers. (The reason it states “Judah descended” is to indicate that he did not merely leave. His brothers stripped him of his elevated status and ostracized him. ) Just as “descended [vayered]” that is stated there connotes ostracism, so too, “descend [red]” that is written here connotes ostracism. This is analogous to a province that sent an emissary to crown the king. Before he arrived, the residents of the province overturned the idols and stoned the images [of the king]. The prominent leaders of the province wrote to the king. (They informed him of what had occurred. ) The missives entered before the emissary entered to crown the king. The king said to him… (The text of the midrash does not include the end of the sentence, but the point is that the king turned back the emissary and informed him that he would not be seen due to the disloyal conduct of the residents of his province. ) “Your people…have acted corruptly” – were they Moses’s people? Rather, that is what the verse said: “Woe to them, as they have wandered from Me; plunder upon them, as they rebelled against Me. I would redeem them, but they have spoken lies about Me” (Hosea 7:13). They were separating themselves from Me, as it is stated: “Woe to them, as they have wandered from Me.” Is there a person who exchanges a good item for a bad item? A person before whom they place gems and coal, would he forsake the gems and take the coal? But they forsake the living of the world (The true, living God, who gives life to the entire world. ) and opt for the dead, as it is stated: “They have eyes, but do not see” (Psalms 115:5). (In worshipping the golden calf, the people chose an inanimate object over God. ) “Plunder upon them” – calamity is destined to befall them. “But they have spoken lies about Me” – what lies did they speak about the Holy One blessed be He? Rabbi Akiva expounded: They said: Was He engaged with us? It was with Himself that He was engaged. He redeemed Himself; He did not redeem us, as it is stated: “Nations and their gods from before Your people, whom You have redeemed for Yourself from Egypt” (II Samuel 7:23). The Rabbis say: “This is your god [that took you out of Egypt]” (Nehemiah 9:18) – it redeemed us. Rabbi Ḥagai ben Elazar says: It is not written here, “this is your god,” but rather, “these are your gods” (Exodus 32:4) – they included Him with them and said: God and the calf redeemed us. They lie about Me; [thus,] “I would redeem them, but they have spoken lies about Me.” I, too, say that they are not My people. That is why it is stated: “For your people…have acted corruptly.”

Sifrei Bamidbar 105:1

(Bamidbar 12:10) "And the cloud departed from above the tent": An analogy: A king says to a pedagogue: "Chastise my son — but not until I leave!" For a father is mercifully inclined to his son. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the L-rd is mercifully inclined to the righteous in the time of His wrath, how much more so in the time of His (good) will! As it is written (Isaiah 49:8) "In a time of (good) will I (most certainly) will answer you!" (Ibid.) "And, behold, (after the cloud had departed), Miriam was as leprous as snow": We are hereby taught that she was stricken with intense (i.e., highly visible) leprosy, and that she was fair-skinned (for which reason it looked like snow). And thus is it written (Shemot 4:6) "And the L-rd said further to him (Moses): Place now your hand into your bosom … and, behold, his hand was leprous as snow." (Ibid.) "And Aaron 'turned'": He was "turned" from his leprosy. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: He who says that Aaron was stricken (with leprosy) is destined to pay for it. He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him (by not mentioning it explicitly in the verse) and you would reveal it! He who says that Tzelafchad was the mekoshesh ("the wood gatherer" [viz. Bamidbar 15:32]) is destined to pay for it. He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him and you would reveal it! And he who says that the ban was placed on Akavya b. Mehalalel (viz. Berachoth 19a) is destined to pay for it. "And Aaron turned to Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous": Scripture hereby apprises us that whenever he looked at her she became leprous. (Ibid. 11) "And Aaron said to Moses: Pray, my lord, do not impute transgression to us in that we have been foolish and have sinned.": He said to him: If we have been willful (in our sin), forgive us, as if we were unwitting. (Ibid. 12) "Let her not be as a dead one": Just as a dead body imparts tumah in a tent, so, a leper imparts tumah by entrance (into a house). Aaron hereby said: Our sister loses on all accounts: I (being her kin) cannot quarantine her nor declare her tamei nor declare her clean. In passing we learn that Aaron expounds that one (a Cohein) does not inspect the plague-spots of his kin. "who leaving his mother's womb": He should have said "who leaving our mother's womb," but Scripture here is being euphemistic. "and half his flesh has been consumed": He should have said "and half our flesh," as in (Bereshit 37:27) "for he is our brother, our flesh," but Scripture here is being euphemistic. (Ibid. 13) "And Moses cried out to the L-rd, saying: 'Lord, I pray You; heal her, I pray You.'": Scripture hereby teaches us proper conduct — that one's requests should be prefaced by two or three words, of imploration. And what is the intent of "saying"? Moses said: Answer me whether You will heal her or not — and the Holy One Blessed be He answered him, viz. (14) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Now if her father had spat in her face, etc." R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: In four places Moses requested (to be answered by the Holy One Blessed be He), and he was answered. Similarly, (Shemot 6:12) "And Moses spoke before the L-rd, to say: "The children of Israel would not listen to me, etc." What is the intent of "to say"? Moses asked the L-rd to answer him whether or not he would redeem them. And He did answer him (Ibid. 7:4) "And I will take out My hosts. My people, Israel, from the land of Egypt." Similarly, (Bamidbar 27:15) "And Moses spoke to the L-rd to say: (16) Let the L-rd, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation." What is the intent of "to say"? Moses said to Him: Answer me as to whether or not You will appoint leaders (for them). And He did answer him, (Ibid. 18) "Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun." Similarly, (Devarim 3:23) "And I implored the L-rd at that time to say." What is the intent of "to say"? He said to Him: Answer me as to whether or not I will enter the land. And He did answer him, (Ibid. 26) "It is enough for you, etc." Here, too, let "to say" not be written. But, (the intent is that) he asked Him to answer whether or not He would heal her, and He answered "Now if her father had spat in her face, etc." (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "G-d, I pray You; heal her, I pray You": Why did Moses not prolong his prayer? So that Israel not say "His sister is in distress and he stretches out his prayer." Variantly: It is not that Moses prays and the L-rd hears his prayer, but (in the order of) (Iyyov 22:28) "You (the tzaddik) will decree, and it will be fulfilled for you," (Isaiah 58:9) "Then, when you (the tzaddik) call, the L-rd will answer." R. Eliezer was asked by his disciples: How long shall a man be in his prayer? He answered: Not longer than Moses, of whom it is written (Devarim 9:18) "And I fell down before the L-rd (in prayer) as at first, forty days and forty nights." And how short should he be in prayer? He answered: Not shorter than Moses, of whom it is written "G-d, I pray You; heal her, I pray You." There is a time to be short and a time to be long.

Quoting Commentary

Judah suggests selling Joseph instead of killing him because he is their brother, their own flesh (Genesis 37:26-27). This decision leads to Joseph being sold as a slave, demonstrating a reduction of brotherhood to commerce (Genesis 37:26-27). Judah's repentance is evident when faced with leaving Benjamin as a slave, as he offers to stay instead (Genesis 44:33). The brothers collectively take responsibility for selling Joseph into slavery, with Judah proposing the crime (Genesis 37:26-27).

Chizkuni, Deuteronomy 33:7:3

וזאת ליהודה, “the following is the blessing for Yehudah, as distinct from praise for its founding father. Its founding father had also caused his father grief due to Joseph’s having been sold at the time was due to his suggestion. (Genesis 37,27) Moses was not willing to mention the name of the tribe of Shimon as Moses held him responsible in his heart for being the one who had first suggested that Joseph be killed. (Compare Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 42,24)

Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 8:1:1

כל המצוה, “All the instruction, etc.” our author understands the word כל in our verse not so much as “all,” i.e. each and every, but as “the whole commandment.” Once you have begun to fulfill a commandment you must complete what you have undertaken. This rule has been spelled out specifically in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah, chapter 1, halachah 8. The text is: when someone has commenced to perform a commandment he is told to complete it. If someone has commenced to perform a commandment and it is completed by someone else, the last person gets the credit for having performed it. The source of this ruling is traced to Moses who had commenced the commandment of transferring Joseph’s remains to the land of Israel, (Exodus 13,19) but who could not complete it as he never crossed the Jordan. The credit for burying his remains in the land of Israel is therefore given to the Jewish people, as we know from Joshua 24,32: “and the Children of Israel buried Joseph’s remains which they had brought with them from Egypt, and they were interred in the city of Sh’chem on a plot of land which his father Yaakov had acquired for the price of 1000 kessito as spelled out in Genesis 37,27. This plot became an ancestral heritage to the tribe of Joseph.” (Compare Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sotah) folio 13. Rabbi Sh’muel bar Nachmani is quoted in the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 13, as saying that if someone commences to fulfill a commandment but fails to complete it (not by circumstances beyond his control), he will wind up burying his wife and his children. He adds that we know this from Yehudah (Yaakov’s son) compare Genesis 37,26, who said: “what profit is there in killing our brother Joseph.” Yehudah, of course buried both his wife and two of his sons, as we read in Genesis 38, 7-12. Some scholars add that this was why the brothers demoted him as we know from the beginning of that chapter. Instead of saving Joseph, the brothers sat down to eat their meal, and in the interval Joseph was taken out of the pit by Ishmaelites and sold as a slave. Yehudah said that they could not pronounce benedictions of G–d while planning to commit murder of their brother. They therefore interrupted, and sold Joseph, before they sat down again to eat. Yehudah is perceived as having begun to save Joseph from death but not having brought him back safely to his father. The Torah had testified that the brothers listened to him, so that it could be assumed that they would also have agreed to bring him back to his father. At any rate, this is the meaning of Moses referring to כל מצוה, “the whole commandment.”

Essays in Ethics; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayigash; The Birth of Forgiveness 22

This is the second stage of repentance. They confess. In fact, they do more; they admit collective responsibility. This is important. When the brothers sold Joseph into slavery it was Judah who proposed the crime (Gen. 37:26–27) but they were all (except Reuben) complicit in it.

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 58:7:4

From thine own flesh. From thy relative. Comp. He is our brother and our flesh (Gen. 37:27)

Lessons in Leadership; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayigash; The Unexpected Leader 3

If one thing seems clear throughout the last third of Genesis, it is that Joseph will emerge as the archetypal leader. He is the central character of the story, and his dreams and the shifting circumstances of his fate all point in that direction. Least likely as a candidate for leadership is Judah, the man who proposed selling Joseph as a slave (Gen. 37:26–27), whom we next see separated from his brothers, living among the Canaanites, intermarried with them, losing two of his sons because of sin, and having sexual relations with a woman he takes to be a prostitute. The chapter in which this is described begins with the phrase, “At that time Judah went down from among his brothers” (38:1). The commentators take this to mean moral decline.

Lessons in Leadership; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayigash; The Unexpected Leader 9

Judah is the first person in the Torah to achieve perfect repentance (teshuva gemura), defined by the sages as one who finds himself in a situation to repeat an earlier sin but who does not do so because he is now a changed person. (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva 2:1.) Many years before, Judah was responsible for Joseph being sold as a slave: “Judah said to his brothers, ‘What will we gain if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him; after all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood.’ His brothers agreed” (Gen. 37:26–27). Now, faced with the prospect of leaving Benjamin as a slave, he says, “Let me stay as a slave and let my brother go free” (44:33). That is perfect repentance, and it is what allows Joseph to reveal his identity and forgive his brothers.

Moses; A Human Life, 4 Moses in the Family; Mirrors and Foils 62

The macabre image conveys Aaron’s understanding of the intimate connection between Miriam and Moses. All three siblings emerged from the same womb—and siblings are one flesh. (“He is our brother, our flesh,” Judah says of Joseph (Gen. 37:27).) But Aaron speaks of his (Moses’) mother’s womb, and of his flesh alone. Moses has the power to intercede for his sister, precisely because of the primal connection between them. They emerged from their mother’s womb in a unique sense: for Miriam, by reuniting her parents, had brought that womb back into the world of possibilities.

Ramban on Exodus 21:9:1

AND IF ‘YI’ODENAH’ (HE ESPOUSE HER) UNTO HIS SON, HE SHALL DEAL WITH HER AFTER THE MANNER OF DAUGHTERS. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is possible that G-d is saying that if the buyer yi’odenah for his son, which means that he espoused her to him — for the term yi’ud is an expression of appointing, such as: he tarried longer than the set time which ‘y’ado’ (he had appointed him) (II Samuel 20:5.) — then he shall do unto her after the manner that a man does for his own daughters — he is to give her of his own according to the dowry of virgins. (Further, 22:6.) He thus commanded this as He did in the law of outfitting the emancipated servant, (Deuteronomy 15:13-14.) and it is all an expression of His goodness, magnified be He! And in accordance with the interpretation of our Rabbis, which is the truth, the meaning of the verse is: after the manner of daughters whom parents marry off, so shall the son [of the master] deal with her. And then He explains [what is “the manner of daughters”] that if he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights — that is, of this one [the former maidservant] — he shall not diminish. (Verse 10.) It is obvious that if he did not marry another woman he must not diminish her rights, but Scripture speaks of that which is usual. (I.e., if he does marry another woman he is more likely to diminish the rights of this one; hence Scripture speaks of the case ‘if’ he take him another wife. But this is by no means to be understood that it was “the usual” thing to take another wife.) Now Rashi explained: “sh’eirah (Verse 10.) means food; k’suthah is, as the literal sense of the word, raiment; onatha is the marital duty.” And so did Onkelos render sh’eirah: zivanah (food). But in the Gemara (Kethuboth 47b. — For the meaning of the term Gemara see in Seder Bo, Note 204.) the Rabbis said with reference to the Sage who held this opinion [that sh’eirah means food]: “And this Tanna (See in Seder Yithro, Note 451.) holds that the alimentation of one’s wife is a law of the Torah. For we have been taught: sh’eirah — this means her food, and so it says, He caused ‘sh’eir’ (flesh) to rain upon them as the dust (Psalms 78:27.) etc.” And from the subject under discussion in that Gemara it is understood that this is the opinion of a single Sage, whilst the accepted law is that the alimentation of one’s wife is a Rabbinical enactment. And even according to the plain meaning of Scripture, why should it mention food under the term sh’eir which means “flesh;” it should rather have mentioned lachmah (her bread), for man lives by bread (See Deuteronomy 8:3.) and his obligation towards her is [mainly] in that sustenance. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra thought to correct this, and so he explained sh’eirah as meaning food which builds up her sh’eir, namely her flesh. But there is no sense in Scripture saying that the “husband diminish not her flesh!” Therefore I say that the meaning of sh’eir everywhere is flesh close and near to one’s own, the root thereof being derived from the expression sh’eir b’saro, (Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: “that is near of kin to him.” According to Ramban the literal meaning would be: “the flesh close and near to his flesh.”) that is his close flesh outside that of the flesh of his own body. Thus relatives are called sh’eir: to any sh’eir b’saro’ (that is near of kin to him); (Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: “that is near of kin to him.” According to Ramban the literal meaning would be: “the flesh close and near to his flesh.”) they are ‘sha’arah’ (near kinswomen), (Ibid., Verse 17.) this being associated with the expressions: surely thou art my bone and my flesh; (Genesis 29:14.) of whom the flesh is half consumed. (Numbers 12:12. “The flesh” here refers to Miriam — Aaron’s and Moses’ sister.) Similarly, And I will cut off from Babylon a name, ‘ush’ar’ offshoot and offspring, (Isaiah 14:22.) means a child related to him. Likewise, when thy flesh ‘ush’eirecha’ are consumed, (Proverbs 5:11.) which means “yourself and your children” who are the flesh closest to you. Thus meat is called sh’eir — He caused ‘sh’eir’ to rain upon them as the dust (Psalms 78:27.) — because meat when eaten is absorbed by the eater and becomes part of his flesh. It is possible that this is the meaning of the expression, when thy flesh ‘ush’eirecha’ are consumed, (Proverbs 5:11.) meaning: when the original flesh of your body, and the nutriment of flesh which came from the food, will be consumed and will no longer be part of your flesh. Thus a woman in relation to her husband is called sh’eir — just as the Rabbis interpreted: (Yebamoth 22b.) “except for ‘lish’eiro,’ (Leviticus 21:2.) sh’eir means his wife;” — the usage of the term being derived from the idea that G-d stated, and he shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24.) Thus sh’eira here means “the nearness of her flesh;” k’suthah is “the cover of her bed,” just as it is said, for that is his only ‘k’suthoh’ (covering)… wherein shall he sleep? (Further, 22:26.) and onathah is “her time,” that he come to her at times of love. And even if we say as some commentators do, that the meaning of sh’eir is like “his flesh,” and the expression, to any ‘sh’eir’ b’saro’ (Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: “that is near of kin to him.” According to Ramban the literal meaning would be: “the flesh close and near to his flesh.”) is like “to any flesh of his flesh,” just as it says, for he is our brother, our flesh (Genesis 37:27.) — in that case we would still explain ‘sh’eirah'… he shall not diminish as meaning that he shall not diminish from her her flesh; that is, the flesh due to her, namely, the flesh of her husband who with her is one flesh. Thus the meaning of the verse is, that G-d says that if the master takes another wife, he shall not diminish from this one the nearness of her flesh, the cover of her bed, and her time of love, for such is the manner of daughters. And the intention is that the other woman should not be sitting upon a stately bed, (Ezekiel 23:41.) and there they shall be one flesh, (Genesis 2:24.) whilst this one is to him merely like a concubine, with whom he lives only by chance, and upon the ground, just like one comes to a harlot. It is for this reason that Scripture has forbidden him to act in this way. And so did the Sages say: (Kethuboth 48a.) “sh’eirah means the nearness of flesh, that he should not behave to her as is the custom among the Persians, who perform their marital rights in their clothes.” This is a correct interpretation, for such is the style of Scripture always to mention sexual intercourse in clean and brief language. Therefore it mentions these duties by means of allusion: sh’eirah k’sutha v’onatha, referring to the three things which are usual when a man comes together with his wife. Thus the verse is properly explained in accordance with the accepted law, whilst alimentation of one’s wife and provision of her raiment are duties put upon the husband by ordinance of the Rabbis.

Ramban on Exodus 2:1:1

AND THERE WENT A MAN OF THE HOUSE OF LEVI. Our Rabbis have said (Sotah 12a.) that he went after the advice of his daughter. (Amram and Jochebed, Moses’ parents, had been married previously. The children of that union were Miriam and Aaron. “When Pharaoh decreed that the male children of the Hebrews be killed, Amram separated from his wife, and his example was followed by all of the Israelites. Miriam then told her father that his decree is worse than that of the king. ‘Pharaoh decreed only against the male children, while you include the girls as well. It is doubtful if the decree of wicked Pharaoh will persist, while you are a righteous man and your enactment will surely be upheld by G-d.’ Upon recognizing the justice of her plea, Amram remarried his wife, and the men who had previously followed his example also remarried” (Sotah 12 b). It is this episode which the verse suggests by saying, And there went a man, i.e., “went” after the advice of his daughter and remarried his divorced wife. See also further on in the text for a reference to a prophecy Miriam made at that time.) Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the Israelites dwelled in many cities, and this woman Jochebed lived in another city. [This would explain the term “went” in the above verse, i.e., he went to another city for his wife.] But what need is there for Scripture to mention this? In my opinion Scripture uses the term “went” because this man paid no heed to Pharaoh’s decree and took to himself a woman to beget children. Such is Scripture’s way of speaking of anyone who prompts himself to do something new. Thus: And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah; (Genesis 35:22.) So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; (Hosea 1:3. Since she was a harlot, it required self-prompting on his part to perform the novel act of marrying her.) Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites; (Genesis 37:27.) Come, and let us smite him with the tongue; (Jeremiah 18:18.) Come now, and let us reason together. (Isaiah 1:18.) Similarly this man Amram alerted himself and married a daughter of Levi. The reason Scripture does not mention the name of the man nor the name of the woman he married is to avoid tracing their genealogy and mentioning who their fathers and their fathers’ fathers were up to Levi. At this point, Scripture desires to shorten the subject until the birth of the redeemer takes place, and after that, in the second seder, (I.e., in Seder Va’eira. (A seder is the weekly portion of the Torah read in the synagogue at the Sabbath morning services.) Specifically, Moses’ genealogy is found in Seder Va’eira, Chapter 6, Verses 16-20.) He traced the genealogy even of other tribes (Reuben and Simeon. (Ibid., Verses 14-15).) on account of Moses. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, i.e., that this was a first marriage [and not a remarriage as stated above], there is no significance in its being mentioned earlier or later in the chapter. This marriage took place before Pharaoh’s decree [that all male Hebrew children be killed], and she gave birth to Miriam and Aaron. After that, Pharaoh decreed, Every son that is born, ye shall cast into the river, (Above, 1:22.) and then she gave birth to this goodly son Moses. Scripture did not mention the birth of Miriam and Aaron inasmuch as there was nothing new about them. However, in the opinion of our Rabbis, (Sotah 12a.) this was a remarriage, since Amram separated from his wife in consequence of Pharaoh’s decree and then took her back on account of his daughter’s prophecy. (Miriam prophesied, “My mother is destined to bear a son who will deliver Israel” (Sotah 13 a).) He made her a wedding and placed her in the litter, while Miriam and Aaron danced about them in their joy (So clearly stated in Sotah 12a.) because through this marriage, Israel would be redeemed [from Egypt]. Even though Aaron was young (He could have been no more than two years old since he was but three years older than Moses, and Moses was born after the second marriage.) [at that time], G-d put gladness in his heart for this occasion, or possibly his sister Miriam taught him.

Ramban on Genesis 2:24:2

AND THEY SHALL BE ONE FLESH. The child is created by both parents, and there in the child, their flesh is united into one. Thus the words of Rashi. But there is no point to this since in beast and cattle too, their flesh is united into one in their offspring. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that in cattle and beast the males have no attachment to their females. Rather, the male mates with any female he finds, and then they go their separate ways. It is for this reason that Scripture states that because the female of man was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, he therefore cleaves to her and she nestles in his bosom as his own flesh, and he desires to be with her always. And just as it was with Adam, so was his nature transmitted to his offspring, that the males among them should cleave to their women, leaving their fathers and their mothers, and considering their wives as if they are one flesh with them. A similar sense is found in the verses: For he is our brother, our flesh; (Genesis 37:27.) to any that is near of his flesh. (Leviticus 18:6.) Those who are close members of the family are called sh’eir basar (near of flesh). Thus man will leave “the flesh” of his father and his mother and their kin and will see that his wife is nearer to him than they.

Rashi on Numbers 12:12:3

אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו It ought to have stated “אמנו” “of our mother’s womb”, only that Scripture modified the expression. Similarly חצי בשרו — it ought to have said חצי בשרנו “the half of our flesh is consumed”, only that Scripture modified the expression (Scripture uses these expressions with the suffix of the third person singular instead of the first person plural, because it wishes to avoid an ominous expression referring to Aaron and Moses). — The meaning is: Since she came forth from the womb of our own mother she in her present state is to us as though the half of our flesh were consumed. It is the same idea as is expressed in the words, (Genesis 37:27) “for he is our brother, our own flesh” (Sifrei Bamidbar 105). — And even according to what the text literally implies (without assuming any modification) it appears to have that meaning: "It is not right for a brother to allow his sister to remain as a dead person".

Redeeming Relevance; Genesis 6:16

(Bereshit 37:25–27)

Tribal Lands, Chapter 12; Yosef 18

Seeing him approach from the distance – as Jacob once saw Rachel – they planned to kill him. The next move was in some ways more chilling – a cynical and dehumanizing reduction of brotherhood to commerce. (Batnadiv HaKarmi-Weinberg’s website, bibliodraw.blogspot.com, offers a sustained exploration of the centrality of money to the Joseph story.) They did not kill Joseph, but sold him for personal gain: “Judah said to his brothers: ‘What do we profit by killing our brother and covering up his blood? Let us sell him instead’” (Genesis 37:26–27).

Tribal Lands, Chapter 5; Yehudah 14

Judah said to his brothers: “What do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves. After all, he is our brother, our own flesh.” Genesis 37:26–27

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 40

“His brothers agreed” [37:27]. The brothers listened to Judah and wanted to sell him as a slave. They said: the children of Abraham are supposed to be in exile in Egypt. Perhaps Joseph will be in exile for all of us. He is also a descendant of Abraham. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:27.)

Tanakh

In Numbers 12:12, Moses pleads with God to not let Miriam be like a stillborn baby with half its flesh eaten away, after she is struck with leprosy for criticizing Moses's marriage to a Cushite woman.

Numbers 12:12

Let her not be like a stillbirth which emerges from its mother’s womb with half its flesh eaten away!”

Targum

Onkelos Genesis 37:27 and Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:27 both describe the brothers deciding to sell Joseph to the Yishmaelites (Arabs) instead of killing him, as he is their brother. The brothers listened and agreed to this plan.

Onkelos Genesis 37:27

Come let us sell him to the Yishmaelites [Arabs], and let our hands not be upon him; for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers listened [to him.] [obeyed him].

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:27

Come, let us sell him to the Arabians, and our hands shall not be upon him to kill him; for our brother is our own flesh. And his brethren agreed.

Tosefta

Rebbi Tarfon asks his students why the tribe of Yehudah merited the kingship of Israel, with initial answers focusing on Yehudah's admission of impregnating Tamar and saving his brother Yosef. The conversation then shifts to humility as a key factor, comparing Yehudah's humility to Shaul's, who also merited the kingship due to his humility. Ultimately, the tribe of Yehudah is said to have merited the kingship by sanctifying God's name at the sea, emphasizing their willingness to go first and their role in the exodus from Egypt.

Tosefta Berakhot 4:16

[Then] he (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said to them (i.e. his students), “I will ask [you another question].” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “Why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship [of Israel]?” They said to him, “Because [Yehudah] admitted [that he impregnated] Tamar.” It happened [once] with four elders, that they were sitting in the gatehouse of Rebbi Yehoshua. [They were] Elazar Ben Matya, Chaninah Ben Chachinai, Shimon Ben Azzai, and Shimon Hateimani. And they were involved [in discussing] what Rebbi Tarfon taught to them, “Why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship [of Israel]?” “Because [Yehudah] admitted [that he impregnated] Tamar.” They have added [another source to that explanation] on their own. “[It says in the book of Iyov], ‘… that which the wise related from their fathers and did not withhold. To them alone the earth was given…’ (Job 15:18-19)” He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said to them (i.e. to the four elders), “Do they give reward for a transgression? But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” [The four elders said back to Rebbi Tarfon,] “Because he (i.e. Yehudah) saved his brother (i.e. Yosef) from death, as it is said, ‘Yehudah said to his brothers, “What benefit [will we have] if we kill our brother?”’ (Genesis 37:26) and it is written, ‘Let us go and sell him to the Ishmaelites…’ (Genesis 37:27)”8 He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said [back] to them (i.e. the four elders), “It is enough that [the act of] saving [him] should [serve] as forgiveness for the [act of] selling [him to the Ishmaelites]. But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” [The four elders said back to Rebbi Tarfon,] “Because of [Yehudah’s] humility, as it is said, ‘And now your servant (i.e. Yehudah) will become a slave to my master (i.e. Yosef) instead of the boy (i.e. Binyamin).’ (Genesis 44:33) Also [the only reason that] Shaul merited the kingship [of Israel] was due to [his] humility, as it is said, ‘… may be my father will turn his attention away from the donkeys and will start to worry about us.’ (I Samuel 9:5) [Since Shaul said “us” and not “me”] he considered his servant as [important as] himself, but Shmuel did not do so, but rather [he said], ‘Your father stopped worrying about the donkeys and is worried about you, saying “What will happen to my son?”’ (I Samuel 10:2) And when he (i.e. Shaul) runs away from [accepting his newly appointed role of] leadership what does it say? ‘And they have asked God, “Is the man even here?” and God said, “Here he is hiding by the vessels.”’ (I Samuel 10:22)” He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said [back] to them (i.e. the four elders), “Is not he (i.e. Yehudah) a cosigner? And in the end [it is the responsibility] of a cosigner to fulfill his pledge. But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “[The reason the tribe of Yehudah merited the kingship of Israel is] because they sanctified God’s name on the sea. When [all of] the tribes came and stood by the sea, this one said, ‘I will go down [into the water first]’ and this one said, ‘I will go down [into the water first].’ The tribe of Yehudah jumped up and went in first and sanctified God’s name [by doing so]. And regarding that moment it says [in Tehillim], ‘Save me God, because the water is up to my soul.’ (Psalms 69:2) And it also says, ‘When Yisrael was going out of Egypt, the children of Yakov from the nation of a foreign tongue, Yehudah was His sanctifier…’ (Psalms 114:1-2) Since Yehudah sanctified God’s name on the sea, therefore ‘…Yisrael his subjects.’ (ibid.) ”

וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן־הַבּ֔וֹר וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֖ף מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃ 28 J E When Midianite traders passed by, they pulled Joseph up out of the pit. They sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver to the Ishmaelites, who brought Joseph to Egypt.
Various commentators offer explanations for the sale of Joseph, with Ibn Ezra suggesting a close relationship between the Midianites and Ishmaelites, Rashbam proposing that the Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites without the brothers' knowledge, and Sforno explaining the Midianites' role as merchants and agents in the sale. Halakhic texts stress the importance of eating with intention and self-control, using Joseph as an example of reverent eating. Midrashic interpretations connect Joseph's sale to the story of Yehuda and Tamar, highlighting consequences and emphasizing treating children equally. In the Talmud, Rab reprimands R. Kahana for not studying Torah constantly, emphasizing Torah's priority over personal needs. Gideon's request for golden earrings from the defeated Midianites is noted in the Tanakh, while the Targum describes the involvement of various parties in Joseph's sale, including the Midianites and Ishmaelites.

Commentary

Ibn Ezra suggests that the Midianites and Ishmaelites are referred to interchangeably because they are closely related, with Judges 8:24 supporting this idea. Rashbam proposes that the Midianites, coming from a different direction, saw Joseph in the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, possibly without the brothers' knowledge. Sforno explains that the Midianites were merchants transporting goods on Ishmaelite camels, while also acting as agents for the sale of Joseph. Shadal and Haamek Davar present detailed explanations of the events, suggesting that the brothers were indirectly involved in Joseph's sale, with the Midianites possibly kidnapping and selling him. Radak discusses the close relationship between the Ishmaelites, Midianites, and Medanites, all descendants of Abraham, and how these ties are reflected in Judges 8:24. Rabbeinu Bahya and Or HaChaim elaborate on the multiple sales of Joseph, indicating that the brothers played a role in his sale, with various parties involved in the transactions. Tze'enah Ure'enah and Da'at Zekenim offer insights into the sequence of events, including the role of the Midianites in pulling Joseph out of the pit and selling him to the Ishmaelites. Bekhor Shor suggests that the Midianites heard Joseph's cries and sold him to the Ishmaelites, emphasizing the profit made from the sale. Chizkuni provides explanations for the cheap price of Joseph's sale, suggesting that his appearance may have been affected by his experiences and highlighting the significance of the price in Leviticus 27:5.

Bekhor Shor, Genesis 37:28:1

And Midianite men passed There are commentaries that the Midianites heard him screaming in the pit, and brought him up, and kidnapped him, and sold him to Yishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, and made a great profit from this since they hadn't spent anything on him. The Yishmaelites then brought him down to Egypt, and what it says at the end of the parsha, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt..." (Bereishit 37:36), is that they sold him in order to bring him down to Egypt, and this is not just lies! For behild, it's written there "to Potifar", and further, that in that place it's difficult why he didn't reveal himself. And also, there is one who says Madanim [מדנים] and Midaynim [מדיינים], [called this] for the name of the cargo that they carry, such as in Iyov 38:31 "Can you bind the cords [ma'adnot; מַעֲדַנּוֹת] of the Pleiades?", or I Samuel 15:32 "And Agag came to him in chains [ma'adnot; מַעֲדַנּוֹת]". And sometimes the ayin is omitted, for it's usual to omit the letters alef, chet, hey and ayin. For example, "and laid in wait [vayarev, וַיָּרֶב] in a valley" (I Samuel 15:5), which is like vaye'arev ויארב. And so too is explained "sitters on couches [midin, מִדִּין]" (Shoftim 5:10), that it's like on the cargo which is bound. And all of this isn't worth anything to me, but it was one people, as I have explained, just as they call us sometimes Yehudim and sometimes Yisra'elim and sometimes Yeshurun. And the truth is that his brothers sold him, as he said to them "that have sold me here" (Bereishit 45:4), and [the merchants?] caused them to swear, as I have explained, and made from them great profit, like a man who sells his field because of its poor quality, for they would give of their own that someone would distance it from them, for in they end they hated him with a hatred.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:28:1

ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים, “in the meantime Midianite merchants had passed by the pit that Joseph had been thrown into and they heard his cries.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:28:2

וימשכו, “they pulled him out;” the Midianites pulled him out of the pit, and proceeded to sell him to the Yishmaelites; the Yishmaelites in turned him over to the Midianites for safekeeping, as they had no immediate use for him. He was then sold to Poptiphar by the Yishmaelites and Midianites jointly. When you understand what happened in this way, all the three verses that describe what happened to Joseph after he was thrown into the pit makes perfect sense. The three verses read as follows: verse 36: The Midianites had sold him to Egypt, specifically to Potiphar.” Chapter 39,1: Potiphar bought him from the Yishmaelites;” chapter 45,4: Joseph speaking: “whom you had sold (me) to Egypt.” Joseph was not concerned with the details but with the cause of his being in Egypt. He accuses the brothers of having been the cause, not the actual sellers.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:28:3

מן הבור, “from the pit;” his brothers had no knowledge at all of what had happened to Joseph after they had thrown him into the pit. When Reuven came back to the pit and there was no trace of Joseph, all of them thought that some wild animal must have devoured him. They did not lie to their father. If the brothers themselves had sold him to anyone or any country, they would have made extensive efforts during the 22 years until they travelled to Egypt to find out what had happened to him since. Not only that, if they had had any reason to believe that he might still have been alive, they would not have failed to recognise him when they stood face to face with him. He could not have completely fooled them unless they had long ago become convinced that he was dead. At least they would have recognised him when he blessed Binyamin (43,29) or when he gave Binyamin gifts that were five time larger than the gifts he gave to them. (43,34) Also, the fact that he had seated them at the table in strict accordance with the order of their birth, would have convinced them that he must be their long lost brother. I am convinced that this is the correct sequence of what happened. An alternate interpretation of the sequence of events after Joseph was thrown into the pit: while the brothers were still debating among themselves if to sell Joseph to the approaching Yishmaelites, the Midianites had come from a different direction and seen Joseph in the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites as soon as possible. In order not to be shamed as having left him in the pit while he was crying, they took him out and made him look presentable before handing him over to the Yishmaelites. Following this, the Yishmaelites sold Joseph to the Midianites, who in turn sold him to Potiphar. According to this scenario, Joseph was actually sold no fewer than four times. This would tally with what is written in 39,1 according to which Potiphar bought Joseph from the Yishmaelites. To sum up: the brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites; this sale has not been recorded in the Torah as it remained in effect only for an hour or so. The Midianites then sold him to the Yishmaelites; this sale was also not recorded in the Torah seeing that the Yishmaelites resold Joseph as soon as possible and secretly, not at public auction as they were afraid that the Midianites wished to cancel the sale and sell him to Potiphar instead, getting a much better price. When Potiphar saw Joseph in the possession of the Midianites and realised how handsome a slave this would be, he could not understand why a white person would sell a fellow white skinned person, they usually only sold negroes, although the reverse would have made sense to him. He therefore reasoned that Joseph could not have been born as a slave. Consequently, he demanded an ironclad guarantee that the Midinanites had not kidnapped him. The guarantee that the Midianites furnished was that they brought the Yishmaelites from whom they had purchased Joseph to confirm this for Potiphar. This is why the Torah writes that Potiphar purchased Joseph from the Yishmaelites, who had confirmed that they had sold him legitimately.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:28:4

בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” The price sounds extremely cheap, seeing that Joseph was such a handsome young man. We would have to understand this as being due to Joseph’s face reflecting horrific experiences he had undergone recently and from which he did not yet recover. The brothers shared the twenty silver pieces, reportedly each buying himself a pair of new shoes (Amos 2,6) A different interpretation of why the Torah mentions the price Joseph was sold for: In Leviticus 27,5, the Torah lists the monetary value of a person who donates the value of such a person to the Temple treasury. The value depends on age and sex. According to what is written there, males between the age of five and twenty are worth 20 shekel; Joseph was 17 years at the time. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,18, G-d decreed that because the brothers sold Joseph for 5 sela’im=20 dinarim, they will have to pay a priest 5 selaim to redeem a first born son.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:28:1

וימשכו ויעלו, “they pulled and raised;” first they struck a deal to sell him for twenty pieces of silver. Then in order to deliver him to the purchaser they had to haul him out of the pit. While Joseph had been in the pit, wondering how he would ever escape, he had lost his good looks and was not presentable to people who wished to buy a young and able bodied slave. As soon as he was hauled out of the pit he regained his former looks. The sellers were now not prepared to sell him for so little money and they were about to throw him back into the pit. In order to prevent this, the Ishmaelites added shoes of their own free will in order to satisfy the Midianite merchants. This is what the prophet Amos referred to (Amos 2,6) when he said: על מכרם בכסף צדיק ואביון בעבור נעלים, “because they have sold for silver those whose cause was just and the needy for a pair of sandals.” As soon as the Ishmaelites offered more than originally, the Midianites raised Joseph from the pit again.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:28:2

וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. According to Rashi, the subject here are the brothers, who sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, whereupon the latter sold him to the Midianites who in turn sold him to the Egyptians. If so, we must understand the whole paragraph as follows: They (the brothers who had sat down to eat but had not eaten yet) raised their eyes (verse 25) and they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites approaching, (from the east travelling south) while at the same time Midianite merchants arrived at the pit from a different direction who (eventually) hauled Joseph out of the pit. (verse 28) [Remember the brothers had sat down for lunch some distance from the pit so that they would not hear Joseph’s cries. Ed.] These Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver. The reason why the Torah mentions this at this stage is that we should not wonder when the Torah in verse 36 reports that the Medanim had sold Joseph already some time previously to the Egyptians. The individual Egyptian who purchased Joseph was Potiphar. Most of this had taken place while the brothers had still argued among themselves if to sell him to the Ishmaelites. They had been pre-empted in the meantime by the Midianites. The Midianites in the meantime had become witnesses to the discussions among Joseph’s brothers and had bought Joseph subsequently from the Ishmaelites. They were certain that Joseph had been hauled up from the pit in order that he could be sold to them. There were two separate groups of people, some called Medanim, and the others Midianim. The Ishmaelites who were traveling in the direction of Egypt, were the ones who sold Joseph to Potiphar once they had arrived in Egypt. If you were to say why does the Torah write in verse 36 the Medanim had sold him to Egypt, so that eventually he was sold to Potiphar, etc.? We would have expected the subject in that verse to have been the Midianites! Rash’bam in his commentary on the Chumash claims that the three people mentioned in this story, i.e. the Ishmaelites, Midianites, and Medonites, were all members of the same people though not of the same tribe. Their founder fathers were all brothers from the same mother and father Avraham-Keturah (Hagar), as we know (assuming that Keturah was identical with Hagar) (Compare Genesis 25,2) The query mentioned above was already raised by Rashi, (verse 3) we quote him (the Midrash which he quotes) literally: the word פסים in the garment described as כתונת פסים, contains a hint of future problems, being sold four times, Joseph would endure. The letter פ refers to Potiphar to whom he had been sold. The letter ס refers to the סוחרים, the merchants (verse 28) the letter י to the Ishmaelites, and the letter ם to the Medonites. The problem with the Midrash is that only three sales have been reported in the Torah. In view of this difficulty I suggest the following: concerning the line (verse 25) ‘they raised their eyes and here there was approaching a caravan of Ishmaelites, etc.;” this happened while the brothers were discussing among themselves how to proceed from there. They hit on the idea of selling Joseph to the members of that caravan. Before the caravan of |shmaelites had even reached them, another group of Midianite merchants had passed the pit from the opposite direction and hearing his cries, sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites before even having raised him from the pit, for the measly amount of 20 pieces of silver. They then hauled Joseph from the pit alive. The Ishmaelites sold him to the Medonites, and these in turn sold him to Potiphar. So we do have four separate sales. When the Torah wrote in Genesis 39,1 that Potiphar acquired him from the Ishmaelites, this is quite correct as when Potiphar set eyes on him he looked very handsome, and he reasoned that “negroes do not sell whites, whereas whites sell negroes;” in other words, he considered it unlikely that the Medonites had come by Joseph legally, and he wanted reassurance that he did not buy someone who had been kidnapped. The |shmaelites who had sold him to the Medonites gave Potiphar a guarantee that everything was completely legal. (B’reshit Rabbah 86,3)

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:28:3

בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” If you were to ask how it is possible that a young man as physically fit and handsome could have been sold for so little, [according to the Torah the going price for people such as Joseph was a minimum of 50 shekel, Ed] perhaps the Torah meant that each brother received 20 pieces of silver as his share of the sale. This question had been raised in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 38. One of the answers given there is that he had become so upset as a result of his experiences that he had not only lost his good looks but had also become physically completely weakened; [my edition of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer only quotes the verse from Amos 2,6, from which he derives that each brother bought himself a pair of sandals for the 2 pieces of silver he had received from that sale. Ed.]

Haamek Davar on Genesis 37:28:1

That were going through the desert with that caravan of Ishmaelites and the camels, because it is impossible to go through the desert without a large caravan, and they (the Midianites) were going on foot. And what it mentions was not "seen from a distance" except the tall camels. And the Midianites that went on foot turned from the road for the sound of Yosef, or because their hearts pushed them to look into that pit.

Haamek Davar on Genesis 37:28:2

The Midianites. And the brothers who saw it rejoiced in this, because their desire was done without their getting involved. And if Yehuda had not spoken so, they would not have set on pulling him out and selling him, but they would have left him in the pit until he died. But when it had been decided by them to do so, it was a delight to them that it was done by the Midianites. And this is what it says in Bereishis Rabbah 84 that Yosef was stolen twice. His brothers stole him from their father, and the Midianites from the brothers. And in any case, Yosef said when he made himself known to his brothers "because you sold me here". Because they caused the matter, and they knew the action of the Midianites and it wasn't stopped by them. This is as if they did it. And so Rashbam interprets....

Haamek Davar on Genesis 37:28:3

The Ishmaelites.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:28:1

AND THERE PASSED BY. When the Ishmaelite merchantmen passed by them. (The vav of va-ya’avru (and there passed by) is to be rendered when rather than and. The meaning of the verse is: when the Midianite (Ishmaelite) merchantmen passed by, they drew and lifted Joseph out of the pit (Krinsky). I.E.’s point is that the Midianites in our verse refers to the caravan of Ishmaelites of verse 25. Thus va-ya’avru does not introduce new material. Hence I.E.’s paraphrase: when, etc. (Filwarg).) Scripture refers to the Ishmaelites as Midianites because the Midianites are called Ishmaelites. The Book of Judges similarly says concerning the kings of Midian, because they were Ishmaelites (Jud. 8:24).

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:28:1

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, Midianites were passing, etc. Why did the Torah mention the passing by of Midianites when the sale was conducted with the Ishmaelites as is clearly stated at the end of this verse? Verse 25 also makes it clear that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:28:2

Furthermore, we read in verse 36 that the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, etc. This appears to prove that the brothers had sold Joseph to the Midianites, something which contradicts what we have been told previously. To confuse the issue still further, we are told in 39,1 that Joseph was brought down to Egypt where Potiphar purchased him from the Ishmaelites. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,22 account for all this by saying that Joseph was sold several times over. This does not seem to solve all the difficulties in the text, however.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:28:3

The correct interpretation is that the Torah first mentions the appearance of a caravan of Ishmaelites (verse 25) and Yehudah's suggestion that they should sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. When the brothers became aware that the Ishmaelites in that caravan dealt only in spices, etc., and that they would not consider slave trading, G'd arranged for מדנים סוחרים, Midianite merchants to pass by. The Torah adds the word "merchants" to tell us that the brothers recognised that these men were less discriminating in the kind of merchandise they dealt in. The brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites using the Midianites as middlemen. The Ishmaelites would have refused to buy a human being (who presumably had been a free man) from the brothers directly. Inasmuch as the deal involved both the Midianites and the Ishmaelites, the Midianites received part of the profit. The Ishmaelites who had financed the sale, paid out the cash at that time.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:28:4

The Torah was able to say "the Midianites had sold him to Egypt (37,36)" since they received part of the profit of the transaction. Inasmuch as they and not the Ishmaelites knew Joseph's true value as a slave, they conducted the sale to Potiphar.Meanwhile Joseph's body, i.e. his person remained in the care of the Ishmaelites so that when Potiphar acquired him he did so from the hands of the Ishmaelites (39,1). The Torah emphasises מיד הישמעלים, to make certain that we understand that Joseph was in the physical possession of the Ishmaelites who handed him over to Potiphar. All the various verses make perfect sense when looked at in this vein. Perhaps the author of the Midrash mentioned מכירות הרבה, many sales, because the different stages involved in Joseph's sale appeared to him as if he was being sold many times over.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:28:5

וימכרו את יוסף. They sold Joseph. It is possible that after the brothers had humiliated Joseph by stripping him naked and tossing him into the pit that their anger abated partially and they were willing to accept Yehudah's suggestion. They may have thought that their declared objective to frustrate realisation of Joseph's dreams would be achieved if he were to be sold into slavery. Once he had become a slave there were no known ways in which Joseph could rise to a higher status, much less to that of king. This is what Psalms 105,17 had in mind when the Psalmist stated: כי לעבד נמכר יוסף, "Joseph had been sold into slavery."

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:28:1

ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים, וימשכו, “Midianite men, merchants, passed by and pulled Joseph (out of the pit).” According to the plain meaning of the text the passing Midianites pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold him, not the brothers. According to this interpretation, Joseph saying to the brothers in Genesis 45,4 “I am Joseph whom you have sold to Egypt,” has to refer to the fact that the brothers dumped him in the pit as a result of which he was eventually sold to Egypt. This would be supported by the fact that at that time he said מצרימה, i.e. in the direction of Egypt, as opposed to למצרים, which would have meant: “to Egypt.” He referred to a process which eventually brought him to Egypt after he had been traded from master to master. In that event the sin attributed to the brothers by the Romans (who punished Jewish scholars over 1200 years later) would have been an indirect sin at best. They were punished for being the cause which triggered Joseph’s eventually winding up in Egypt as a slave. The Romans felt that leading citizens of the Jewish people should pay for this indirect sale of Joseph by the brothers. They considered it murder seeing that if the Ishmaelites or Midianites had not come along Joseph would have died in that pit. The principle of prominent people being considered guilty of murder even if it was not by laying an actual hand of the victim is reflected in the Bible by the case of David who ordered his commander-in-chief Yoav to place Bat Sheva’s husband Uriah in such an exposed position at the front against the Bney Ammon that he was almost certain to be killed. He instructed Yoav to ensure that Uriah would be killed by withdrawing the support of his comrades-in-arms from Uriah. As a result, Uriah was killed. by the Ammonites, and the Bible (the prophet Natan in Samuel II 12,9) accused David outright of having murdered Uriah though he had not laid a hand on him. The only difference between murdering someone with one’s own hands and between contriving his certain death in another fashion is the culpability before a human tribunal. The sin vis-a-vis G’d is the same (compare Kidushin 43)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:28:2

בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” We have been commanded by the Torah (Numbers 18,16) that the redemption of a firstborn son, an Israelite, (as distinct from a Kohen or a Levite) is to be performed in exchange for 5 selaim. The sela is a coin worth 4 “kesseph,” pieces of silver, such as mentioned in our verse here. This is the reason that Onkelos does not translate “twenty selaim of silver” but leaves the wording of the Torah unchanged and writes: עשרים כסף. One of the underlying reasons for the whole procedure of redeeming the firstborn is the need to atone for that sale of Joseph who was Rachel’s firstborn son and who had been wrongly sold for this amount (compare Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2,3).

Radak on Genesis 37:28:1

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, these were the Ishmaelites mentioned previously, seeing that both Midianites and Medanites are descendants of Keturah. [Keturah is understood to be Hagar who had her name changed after Sarah’s death when Avraham took her as a wife. Seeing that she gave birth to both Medan and to Midian, (25,2) this made both these sons full brothers to her earlier son Ishmael by the same father. Ed.] Even assuming that Keturah and Hagar were not identical, the three were at least sons of Avraham and therefore half brothers. Their respective families had intermarried so that they could be considered as brothers in the real sense of the word. The close relationship between their respective descendants comes to the fore in Judges 8,24 where after Gideon’s campaign against the Midianites they are described as Ishmaelites, the kind of jewelry they wore identifying them as members of that tribe.

Radak on Genesis 37:28:2

וימשכו, Joseph’s brothers pulled him out of the pit prior to the sale to the Ishmaelites. All this occurred when Reuven was not present. Perhaps, in the interval he had returned to his father. [a distance of 120 km, hardly likely, as Reuven would have had to come back another 120 km. to retrieve Joseph who would have died from thirst in the interval if not from other causes. Ed.] It is more likely that Reuven had a flock of his own to look after in that general region.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:28:1

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, while the brothers had been sitting down to consume their meal, having distanced themselves somewhat from the pit into which they had thrown Joseph in order not to be guilty of “eating while spilling blood,” they were waiting for the Ishmaelites whom they had seen in the distance, to arrive. During this period the Midianites, coming from a different direction had passed there, saw Joseph in the pit, pulled him up, and proceeded to sell him to the Ishmaelites. One may assume that the brothers had no knowledge of this. Even though the Torah appears to attribute the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites to the brothers, (based on Joseph accusing them of having sold him to Egypt, 45,4) we would have to say that because of their having been instrumental in bringing about that sale they are considered as if having assisted in that sale. This appears to me the deeper meaning of the plain meaning of the text both here and in chapter 45. The line describing the Midianites passing that way is described as something totally coincidental, having nothing to do with what the brothers had planned to do with Joseph. Even if the Torah says:וימכרו (את) יוסף לישמעאלים, this sounds as if the brothers did the selling. It is also possible that the brothers noting the Midianites suddenly materialising out of nowhere, instructed them to pull Joseph out of the pit after which they themselves sold him to the Ishmaelites.

Rashi on Genesis 37:28:1

ויעברו אנשים מדינים AND THERE PASSED BY MIDIANITES — This was another caravan: Scripture indicates that he was sold several times.

Rashi on Genesis 37:28:2

וימשכו AND THEY DREW UP — the sons of Jacob drew up את יוסף מן הבור JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, and they sold him to the Ishmaelites, and the Ishmaelites to the Midianites and the Midianites into Egypt (Midrash Tanchuma 1:9:13).

Sforno on Genesis 37:28:1

מדינים סוחרים, the owners of the merchandise being transported on the Ishmaelites’ camels.

Sforno on Genesis 37:28:2

וימכרו את יוסף לישמעאלים, they completed the deal with the Ishmaelites acting as agents for the Midianites. The brothers did not want to speak to the Midianite merchants. The reason was that they did not want to be recognised by them as they were in the habit of frequenting cities in order to ply their wares. The camel drovers, however, were not in the habit of visiting urban areas. At worst they would just pass through towns without stopping there overnight or longer. The actual purchasers, however, were the Midianite merchants, in accordance with the Torah’s narrative that the Midianites sold Joseph to Egypt (verse 36). The Jewish people experienced something parallel during the period of the second Temple, when Midianites sold a portion of our people into slavery to surrounding nations, a phenomenon which was widespread during the time when the descendants of the Hasmoneans were fighting among themselves about who would be king in Jerusalem. This fratricide is responsible for our exile until this day. It was a historical replay of what happened as a result of the brothers selling Joseph, and the whole family winding up in exile in Egypt only a few years later. Compare what our sages have to say on the subject in Shabbat 10.

Shadal on Genesis 37:28:1

And they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit, and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Most of the world believe that the brothers of Joseph sold him, but the Rashbam writes that this was not so, and the Chizkuni agrees with him. My friend and son of my uncle, my teacher and rabbi R. Shmuel Chaim b. David Lo-Li zt"l, delved deeply into the topic of this story, and he tended to the understanding of the Rashbam. He wrote about his opinions to be in a letter (28 Kislev 5589), and these are his words in explanation of this story: When Joseph's brothers saw him in the distance, they plotted to kill him: "And they said... let us go and kill him..." But Reuven heard and saved him immediately, and advised them to cast him into the pit (in order to save him from their hand). They followed his advice and cast him into the pit. Afterwards, they returned to eat bread, and they distanced themselves from the pit, so as not to hear the cries of Joseph as he begged them, as the verse testifies, "Since we saw the aggrievement of his soul, when he begged us and we did not listen to him." While they were eating, they lifted their eyes and they saw some Ishmaelites. Judah said, "Let us go and sell him, etc." His brothers listened to him, i.e., they all agreed that after they finished eating, they would return to the pit and lift Joseph from there, and bring him to the Ishmaelites to sell him to them. (Since no hint is found in the verses that the Ishmaelites needed to come close to Jacob's sons on their way.) Meanwhile, while they they were speaking amongst themselves, far from the pit—behold!—without any of them knowing, Midianite men, merchants, crossed over by the pit (by Divine Providence). The Midianites pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit and brought him to the Ishmaelites and sold him to them for twenty [pieces of] silver. They brought Joseph to Egypt. Now, behold! after they ate, Reuven hurried by himself, separating from his brothers without them seeing, and returned quickly to the pit to lift Joseph out and return him to his father before his brothers could reach him to lift him out and sell him. However... as the melting of wax before the fire, so melted Reuven's heart and became water as he gazed into the pit, where Joseph was no longer. He tore his garments [in mourning], for he thought in his imagination that without a doubt, a bear or a lion hunted [Joseph] for its cubs, suffocating him to take him as its prey. It had carried him off alive, as he was, his head on his thighs and on his stomach, to some hole or to some den, to fill its hole with prey and its den with game. And that was why he didn't find any blood or bones! Reuven returned, in grief and in panic, to his brothers, and he cried and said, "Hei! The boy is no longer, for he has been ravaged! My plan, like yours, has been ruined! Now where do I go? I am guiltier than you all, because it was by my advice that you threw him into the pit, and it is as if I were the cause of his death!" All his brothers believed him and were astonished about this, as if G-d answered them that their brother should die. However, they were not pained, but glad to know that the one they hated was dead, without them having to lay a hand on him. Hence, they did not respond. After this, they discussed what to do to also save Reuven also from the accusations of their father. Accordingly, they dipped Joseph's coat in blood and sent it to their father, in order that he believe that Joseph was hunted down before he reached them. Now, when Jacob's sons came to their father, and they saw how Jacob mourned so exceedingly for his son, they regretted immediately everything they had done. But, what was to be done? If Joseph was already ravaged and had become the food of beasts of the field, all that remained for them to do was to comfort him with words, and so they did. Now, according to this [following], it will be clarified that the children of Jacob, the tribes of Y-ah, which He chose as His unique ones, were not wicked, guided by their evil inclinations; nor were their deaths such that it be said of them, "They will be torn forever. His wrath and His fury will keep eternally." Even if in a small moment they had sinned out of jealousy and hatred, since it is the way of people to be unjust, they could not, Heaven forbid, have remained in their rebellion. It would have abated quickly, they would have recognized their sin, and regretted everything they had done. They were exerting themselves with all their power to cleanse themselves of it, since when they all returned home, no man held back any of their courage and strength to console their father. That none of them sought out Joseph was because all of them fully believed without any shadow of a doubt that he was hunted down, and there was no hope to bring him back alive. That Reuven was silent when he heard the Judah's suggestion to sell Joseph was with the intention to conceal his good thoughts concerting Joseph from his brothers, so that his brothers not monitor him carefully to see what he was doing when he went alone to the pit. This was especially so after he heard Judah's suggestion, and he knew, or at least it appeared to him, that his brothers did not oppose Judah, the master among the brothers, and none disagreed and all were silent in deference to his suggestion. If he were to reveal his mind to them, they doubtless would not allow him to go alone to the pit as he had planned, lest he prevent them to doing to their brother as they wished. It is also understood why none responded to Reuven when he said to them, "The boy isn't there!" They should have said, "We sold him," but instead, they did not respond, because they did not sell him, and they did not know what had happened to him any more than did Reuven. It is also understood why Joseph said, "I was verily kidnapped." It was because he was talking about the Midianites who actually kidnapped him and took him away from the land of the Hebrews, since he did not suspect that his brothers sold him from the outset to the Midianites. Regarding what is written after this, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt," by his understanding, these were the Ishmaelites mentioned above, since in his understanding, "Ishmaelites" is a general term including all the children of Abraham aside from Isaac, and possibly these were descendants of Medan the son of Abraham. Even though the Midianites who sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites were themselves descendants of Abraham, they were certainly different people who were not true Ishmaelites. We cannot say that the sellers and buyers were one and the same, so they were called by a borrowed name separate from the sellers. There is further proof that the Ishmaelites and the Midianites are one and the same, since Scripture says here, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt to Potiphar," and after that it says, "And Potiphar bought him... from the hand of the Ishmaelites." And, after these words and truth, it will no longer be difficult to explain one verse that was repeated twice, which appears as if in contradiction to this structure. This is the statement of Joseph to his brothers when he admitted to them, "I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold to Egypt. Now, do not be distraught... that you sold me here," since the intention here is this: "You are the cause of my sale and coming to Egypt." This is similar to "and Solomon built the House. The Shadal [Samuel b. David Lo-Li] said that it is possible to add other, further examples, like, "And you will bring my hoariness down in grief to the grave" (below, Genesis 42:38), "You have killed the people of G‑d" (Numbers 17:6), "And this city shall burn with fire" (Jeremiah 38:23). Similarly, his brothers, in their hatred, were the reason Joseph was sold to Egypt. The proof of this, that in any case, they did not sell him to Egypt, is that it would have been sufficient [for Joseph] to say, "You sold me." Similarly, he says after this, "You did not send me here." It is understood that they did not send him, but were the cause that he be sent to Egypt. If you wish to explain the verse, "I was verily kidnapped," according to all the commentators, that the intention was regarding his brothers who kidnapped and sold him, then you would also be able to say that Joseph, when he saw the Midianites who pulled and sold him like masters, did not know who the kidnappers were: Were they the brothers? or were they the Midianites? Perhaps he thought in his imagination that his brothers sold him to the Midianites from the outset, and therefore said to them in his admission, "whom you sold." If you would argue that if the brothers did not sell him, they would not be silent when he said to them, "whom you sold," then the rebuttal is by your side. The brothers were not able to answer him [at all], not even the question, "Is my father still alive?" because they were confounded before him. How could they be so brazen as to bicker with him about their sin? Until here are the words of the one dear to my soul, Samuel Chaim b. David Lo-Li zt"l. Even though I do not agree with him on all the details of the explanation, the main thing here is that his words and the words of the Rashbam are correct in my view: it appears to me that those who pulled Joseph out of the pit were the Midianites and they sold him to the Ishmaelites, and Jacob's children did not see or know about any of this at all. Joseph believed that they sold him to the Midianites and said to them, "Go pull him out of the pit." Joseph's brothers never said to him that they didn't sell him, since in speaking about it, it would be revealed that their intent was that he die in the pit. How could they say to him, "Don't think that we sold you. It was only in our heart that you die in the pit. When afterwards we agreed to Judah's suggestion to sell you, the Midianites got there first and sold you themselves!" The reason for "I was verily kidnapped" was regarding Joseph's brothers, who (in Joseph's belief) sold him, and kidnapped him from his father.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:28:1

Yaakov’s sons [pulled] Yoseif from the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites... Rashi deduces this from what is written, “They pulled Yoseif up from the pit and sold Yoseif.” If it was the Midianites [who did all this], how could they sell him? He did not yet belong to them! And if [you suggest that] the Midianites pulled him out of the pit without the brothers’ knowledge and sold him, why is it written later (45:4), “I am Yoseif your brother, whom you sold into Egypt”? They never sold him! And why would the brothers say, “Come let us sell him to the Yishmaelites,” if they never sold him? Perforce, “they pulled” refers to Yaakov’s sons who sold him to the Yishmaelites, and the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites. We need not ask: How does Rashi know that the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites? Perhaps they sold him to the מדנים [written without the intermediate yud, see v. 36], which is a different nation — as it is written (25:2), “Medan, Midian...” [The answer is:] If so, why does the verse mention, “Midianite merchants passed by”? They must be mentioned in connection with Yoseif’s sale, that the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites, and the Midianites to the מדנים, and the מדנים to Potiphar. So it seems to me. Re’m asks: The verse says, “Potiphar bought him from the Yishmaelites” (39:1). [But did not the Yishmaelites already sell him to the Midianites?] It appears that the answer is: Although he was sold several times, the Midianites had not yet paid. Because of this, he still belonged to the Yishmaelites, as the Midianites received [from their sale of Yoseif] only the profit, i.e., the amount that exceeded what they owed the Yishmaelites.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:28

Midyanite men, merchants, passed by, and they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit. Some commentaries identify the Midyanite merchants with the group of Ishmaelites mentioned previously. The name “Midyanite” can refer generally to nomadic merchants. 10 Others explain that the Midyanites and Ishmaelites were two distinct groups. 11 They sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. If the Midyanites are not identified with the Ishmaelites, then the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites who subsequently sold him to the Midyanites. 12 According to another interpretation, the brothers did not actually sell Joseph, and may even have been unaware of the sale; rather, the Midyanites came along while the brothers were eating, extracted him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites. A third possibility is that the brothers had the Midyanites extract Joseph from the pit, and then the brothers themselves sold Joseph. 13 Joseph was sold for twenty silver pieces, a considerable amount, that they divided among themselves. According to the prophet Amos, it was enough for each of them to buy a pair of shoes; 14 and they brought Joseph to Egypt.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 38-39

“Then Midianite traders passed by, they pulled Joseph up out of the pit” [37:28]. “They sat down to a meal” [37:25]. They sat down to eat at a distance, so that they should not hear the cry of their brother in the pit. Then a group of Ishmaelites came from the city of Gilead carrying wax, balm and old wine and was on their way to Egypt. Rashi asks a question. Why does the verse tell us what they were carrying? The explanation is that the verse tells is the merit of Joseph, since the Ishmaelites used to carry merchandise that stank. However, now it happened that the righteous Joseph should not smell bad things. Therefore, they were carrying only spices and good wine, so that Joseph should only smell pleasant odors. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:25.) When they threw Joseph into the pit, they threw him in naked, without a garment, only with an amulet around his neck. Raphael came and made Joseph a garment out of it. They sold Joseph while he was still in the pit, and his brothers saw the garment when the Ishmaelites brought Joseph out of the pit. They argued with the Ishmaelites. They said: we sold him to you without a garment. The Ishmaelites gave them shoes for the garment. Imre Noam wrote this. (Imre Noam, Genesis, 37:23.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 41-46

“They pulled Joseph up” [37:28]. Rashi writes. The brothers pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, and the Ishmaelites sold him to the Midianites. The Midianites sold him to the Egyptians. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:28.) However, Hizkuni and Bahya write. “Midianite traders passed by” [37:28]. The Midianites passed near the pit and heard Joseph shouting. They pulled him out and sold him to the Ishmaelites. The Ishmaelites gave Joseph to the Midianites to hold as a pledge. The Ishmaelites and the Midianites sold Joseph to Potiphar. Therefore, the verse says, “The Midianites sold him in Egypt” [37:36]. This means, the Midianites sold him in Egypt. Later, the verse says, “Potiphar bought him from the Ishmaelites” [39:1]. This means, the Ishmaelites sold him into Egypt. That is to say, Joseph was sold through both, the Ishmaelites and the Midianites. Joseph said to his brothers when he made himself known to them, “whom you sold into Egypt” [Genesis, 45:4]. Joseph said: because you threw me into the pit; through that I was sold into Egypt. However, the brothers did not sell him, and did not know what happened to him. Reuben came to the pit and did not find him. All the brothers thought that a wild animal ate Joseph, since the brothers were not present when the Midianites pulled him out of the pit. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:28; Bahya, Genesis, 37:28.) Another explanation is that Potiphar saw that Joseph was a handsome man. He thought that he was not a slave. He must be someone important and thought that the Midianites had kidnapped him. Potiphar said to the Midianites, give me a guarantee that he was not kidnapped. That is why the verse says: “Potiphar bought him from the Ishmaelites” [39:1]. That is to say, Potiphar received guarantees from the Ishmaelites and therefore, he bought Joseph. Rabbi Isserl writes. The Ishmaelites and the brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites. The Ishmaelites gave silver into the hands of the brothers for Joseph and the Midianites pulled Joseph out of the pit with the brothers. The Midianites did not want Joseph out of their hands. We are entitled to Joseph because he is in our hands. The Ishmaelites could not agree with the Midianites. They said: let us take Joseph to Egypt. You will take him and sell him in Egypt and the Ishmaelites took their principal and the Midianites took the rest. (Be’ure Maharai, Genesis, 39:1.) Toldot Yizhak writes. The Midianites were the brokers for the Ishmaelites. Therefore, the Midianites pulled up Joseph. They wanted to show that Joseph was handsome. It is the custom of the brokers that they show the merchandise with their own hands to the merchant. The broker sells the merchandise. Therefore, the verse says, “The Midianite traders passed by, they pulled Joseph out of the pit. They sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites” [37:28]. That is to say, the Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites and the Ishmaelites sold him to Potiphar. That is, they were brokers and sold him into Egypt. The Ishmaelites said to the Midianites. As you were brokers to me, so too you should be brokers to Potiphar and help me sell Joseph. Therefore, it is written in the verse once that the Midianites sold Joseph and once it is written that the Ishmaelites sold him. So write the commentaries. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:28.) One can give another explanation that the Ishmaelites gave money for Joseph. They said to the Midianites: we know well that the Egyptians will not want to buy Joseph because he is circumcised. They will think that it is a defect in Joseph and he will not have children, since the Egyptians did not know about circumcision. Therefore the Ishmaelites said to the Midianites. Take Joseph in your hands, as if he was yours and you will sell him. When the Egyptians will see that he is circumcised, then we Ishmaelites will testify that it is a custom to be circumcised, since we Ishmaelites also practice circumcision. We Ishmaelites will say that we practice circumcision and we have children, just like all the other nations. We practice circumcision so that we will not engage in licentiousness. Therefore the Ishmaelites led him to Potiphar. They knew well that Potiphar could not have children and could not sleep with his wife. They thought Potiphar would certainly buy him, because he could not sleep with his wife. Potiphar was afraid to buy slaves in his house so that his wife should not have illicit relations with that slave. Therefore, we will tell Potiphar that the circumcision was given so that one would not engage in illicit sexual relations and Potiphar will buy him. Therefore, the verse says, “The Midianites, meanwhile, sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, a courtier of Pharaoh” [37:36]. That is to say, the Midianites sold him, and then the verse says, “Potiphar bought him from the Ishmaelites” [39:1]. That is to say, Ishmael was the rightful owner to sell Joseph.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 47

“Twenty pieces of silver” [37:28]. Hizkuni and Bahya write. The Holy One said: you sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver. This is equivalent to five selahs, five silver coins. Therefore, each firstborn must give five selahs to redeem him, because Joseph was also a firstborn. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:28; Bahya, Genesis, 37:28.)

Halakhah

The text emphasizes the importance of having one's intention focused on higher things while eating, rather than being drawn to physical pleasures, which can lead to sin and forgetting God's commandments. It warns against eating and drinking causing one to stray from Torah and worship, citing examples from the Torah and urging to bless God after eating to reaffirm commitment to His rule. The text also highlights the importance of eating only for sustenance and pursuing pleasure only to maintain health and clarity of mind, in order to bear the yoke of the Torah and its commandments. Joseph's actions during the famine are used as an example of eating with reverence and self-control, even when abundance was available.

Shulchan Shel Arba 2:6

Therefore the reverent person ought to have his intention connected to the higher things, and have his eating be to sustain his body alone and not to be drawn to physical pleasures, for being drawn to physical pleasures is the cause for the loss of both body and soul, and the cause for forgetting the point, for out of eating and drinking he will become full of himself [lit., lift up his heart] and stumble into great pitfalls and sins, and do things which should not be done. See how Joseph’s brothers sold him only in the middle of eating and drinking, as it is said, “They sat down to a meal, and looking up…” (Gen 37:28. While eating the brothers looked up and saw the Ishmaelites to who they sold Joseph. R. Bahya expands upon this more fully in his commentary to the Torah on this verse.) And for this reason the Torah said not to eat on Yom Kippur, which is the day of judgment for criminal cases involving people, because one’s eating might cause his soul to sin. And they even said in civil cases dealing with monetary compensation: “akhal ve-shatah al yorah” – “Don’t instruct right after eating and drinking!” (A rhyming proverb in the Hebrew. Yorah, which means to instruct or teach, is the same verb used in the Biblical passage from Lev. 10:11 that R. Bahya cites. It is from the same Hebrew root as the word Torah. R. Bahya subtly makes another point here besides the obvious one that people are inclined to make bad judgments right after they’ve eaten and drunk. Namely, with this wordplay and the analogy to the Biblical priests, he’s reiterating his general contention that engaging in torah is a sacramental priest-likeactivity, even when done by non-priests – i.e., rabbinical torah scholars, or even ordinary Jews fasting on Yom Kippur.) Why is this so? From what is written, “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons,” (Lev 10:9, addressed to Aaron and his sons, that is, the priests.) and connected to it, “to instruct [le-horot] the Israelites.” (Ibid., 10:11.) When they were commanded to instruct [le-horot], they were warned to avoid wine, because wine confuses the mind, and it does not distinguish between the holy and the profane, which is why it is written “to distinguish.” (Ibid., 10:10.) All this is proof that eating and drinking causes human beings to move themselves away off the track of Torah and worship, and to cast aside all the statutes of Ha-Shem, may He be Blessed. All this is caused when one has eaten and is satisfied, and therefore the Torah commanded, “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless” (Deut 8:10). That is to say, after you will have eaten and have been satisfied, and you are close to throwing off the yoke of the commandments, “You shall bless YHWH your God” at the very moment you need to bless Him, so that you will take upon yourself the yoke of His rule and bless His name. And this in my opinion is the meaning of the Scripture, “In all your ways, know Him;” (Prov 3:6.) it means even at the time of eating when you are close to forgetting Him and to severing your reason from your mind, at that very moment, “know Him” and cleave to Him. And if you do this, “He will straighten your paths,” (Prov 3:6.) He will straighten your ways on the paths of life, namely, the soul’s successful attainment of the world to come. If so, then a person ought to eat only for the sustenance of his body alone, and it is forbidden for him to pursue any sort of pleasure unless it is to make his body healthy and make the eyes of his intellect clear-sighted. In order for his body to be healthy and strong, he should pursue what pleases [his intellect] and his Creator, for his organs are combined and possess the capacity exactly in the measure that enables him to bear the yoke of the Torah and its commandments, which is the point of the verse written about the tribe of Issachar, “he bent his shoulder to bear the burden” (Gen 49:15), which is the same language used to refer to the giving of the Torah, “He [God] bent the sky and came down” (2 Sam 22:10). And anyone whose intention is this, is an angel of the Lord of Hosts, but whoever does not direct their intention to this end, is “likened to the beasts that perish.” (Ps 49:13,21). “You can see for yourself” (1 Sam 24:12: Re-eh gam re-eh – “you can see for yourself” (JSB).) Joseph the righteous, who was noted for his quality of reverence [yir’ah], from what is written, “I am a God-fearing man” (Gen 42:18.) and “Am I a substitute for God?” (Ibid. 50:19.) hinted at this point when he said, “take something for the hunger of your houses and be off.” (Ibid. 42:33.) He comes to instruct and to teach people to know that they should only eat to break their hunger, not to fill their belly and be drawn by the taste, which is base and to be scorned, because that is a disgrace to us, utter waste, and a thing which has no point to it. And do not say that this because it was a time of famine, because when Joseph was “a prince and commander of peoples,” (Is 55:4.) and the treasuries of the king were under his control, he had the power to supply bread and food to his father and brothers, as in the other the years of plenty. However, instead he made it known to us that this is the way of Torah and fear of Ha-Shem (may He be blessed!), that a person should only eat, satisfy himself, and fill his belly to satisfy his soul.

Midrash

Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites and then to the Midianites, who sold him to Egypt, where he was purchased by Potiphar. The story of Joseph's sale into slavery is connected to the story of Yehuda and Tamar, highlighting the consequences of the brothers' actions. The narrative expansions in the Midrash compare Joseph's experiences to those of Zion, emphasizing the parallels between the two. The redemption of the firstborn sons is also mentioned in connection to Joseph's sale, with each brother redeeming his son for five sela. Ultimately, the text emphasizes the importance of treating all children equally to avoid causing resentment and division.

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bamidbar Rabbah 4:10

“You shall take five shekels each by head count; in the sacred shekel you shall take, twenty gera is the shekel” (Numbers 3:47). “You shall take five shekels each…” – the Holy One blessed be He said: You sold Rachel’s firstborn, that is, Joseph, for twenty silver pieces, which are five shekels; therefore, each and every one of you will redeem his firstborn son for five sela according to the Tyrian maneh. (In that system of currency, each shekel, or sela, is worth four dinars.) “You shall give the silver to Aaron and to his sons, the redemptions of those among them who remain” (Numbers 3:48) “You shall give the silver to Aaron and to his sons, the redemptions of those among them who remain” – just as the Levites were given to Aaron and his sons, as it is written: “You shall give the Levites to Aaron and to his sons; they are given to him from the children of Israel” (Numbers 3:9), so, the money of redemption that was in place of the Levites was given to him. “Moses took the silver of the redemption from those who were over and above the number of redemptions of the Levites” (Numbers 3:49). “Moses took the silver of the redemption…” – what did he do to them? (To the people.) Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya: Rabbi Yehuda says: This is what he did: He wrote Levi on each of twenty-two thousand notes and placed them in a receptacle. In addition, on each of two hundred and seventy-three notes, he wrote: Five sela, and placed them in the receptacle and mixed them. The father of a firstborn would extend his hand into the receptacle. If a note on which: Son of Levi, was written entered his hand, he would say to him: A son of Levi has already redeemed you. One into whose hand a note entered on which five sela was written, he would say to him: Give the five sela that you owe. All of them did so. Rabbi Neḥemya says: If so, he can deliberate with him and say to him: It is not for you to say to give five sela. Each of the notes upon which Levi was written was taken. If I place my hand, what will enter my hand if not notes of five sela? Who will say to me that had there been a note of Levi there that I would not have obtained it. Rather, this is what he did: He wrote Levi on each of twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three notes, and on two hundred and seventy-three: Five sela. They came and placed their hand. One into whose hand a note of five sela entered, if he came to say anything to him, Moses would respond to him: Had you merited it, would there not have been a note of Levi? Rather, you are obligated by Heaven. At that moment he would give it.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:18

“Midianite men, merchants, passed, and they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit; they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver pieces, and they brought Joseph to Egypt” (Genesis 37:28). “Midianite [midyanim] men, merchants, passed” – their contentiousness [hadayyanim] passed. (Joseph’s brothers regretted what they had done.) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Baitus in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon: It is written: “Why do you lead us astray, Lord, from Your ways?” (Isaiah 63:17) – when You wished, You placed in their heart to love, and when You wished, You placed in their heart to hate. The Holy One blessed be He said: You sold Rachel’s son for twenty maot, which are five sela’im. That is why each and every one of you will separate as the value of his son five sela’im of the Tyrian maneh. (This is a reference to the mitzva of redeeming firstborn sons (see Maharzu). ) Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said: The Holy One blessed be He said to the tribes: You sold Rachel’s son for twenty silver pieces. Consequently, each and every one of you received a beka per person. (Each one of the brothers involved in the sale received a beka, which equals half a shekel.) That is what is written: “One beka per head, one half-shekel” (Exodus 38:26). (The head tax mentioned in the verse was set at the same price that each of the brothers had received for the sale of Joseph (Maharzu). )

Bereshit Rabbah 84:6

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: “This is the legacy [toledot] of Jacob, Joseph” – the verse need not have said so, but rather, “this is the legacy of Jacob, Reuben.” (Generally, when the verse introduces the legacy [toledot] of an individual, what follows is a list of his sons, and, often, their sons (see, e.g., Genesis 10:1). That being the case, the verse should have listed Reuben, Jacob’s oldest son, first, and then the rest of the sons. ) Rather, why does the verse state “Joseph”? It is because everything that befell this one befell that one. (Whatever befell Jacob befell Joseph.) Just as this one was born circumcised, so too, that one was born circumcised. (See Bereshit Rabba 63:7; Midrash Tehillim 9:7. ) Just as this one’s mother was barren, so too, that one’s mother was barren. Just as this one’s mother bore two [sons], so too, that one’s mother bore two. Just as this one was firstborn, so too, that one was firstborn. (Jacob bought the birthright from Esau and was therefore considered the firstborn. Joseph was firstborn to his mother, and Jacob awarded him the double portion usually allotted to the firstborn by declaring that his sons Manasseh and Ephraim would be considered independent tribes (Etz Yosef). ) Just as this one’s mother encountered difficulty with birth, so too, that one’s mother encountered difficulty when she gave birth. Just as this one’s brother hated him, so too, that one’s brothers hated him. Just as this one’s brother sought to kill him, so too, that one’s brothers sought to kill him. Just as this one was a shepherd, so too, that one was a shepherd. This one was hated, and that one was hated. This one was robbed twice, and that one was robbed twice. (Jacob referred twice to sheep stolen from his care for which he would then have to compensate Laban (Genesis 31:39). Joseph himself was kidnapped by his brothers and then stolen from them and sold into slavery (see Genesis 37:28; Maharzu). ) This one was blessed with wealth, and that one was blessed with wealth. This one went outside of the Land [of Israel], and that one went outside the Land [of Israel]. This one married a woman from outside the Land [of Israel], and that one married a woman from outside the Land [of Israel]. This one bore children outside the Land [of Israel], and that one bore children outside of the Land [of Israel]. This one was accompanied by angels, and that one was accompanied by angels. (See section 14. ) This one rose to greatness by means of a dream, and that one rose to greatness by means of a dream. (God blessed Jacob in a dream (Genesis 28:12–15). Joseph rose to power by interpreting Pharoah’s dream (Etz Yosef). ) This one was blessed in the house of his father-in-law, and that one was blessed in the house of his father-in-law. This one descended to Egypt, and that one descended to Egypt. This one ended the famine, and that one ended the famine. (Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream as indicating only seven years of famine rather than fourteen or twenty-eight, and due to his interpretation, the famine was in fact meant to last only seven years. But when Jacob came to Egypt, the famine ended abruptly after only two years (see Bereshit Rabba 89:9). ) This one administered an oath, and that one administered an oath. (Jacob asked Joseph to take an oath to bury him in the Land of Israel, and Joseph administered a similar oath to the children of Israel. ) This one commanded, and that one commanded. (Jacob commanded his sons to bury him in the Land of Israel (Genesis 49:29). Joseph commanded his servants to embalm Jacob (Genesis 50:2). ) This one died in Egypt, and that one died in Egypt. This one was embalmed, and that one was embalmed. This one’s bones were taken up [to the Land of Israel], and that one’s bones were taken up [to the Land of Israel].

Bereshit Rabbah 84:8

“Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age; he crafted him a fine [passim] tunic” (Genesis 37:3). “His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him” (Genesis 37:4). “Israel loved Joseph” – Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya: Rabbi Yehuda says: Because the contours of [Joseph’s] face resembled his. Rabbi Neḥemya said: All the halakhot that Shem and Ever had transmitted to Jacob, he transmitted to him. “He crafted him a fine tunic” – Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: A person must refrain from treating one of his children differently, as due to the fine tunic that Jacob crafted for Joseph, “and they hated him…” “Fine [passim]” – as it would reach the palm of his hand [pas yado]. (This was a sign of status, as it indicated that the wearer did not need to labor with his hands.) Alternatively, passim – as it was extremely thin and light and could be hidden in the palm of his hand. “Fine [passim]” – they conducted a lottery [shehefisu] in its regard to determine who would take it to his father, and it fell on Judah. “Fine [passim]” – after the troubles that befell him: Peh – Potifar; samekh – merchants [soḥarim]; yod – Ishmaelites [Yishmaelim]; mem – Midianites [Midyanim]. (See Genesis 37:28. ) “Fine [passim]” – Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: “Come and see the works of God” (Psalms 66:5), and it is written thereafter: “He turned the sea into dry land” (Psalms 66:6). Why was it that “they hated him”? It was so that the sea would be split before them; passim – strips in the sea [pas yam]. (God arranged that the brothers would hate Joseph, leading to his becoming a slave in Egypt, so that Joseph could withstand the temptation of Potifar’s wife. Consequently, he would accrue great merit, and it was as a result of that merit that the sea was split for the Israelites (Rashash). )

Bereshit Rabbah 86:1

“Joseph was taken down to Egypt and Potiphar, the official of Pharaoh, the chief executioner, an Egyptian man, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him down there” (Genesis 39:1). “Joseph was taken down to Egypt.” It is written: “With ropes of man I drew them, [with bonds of love; I was for them like those who lift the yoke above their jaws, and I leaned to them to provide food]” (Hosea 11:4) – these are Israel, [as it is stated]: “Draw me; after you I will run” (Song of Songs 1:4). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – as it is written: “I loved you, said the Lord” (Malachi 1:2). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea 11:4) – as I elevated their enemies over them. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that they expressed with their jaws, as they said: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:8). (This was stated by the Israelites as they committed the sin of the Golden Calf. ) But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food” (Hosea 11:4) – I provide them with many foods to eat; “There will be abundance of grain in the land” (Psalms 72:16). Another matter, “with ropes of man I drew them [emshakhem]” (Hosea 11:4) – this is Joseph, [as it is stated]: “They pulled [vayimshekhu] and lifted Joseph from the pit” (Genesis 37:28). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – “Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea11:4) – as I elevated his enemies over him. Who was that? It was Potiphar’s wife. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that he expressed with his jaws – “Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food (Hosea 11:4) – an abundance of food. (Eventually, after his actions caused him to be brought down to Egypt, Joseph ended up providing food for his entire family, as well as for the entire population of Egypt and other lands. )

Bereshit Rabbah 88:5

“The chief butler related his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding; its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). “The chief butler related…behold, a vine was before me” – this is Israel, as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils” – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “It was as though it was budding” – the redemption of Israel was budding. “Its blossoms emerged” – the redemption of Israel blossomed. “Its clusters produced ripe grapes” – the vine that budded immediately blossomed; grapes that emerged immediately ripened. “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:11). “Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days” (Genesis 40:12). “In three more days Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your position, and you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink” (Genesis 40:13). “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand” – on this basis the Sages instituted the four cups on Passover eve. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Benaya: Corresponding to the four expressions of redemption that were stated in Egypt: “I will take you out…I will deliver you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Corresponding to the four cups stated here: “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand… you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand…” (These are the first and fourth mentions of the word cup. Between them there are: “I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.”) Rabbi Levi said: Corresponding to the four kingdoms. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the four cups [kosot] of bewilderment that the Holy One blessed be He will give the idolaters to drink. That is what is written: “For so said the Lord, God of Israel, to me: Take this cup of the wine of anger” (Jeremiah 25:15); “a golden cup is Babylon in the hand of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 51:7); “he will rain…upon the wicked [ blazing coals and sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot [menat kosam]]” (Psalms 11:6). (The fourth is: “For a cup is in the hand of the Lord, with foaming wine…” (Psalms 75:10) (Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 10:1).) Corresponding to them, the Holy One blessed be He will give Israel four cups [kosot] of salvation in the future, as it is stated: “The Lord is my lot [menat kosi]” (Psalms 16:5); “I will lift a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (Psalms 116:13): “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup is full” (Psalms 23:5). “A cup of salvation [kos yeshua]” (Psalms 116:13) is not written here, but rather, “a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (The word yeshuot is plural, such that a more literal translation would be “a cup of salvations.” Consequently, this alludes to the third and fourth cups. ) – one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. “If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and take me out of this house” (Genesis 40:14). [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me good tidings; (The butler’s dream, as explained above, alluded to the redemption of Israel, and therefore constituted good tidings. ) I, too, will give you good tidings: “In three more days…if only you remember me…”’ “For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews and here, too, I have done nothing, that they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti]” – Rav Aḥa said: From here [it may be derived] that he was abducted twice. (He was sold by his brothers, and then the Midyanites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites (see Genesis 37:27–28). Alternatively, his being thrown into the pit by his brothers was considered a kidnapping, and he was subsequently stolen from the pit by the Ishmaelites (Maharzu, 84:6).) “And here, too, I have done [nothing]…”

Bereshit Rabbah 98:18

“Joseph is a fruitful tree, a fruitful tree alongside a spring; branches run over the wall” (Genesis 49:22). “Joseph is a fruitful [porat] tree ” – a son who broke faith [shehefer] with his brothers; a son whose brothers broke faith with him; (Joseph brought his father evil reports about his brothers (Genesis 37:2); they later sold him into slavery (Genesis 37:28). ) a son who defied [shehefer] his master’s wife; a son whose master’s wife turned against [shehefera] him. Rabbi Avin said: The son who achieved greatness through cows [parot]. (Joseph rose to prominence after interpreting Pharaoh’s dream, which featured cows.) Joseph is the son who achieved greatness through produce [perot]. “Joseph is a fruitful tree” – Joseph achieved greatness. Regarding them all it is written: “The maidservants approached…” (Genesis 33:6) (See Bereshit Rabba 90:4.) – this is what he said to him: I must repay you for that eye. (Jacob wanted to compensate Joseph for having obscured Rachel from Esau’s eye.) “Branches [banot] run [tzaada] over the wall…” – you find that when Joseph emerged to rule over Egypt, the daughters [banot] of kings would peer through the slits and would cast upon him bracelets, pendants, nose rings, and rings so he would lift his eyes and look at them. Nevertheless, he did not look at them. The Holy One blessed be He said: You did not lift your eyes and look at them; as you live, you will cause your daughters (The daughters of Tzelofḥad.) to have a foothold [tze’ida] in the Torah. What is a foothold? A Torah portion. (A passage regarding the laws of inheritance (Numbers 27:1–11) was stated as a response to the request of the daughters of Tzelofḥad. )

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 14; The Meaning of a Chronological Problem; Connecting Yosef and Yehuda 5

The Yosef narrative is marked by a glaring textual difficulty – the insertion of the Yehuda/Tamar episode at a critical moment in the description of Yosef’s sale into slavery. The events leading up to the sale of Yosef begin in Genesis 37:12. (Please read Genesis 37:12 through Genesis 39:1 for a complete grasp of the midrashic discussion.) Genesis 37:19–28 describes the brothers’ initial plan to kill Yosef and the discussion that leads first to their casting him into the pit, and then to the final decision to sell him. Verses 29–35 describe the aftermath of that decision and its particular effects upon Reuven and Yaakov. Verse 36 ends the passage (Fortuitously for our purposes, in the case of chapters 37–39, there is agreement between the traditional Jewish divisions of the biblical text (according to parasha, indicated by the spacing in the Torah scroll) and the later Christian divisions (indicated by chapter and verse numberings). The Christian numbering of chapters and verses is employed virtually everywhere in the Jewish world as a useful convention for ordering the Tanakh. In these three chapters at least, the chapter divisions reflect the Jewish tradition, which makes it easier to show the interpretive problems posed by the interpolation of the Tamar and Yehuda story into the Yosef narrative.) with the statement: “And the Midianites sold him [Yosef] to Egypt, to Potiphar, Par’oh’s chamberlain, the chief executioner.”

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 8; Understanding the Narrative Expansion 19

In other cases, however, a closer look at a seemingly difficult midrash reveals that what appears to be a contradiction to the biblical text is, in fact, a subtle close reading of it. (Rashbam calls this omek peshuto shel mikra (a deeper reading of the plain sense of the text). See, for example, Rashbam’s commentary on Genesis 37:28, vayaavru.) One such case is the series of narrative expansions on the story of Hana found in Berakhot 31a–b. (See Chapter 16.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Ki Tisa 7:2

(Exod. 30:13:) A HALF SHEKEL. R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differ. R. Judah says: Because (in the matter of the calf) they sinned in the middle of the day, they would give the half shekel. But R. Nehemiah said: Because they sinned for six hours in the day, they would give the half shekel, (ySheq. 2:4 or 3 (46d); see Tanh., Exod. 9:10. See also below, Exod. 9:13.) since it consists of six grammata. (The Greek word (gramma in the singular) denotes a small weight of 1/24 ounce.) R. Judah bar Nehemiah said in the name of R. Johanan ben Zakkay: Because Israel transgressed (rt.: 'BR) the Ten Commandments, they would give ten gerahs. (Cf. Exod. 30:13 = Numb. 3:47: THE SHEKEL IS TWENTY GERAHS. Similarly Lev. 27:25; Numb. 18:16; Ezek. 45:12.) R. Berekhyah said in the name of Resh Laqish: You sold Rachel's first-born for twenty silver (according to Gen. 37:28); therefore, in the case of every first-born that you shall have, his redemption shall be five shekels of silver, as stated (in Numb. 3:47): YOU SHALL TAKE FIVE EACH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 12:2

Another interpretation (of Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY. As soon as they had sold Joseph (in Gen. 37:28), what is written (in vs. 29)? WHEN REUBEN RETURNED UNTO THE PIT < … > when he did not find him, HE RENT HIS CLOTHES. In addition they all arose and dispersed, and Judah also dispersed with them. [Ergo] (in Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:11

(Gen. 37:28:) WHEN MIDIANITE < TRADERS > PASSED BY, < THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, THEN SOLD JOSEPH FOR TWENTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE ISHMAELITES >. And they (the Midianites in vs. 36) SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT TO POTIPHAR…. Three bills of sale (Gk.: onai, i.e., “purchases” or “contracts for tax farming.”) were made over him. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:22 for other totals.) When he was sold, they all began to cry: Woe (Way). Thus it is stated (in Gen. 38:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS (wayehi) AT THAT TIME. (Ibid., cont.:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY (rt.: YRD). For what sin did he go away? (Gen. R. 85:3.) R. Hiyya bar Abba < said > in the name of R. Johanan: Everyone who begins with a good deed and does not finish it causes himself to bury his wife and children and causes a lowering of status (rt.: YRD) for himself. Who was this? This was Judah, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 14:3

Another interpretation (of Ps. 37:28): FOR THE LORD LOVES JUSTICE < AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS >. [THEY ARE PROTECTED FOREVER]. < The verse > speaks about Joseph. And how did he protect him? [See] what is written (in Gen. 37:28): WHEN MIDIANITE TRADERS PASSED BY, < THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, THEN SOLD JOSEPH FOR TWENTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE ISHMAELITES >. And with what were they laden? (Gen. R. 84:17.) Now is it not the custom for camels to bear only < foul-smelling > 'itran? (One of various kinds of tar products or tree resin used for lighting, etc.) Yet it is written here (in Gen. 37:25): < WITH THEIR CAMELS BEARING > SPICE, BALSAM, AND LABDANUM! It is simply that the Holy One said: Should this righteous man be set in the midst of a bad odor? Instead, I will order a good odor for him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28) AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS. (Ibid., cont.:) BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. This refers to Potiphar, who did not take him for work but for something else. (I.e., for sodomy. So Rashi on Sot. 13b; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 39:1; Gen. R. 86:3.) What did the Holy One do? He castrated him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28): BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. Now CUT OFF only denotes castration. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 22:24): < ANYTHING WITH ITS TESTICLES > CRUSHED, SMASHED, TORN OUT, OR CUT OFF < YOU SHALL NOT OFFER TO THE LORD >. And where is it shown that he was not a eunuch < already >, but that the Holy One had castrated him? Where it is stated (in Gen. 39:1): < WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT >, POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 41:2

Rabbi Ṭarphon said: The Holy One, blessed be He, rose and came from Mount Sinai and was revealed unto the sons of Esau, as it is said, "And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them" (Deut. 33:2). And "Seir" means only the sons of Esau, as it is said, "And Esau dwelt in Mount Seir" (Gen. 36:8). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Will ye accept for yourselves the Torah? They said to Him: What is written therein? He answered them: It is written therein, "Thou shalt do no murder" (Ex. 20:13). They replied to Him: We are unable to abandon the blessing with which Isaac blessed Esau, for he said to him, "By thy sword shalt thou live" (Gen. 27:40). Thence He turned and was revealed unto the children of Ishmael, as it is said, "He shined forth from Mount Paran" (Deut. 33:2). "Paran" means only the sons of Ishmael, as it is said, "And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran" (Gen. 21:21). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Will ye accept for yourselves the Torah? They said to Him: What is written therein? He answered them: "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. 20:15) is written therein. They said to Him: We are not able to abandon the usage which our fathers observed, for they brought Joseph down into Egypt, as it is said, "For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews" (Gen. 40:15). Thence He sent || messengers to all the nations of the world. He said unto them: Will ye receive for yourselves the Torah? They said to Him: What is written therein? He said to them: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3). They said to Him: We have no delight in the Torah, therefore let Him give His Torah to His people, as it is said, "The Lord will give strength unto his people; the Lord will bless his people with peace" (Ps. 29:11). Thence He returned and was revealed unto the children of Israel, as it is said, "And he came from the ten thousands of holy ones" (Deut. 33:2). The expression "ten thousands" means the children of Israel, as it is said, "And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel" (Num. 10:36). With Him were thousands twice-told of chariots, even twenty thousand of holy angels, and His right hand was holding the Torah, as it is said, "At his right hand was a fiery law unto them" (Deut. 33:2).

Shemot Rabbah 41:7

“The tablets were the work of God and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets” (Exodus 32:16). “The tablets were the work of God.” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Each and every day, a Divine Voice emerges from Mount Ḥorev and proclaims: ‘Woe unto the creations for the affront to the Torah, as anyone who does not regularly engage in the Torah is ostracized from before the Holy One blessed be He,’ as it is stated: “The tablets were the work of God.” (God’s occupation, as it were, is involvement in Torah, and therefore anyone who ignores Torah ignores God (Matnot Kehuna; see Tanḥuma, Ki Tisa 16). ) “Engraved [ḥarut] on the tablets.” Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yirmeya, and the Rabbis, Rabbi Yehuda says: Do not read it as ḥarut, but rather as ḥerut – freedom from the exiles. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Freedom from the angel of death. The Rabbis say: Freedom from suffering. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said: If the angel of death were to come and say before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘You created me in this world for naught,’ He would say: ‘I granted you dominion over every nation in the world except for this nation, to whom I granted freedom.’ That is, “ḥarut on the tablets.” “The people saw that Moses tarried in descending from the mountain, and the people assembled around Aaron and said to him: Rise, make us a god that will go before us, because this man Moses, who took us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him” (Exodus 32:1). “The people saw that Moses tarried [boshesh].” What is “tarried [boshesh]”? Six hours had passed [ba’u shesh] and he had not descended. Why? It is because he had stipulated to them: In forty days I will bring you the Torah. When six hours passed [on the fortieth day] and Moses had not descended, immediately, “the people assembled around Aaron.” The Rabbis say: The accuser found his opportunity at that moment, as Moses was seen suspended between the heavens and earth, and they were pointing at him with a finger and saying: “Because this man Moses.” At that moment, Ḥur confronted them and said to them: ‘You fools, (Literally, you whose heads were severed at the neck.) do you not recall what miracles the Holy One blessed be He performed on your behalf?’ Immediately, they arose against him and killed him. They surrounded Aaron, as it is stated: “The people assembled around Aaron.” They said to him: ‘Just as we did to that one, so we will do to you.’ When Aaron saw that, he was afraid, as it is stated: “Aaron saw and he built an altar [mizbe’aḥ] before it [lefanav]” (Exodus 32:5). What is mizbe’aḥ? Due to the one who was slaughtered before him [min hazavuaḥ shelefanav]. Another matter, “he built an altar,” they sought to build an altar with him, but he did not allow them to do so. He said to them: ‘Allow me, and I will build it myself, as it is not in keeping with the honor due the altar for another to build it.’ But Aaron intended to delay matters. He said: ‘By the time I build it by myself, Moses will descend.’ He built it, but Moses did not descend. Immediately, they arose early the next day, as the prophet cries out: “However, they arose early and corrupted all their exploits” (Zephaniah 3:7). “The people sat to eat and drink, and they rose to revel” (Exodus 32:6) in idol worship. Wherever you find sitting [yeshiva], you find a mishap, as we found regarding the generation of the Dispersion, as it is stated: “They found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they settled [vayeshvu] there” (Genesis 11:2). What mishap was there? “They said: Come let us build us a city” (Genesis 11:4). “They sat [vayeshvu] to eat bread” (Genesis 37:25), and it is written: “They sold Joseph” (Genesis 37:28). “Israel settled [vayeshev] in the Shitim” (Numbers 25:1). What mishap was there? “The people began to engage in licentiousness with the daughters of Moav” (Numbers 25:1). What was their end? “Those who died [in the plague were twenty-four thousand]” (Numbers 25:9). Here, too, it is sitting, [implying] idol worship: “The people sat to eat….” The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘They rose to revel in idol worship, and you are sitting here? “Descend!”’ (Exodus 32:7). At that moment, Moses sought to descend, but he encountered angels of destruction. He feared them and he did not descend, as it is written: “For I was in dread due to the wrath and the fury” (Deuteronomy 9:19). What did Moses do? He went and grasped the [Divine] throne, as it is stated: “He grasps the surface of His throne and spreads His cloud over it” (Job 26:9); the Holy One blessed be He spread [His cloud] and protected him. He said: “Rise, descend quickly from here” (Deuteronomy 9:12). [Moses] said: ‘I am afraid.’ Come and see how potent iniquities are. In the past he had overcome them, but now he feared them. (In the past Moses had disputed with and overcome the angels, but now he was afraid of them (see Maharzu). ) “For I was in dread due to the wrath and the fury,” five angels of destruction were there: Wrath, fury, anger, destruction, and annihilation. At that moment, the three patriarchs came, and overcame three of them. Wrath and fury remained. Moses said: ‘Master of the universe, please, arise from Your Throne of Glory and overcome one, and I [will overcome] one,’ as it is stated: “Arise, Lord, in Your wrath” (Psalms 7:7). (This is understood to mean: ‘Arise, Lord, and hold back Your wrath’ – i.e. the angel of wrath, one of the angels of destruction that remained. ) And I will overcome fury, as it is stated: “He said to destroy them, had it not been for Moses, His chosen one, who stood before Him in the breach to turn back His fury” (Psalms 106:23). Immediately, the Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Descend, it is a demotion for you.’ He said to Him: ‘Why?’ [God said:] “For your people…have acted corruptly” (Exodus 32:7). Moses said to Him: ‘Now You are calling them my people; they are only Your people. “Relent from Your enflamed wrath and reconsider the evil for Your people”’ (Exodus 32:12). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: Moses did not move from prayer until the Holy One blessed be He called them His people, as it is stated: “The Lord reconsidered the evil that He had spoken of doing to His people” (Exodus 32:14). The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘In this world, because the evil inclination is in them, they craft idols. But in the future, I will uproot the evil inclination from within them and I will grant them a heart of flesh,’ just as it says: “I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26).

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:5:4

“Like the tents of Kedar,” just as the tents of Kedar appear externally to be ugly, black, and in tatters, but internally they are gems and pearls, so too Torah scholars, even though they appear ugly and black in this world, internally there is Torah in them, Bible, Mishna, Midrash, halakhot, Talmud, Tosefta, and aggada. If so, just as tents of Kedar do not require laundering, perhaps the same is true of Israel; the verse states: “Like the curtains of Solomon”—just as these curtains of Solomon are soiled and laundered, and are again soiled and laundered, so, too, Israel, even though they are soiled with sins all the days of the year, Yom Kippur arrives and atones for them, as it is stated: “For on this day He will atone for you” (Leviticus 16:30), and it is written: “If your sins will be like scarlet, they will be whitened as snow; if they will be reddened like crimson, they will be like wool” (Isaiah 1:18). If so, just as the tents of Kedar are moved from place to place, perhaps the same is true of Israel. The verse states: “Like the curtains of Solomon [Shelomo],” like the curtains (The heavens.) of the One [of Whom it may be stated] that the peace is His, the One Who spoke and the world came into being, that from the moment He spread them, they did not move from their place. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught: “A tent that will not be displaced [yatzan]” (Isaiah 33:20); it will not emerge [yetze] and will not move [yanua]. (Yatzan is an acronym of yetze and yanua.) Just as the tents of Kedar are not subject to the yoke of any creature, (The reference is to nomads who live in the wilderness.) so too, Israel, in the future, will not be subject to the yoke of any creature. Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: “I led you upright” (Leviticus 26:13); with an upright stature, without fear of any creature. (Although the verse cited is stated regarding the exodus from Egypt, it is understood as also alluding to the future redemption.) Rabbi Yudan said: Like Joseph; just as Joseph was sold to the tents of Kedar, as it is stated: “They sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites… [and they brought Joseph to Egypt]” (Genesis 37:28), and he then purchased his purchasers, as it is stated: “Joseph purchased all the land of Egypt” (Genesis 47:20), so too Israel: “They will be captors of their captors” (Isaiah 14:2).

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains the different interpretations of the Targum Onkelos on Exodus 10:10:1, emphasizing the idea that evil will turn against those who seek to do wrong. Rabbeinu Bahya discusses the significance of drawing forth the lamb in Exodus 12:21:1, linking it to the drowning of enemies and the punishment of the army of Sisera. He also explains the placement of the prohibition against kidnapping in Exodus 21:16:3 to highlight its severity. In Exodus 38:25:2, Rabbeinu Bahya analyzes Haman's offer of silver in relation to the sale of Joseph and the punishment of the brothers. Rashbam on Genesis 37:36:1 clarifies the relationship between the Midianites, Medanites, and Ishmaelites. Lastly, Ramban on Genesis 24:32:1 discusses Laban's ethical treatment of guests and the unloading of camels, drawing parallels with other biblical verses.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 12:21:1

משכו וקחו לכם, “draw forth or purchase for yourselves.” A Midrash writes that “as a result of your drawing forth the lamb to perform My commandment, I (G’d) in turn will draw forth your enemies to the Sea of Reeds and drown them therein. The same merit will also result (eventually) in My drowning the army of Siserah in the river Kishon by drawing them forth to their destruction.” (Judges 4,7). An alternate approach: Seeing that the descent of your forefathers to Egypt was set in motion by משיכה, i.e. (Genesis 37,28) “they (the Midianites) drew forth and pulled up Joseph from the pit” and it has been said concerning them (Isaiah 5,18) “ah, those who haul sins with cords of falsehood,” the punishment when it comes was described by using the same verb, i.e. (Isaiah, Nechemyah 9,30) ותמשוך עליהם שנים רבות....ותתנם ביד עמי הארצות, “You dragged on within them (bore with them) for many years.....so You delivered them into the hands of the peoples of the land.” On the one hand, Israel has been called עם ממושך וממורט, “a people thrust forth and away” when they are sinful, (Isaiah 18,2) whereas when they return in penitence they are described as משכני אחריך נרוצה, ”draw me after You, let us run” (Song of Songs 1,4). We find the verb משך applied to the Jewish people also in Hoseah 11,4: בחבלי אדם אמשכם בעבותות אהבה, “I drew them with human ties, with cords of love.”

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 21:16:3

The reason the Torah inserted this prohibition here, in between the prohibitions of hitting and cursing one's parents, is to magnify the sin and give it the level of severity of those transgressions. In the Ten Commandments the prohibition to kidnap has also been inserted between the sin of adultery and that of false testimony for similar reasons. Had the Torah mentioned that offense only at the end we would have thought that this is a relatively less serious offense than striking father or mother or cursing them. On the other hand, the Torah was unable to position the law against kidnapping earlier as it had already commenced with the penalties about murder in verse 12. This had to be followed by the law against striking father or mother. The severity of kidnapping is best demonstrated in that the brothers who had kidnapped Joseph had not been punished until more than 1000 years later when the “Ten Martyrs” died at the hands of the Romans in order to finally expiate for that sin. I have already explained the reason that the Torah repeats the words מות תמות in order to hint at death in the terrestrial as well as the celestial regions (see commentary on Gen. 37:28, 44:17).

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 38:25:2

Having established all this we can now address the amount of silver Haman offered to pay King Ahasverus in exchange for permission to destroy the Jews in his kingdom. Seeing that he offered 10.000 talents of silver, this was equivalent to 50 shekel for every Jew assuming that there had been 600.000 Jews at the time. The number 50 shekel is the maximum amount per adult male between the age of 20 and 60 prescribed by the Torah (Leviticus 27,3) that someone “donating” his own equivalent to G’d has to give to the Temple treasury. Another way of understanding why Haman picked on this amount of silver may be that when the Israelites sold their brother Joseph and received 20 pieces of silver in exchange, i.e. an amount of 5 shekel, or half a shekel each, and their guilt had not yet been atoned, he concluded that in exchange for the amount he offered he could legally make all the Jews his slaves (again by assuming that there were a total of 600.000 Jews). He felt certain that he would succeed seeing that the brothers had never been punished by G’d for selling Joseph into slavery. He presumably reasoned similar to what we have been told in Midrash Tehillim 10 that because the brothers sat down to eat their meal (Genesis 37,28) after throwing Joseph into the pit but before selling him, acting as if nothing out of the ordinary had just occurred, G’d was so angry that He said: “seeing you have sold your brother as a result of feasting, your descendants will be sold as a result of their having feasted (participating in the banquet given by King Ahasverus).” This is why the Book of Esther makes such a point of telling us that the King and Haman sat down to a feast after having concluded the deal in which Haman acquired authority to do to the Jews whatever he wanted.

Ramban on Exodus 10:10:1

SEE YE THAT EVIL IS BEFORE YOUR FACE. “The intent of the verse is as the Targum [Onkelos] explained it.” Thus the language of Rashi. Now how commendable it would have been if Rashi had written out [the text of Onkelos he referred to], since there are variant texts of this Targum! In some texts, it is written: “See, the evil you are about to do is set against you.” (This is not the text found in our version of Targum Onkelos. Ramban will later mention two other variants of Onkelos’ text here. See Note 34 for the text found in our version of the Targum.) According to this text, it appears that Onkelos intended to explain: “the evil you are contemplating to do is set before you, bearing witness against you that it is your desire to escape altogether.” This is similar to the verse, And set two men, base fellows, before him [Naboth], and let them bear witness against him, saying, etc. (I Kings 21:10.) It is also similar to [the expressions]: And they sat down to eat bread, (Genesis 30:25.) which the Targum translates v’istacharu (and they sat down), [the same as the term istacharat that appears to be in the Targum here]; Arise, I pray thee, sit, (Ibid., 27:19.) which the Targum translates istachar (sit). And there are versions of [Targum Onkelos] in which it is written: “will turn against yourself.” (This text appears in our version of Targum Onkelos.) The purport thereof is thus: “Behold, this evil you are about to do is destined to turn against you, for it will pass upon you.” This is similar to the expression, So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel pass from tribe to tribe, (Numbers 36:7.) which the Targum translates: lo tistachar (not pass), [similar to the Targum here, l’istachro]. This explanation finds authority in the Midrash of the Sages, who said in Eileh Shemoth Rabbah: (Shemoth Rabbah 13:5.) “[Pharaoh said]: ‘It is the custom of young men and the elders to offer sacrifice, but is it the custom of children and the little ones to do so? He who says so intends only to escape. See that which you want to do, namely to escape, will turn against you, that you will not go forth from here,’” a kind of measure for measure. And I have found yet another version in the Targum: “your countenance does not bear witness to the absence of this evil,” meaning that “your countenance does not bear witness to the removal of the evil in your hearts. On the contrary, the show of your countenance bears witness against you.” In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, [the intent of the verse is to be understood as follows]: “Know that evil is before you, ready and imminent to come upon you from me, for I will requite you evil when I see that you want to escape.”

Ramban on Genesis 24:32:1

AND THE MAN CAME INTO THE HOUSE. Eliezer is the man who entered the house. And he ungirded the camels — this refers to Laban who acted ethically towards his guests, unharnessed their camels and gave them straw and fodder, and he also gave water to wash the feet of Eliezer and the feet of the men that were with him. It must refer to Laban for it would be unlikely that it was Eliezer who gave water to wash his own feet and those of his men. A similar case is the verse, And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen, and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit. (Further, 37:28.) The words, and they drew, refer back to the brothers of Joseph mentioned in the preceding verse, and not to the Midianites. And so in the verse, Then said Ziba unto the king [David]: According to all that my lord the king commandeth his servant, so shall thy servant do; but Mephibosheth eateth at my table as one of the king’s sons. (II Samuel 9:11.) [The concluding words, but Mephibosheth eateth], are the words of David and not Ziba. There are many such verses. Now the purport of the expression, and he ungirded the camels, is that he unloosened the bands on their necks, as it was customary to lead them knotted, or perhaps they travelled with saddles girded upon them, just as is expressed in the verses: Let not him that girdeth on his armor boast himself as he that putteth it off, (I Kings 20:11.) Loose thyself from the band of thy neck. (Isaiah 52:2.) Now Rashi wrote, “He removed their muzzles for he had closed their mouths so that they might not graze in other peoples’ fields.” And in the words of Bereshith Rabbah, (60:1.) “He removed their muzzles. Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yirmiyah asked Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Aba, ‘Were not the camels of our father Abraham like the ass of Rabbi Pinchas ben Ya’ir, (A Sage of the Tannaitic period. He was a son-in-law of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. He was celebrated for his great piety; even his ass refused to eat untithed corn.) etc.?’” This question is intended to contradict [the interpretation which maintains that the ungirding refers to] the removing of the muzzles for it is impossible that the piety in the house of Rabbi Pinchas been Ya’ir should have been greater than that in the house of our father Abraham, and just as the ass of Rabbi Pinchas ben Ya’ir did not have to be guarded against eating things which its master was forbidden to feet it, all the more so were the camels of our father Abraham. There was thus no need to muzzle them for no injustice befalleth the righteous. (Proverbs 12:21.)

Rashbam on Genesis 37:36:1

והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים. The Midianites, Medanites, and the Ishmaelites are brotherly tribes. (compare 25,20) According to the plain meaning of the text, they are the same people, sometimes called by one name, other times by the other name. This is why the Torah wrote here that the Midianites had sold him, whereas the Ishmaelites had transported him there.

Talmud

In Tractate Kallah Rabbati 8:16, Rab reprimands R. Kahana for not studying Torah constantly, citing Job 28:13. Rab emphasizes that Torah study should take precedence over personal needs. In Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:5, different rabbis suggest different interpretations for the half-shekel donation, linking it to various transgressions such as the sin of the Golden Calf and the sale of Rachel's firstborn.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2:3:5

It is written (Ex. 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.) : This they shall give, everybody who violated the Commandments. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, because they sinned (Making the Golden Calf after 12 noon, Babli Šabbat89a, summarized by Rashi, Ex. 32:1.) in the middle of the day they shall give half a sheqel; but the other said, because they sinned in the sixth hour they shall give half a sheqel; which is worth six grams (An Aramaic plural of Greek γράμμα, τό, “gram, scruple (as weight)”. One scruple is two oboloi, a third of a denar, approximately 1.2 metric grams, used here as name of a silver coin.) . Rebbi Joshua the son of Rebbi Neḥemiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai: Because they transgressed the Ten Commandments, each of them shall give ten gerah (Ex. 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.) . Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver; each of them shall redeem his firstborn with twenty pieces of silver (Num. 3:47. The firstborn is redeemed by 5 sheqalim. Since it is held that the sheqel in the Torah is equal to a Roman tetradrachma, Qiddušin1:3 Note 339, 5 sheqalim are 20 denarii. The generic expression “pieces of silver” is taken to mean the most common silver coin, the denar. The homily is mentioned as introduction to the following one.) . Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Levi: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver and each of them received a minted coin (In this context meaning the silver didrachma.) (Since Joseph was sold by 10 of his brothers. The formulation of the homily shows that in later Amoraic times the word sheqel had lost its meaning denoting either a standard weight or a standard coin but became the label of a religious obligation.) , each of them shall give a minted coin as his sheqel.

Tractate Kallah Rabbati 8:16

‘This is the way [conducive to] the study of the Torah: a morsel of bread with salt thou shalt eat.’ (Cf. Sanh. 111a (Sonc. ed., p. 762).) [Rab] saw [R. Kahana] indulging himself (He was dressing his hair instead of attending to his studies.) and asked him, ‘Do you not know of the verse, (Or, do you not accept the teaching?) Neither is it found in the land of the living (Job 28, 13.) [which means that] the Torah will not be found in one who attends to his needs [instead of studying it constantly]?’ He replied, ‘It refers to [abstention from pleasant things] which enter the body, but does it refer also to such matters?’ (As dressing one’s hair.) [Rab] said to him, ‘Has it not been taught: (Ber. 57b (Sonc. ed., p. 356).) Three things enter the body without its deriving any benefit therefrom, viz. melilot, (A kind of clover.) date-berries and unripe dates; three things do not enter the body but it derives benefit therefrom, viz. washing, anointing and regular motions?’ He asked him, ‘Does, then, the study of the Torah entail affliction?’ He replied, ‘Yes, for it is written, It is good for me that I have been afficted, in order that I might learn Thy statutes. (Ps. 119, 71.) Furthermore, is [Torah] found [in all others] except those [who attend to their wants]? But has it not been taught: (‘Erub. 55a (Sonc. ed., p. 384).) It is not in heaven (Deut. 30, 12.) [which means that] Torah will not be found with those who exalt their knowledge, Neither is it beyond the sea [which means that] it will not be found among merchants, traders and sailors. With these Torah is not found but craftiness is found. And whence do you know that beyond [‘eber] the sea refers to merchants? For it is written, And there passed by [wayya‘abru], Midianites, merchantmen’. (Gen. 37, 28. The root of the verb passed is the same as of ‘eber, ‘beyond’, and the inference is drawn that the Midianites were merchants who came from beyond the sea.) ‘Do not seek greatness for yourself’: so that you should not say, ‘Behold, I study the Torah and what a great man I am!’ Should you do so, the consequence will be that you will occupy yourself with the Torah not for its own sake.

Tanakh

Gideon asked the men for their golden earrings as booty after defeating the Midianites, who wore earrings like the Ishmaelites.

Judges 8:24

And Gideon said to them, “I have a request to make of you: Each of you give me the earring you received as booty.” (The Midianites (The Midianites Heb. “They.” The author explains that the Midianites wore earrings like the Ishmaelites, who were better known to his contemporaries.) had golden earrings, for they were Ishmaelites.)

Targum

The brothers pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, who then brought him to Egypt. The Midianite merchants were involved in the transaction, purchasing Joseph from the brothers and selling him to the Arabians for twenty mahin of silver, also buying sandals from them before bringing Joseph to Egypt.

Onkelos Genesis 37:28

Midianite merchants passed by. They [the brothers] pulled Yoseif up from the pit and sold Yoseif to the Yishmaelites [Arabs] for twenty pieces of silver. They brought Yoseif to Egypt.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:28

And the Midianite men, masters of business, passed by; and they drew and brought up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Arabians for twenty mahin of silver; and they bought sandals of them. And they brought Joseph to Mizraim.

וַיָּ֤שׇׁב רְאוּבֵן֙ אֶל־הַבּ֔וֹר וְהִנֵּ֥ה אֵין־יוֹסֵ֖ף בַּבּ֑וֹר וַיִּקְרַ֖ע אֶת־בְּגָדָֽיו׃ 29 E When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he rent his clothes.
Reuben attempted to rescue Joseph from the pit, either to return him to his father or cover up his death, influenced by Yehudah's confession. The brothers faked Joseph's death by dipping his tunic in goat's blood. In the Midrash, Reuben's repentance and efforts to save Joseph are highlighted. Reuben's city of refuge was in his territory for his attempt to save Joseph, and he later fled to Betzer after thinking he caused Joseph's death accidentally. The Targum mentions Reuben's grief at finding Joseph missing from the pit, as he had been fasting for his actions with Bilhah.

Commentary

Reuben returned to the pit to try to rescue Joseph, either to return him to his father or to cover up his death by presenting his remains. Reuben was not present at the time of the sale because he was either attending to his father or engaged in penance for his indiscretion with Bilhah. Rashi suggests that Reuben's repentance was influenced by Yehudah's public confession. The brothers decided to fake Joseph's death by slaughtering a goat and dipping Joseph's tunic in its blood to avoid Reuben having to search for him.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:29:1

וישב ראובן אל הבור, “when Reuven returned to the pit, etc.” Rashi, in answer to the question we should have asked about where Reuven was in the interval, answers that he had been preoccupied with trying through fasting and wearing sackcloth, to obtain forgiveness for his indiscretion in removing evidence of Bilhah sleeping with his father. [one of two explanations which Rashi suggests, the more likely correct one. Ed.] This explanation is difficult, seeing that the Talmud in tractate Makkot folio 11, arrives at the conclusion that Yehudah had been the first person ever to have done real penance by admitting his sin publicly, so that his brother learned from him when admitting being the father of the fetus his daughter-in-law Tamar was carrying in her womb. (Genesis 38,26) From that statement it is clear that at this stage Reuven had not felt the need to do penance. He did so only after Yehudah had set the example, which clearly had been some time after the sale of Joseph. Possibly, in order to solve this problem, perhaps the Talmud meant that until Yehudah had confessed publicly, Reuven had only done penance in the privacy his own house. He had been wearing sackcloth in his house already at this point.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:29:1

וישב ראובן אל הבור, Reuben returned to the pit, etc. What was Reuben's argument when he complained to the brothers ואני אנה אני בא, "where shall I go?" Would Joseph not have been lost even if his own suggestion to throw him into a pit had been carried out? After all, the Torah itself testified that Reuben had never told his brothers that he intended to save Joseph and to restore him to his father! When Yehudah said to the other brothers: "what profit is there in killing our brother, etc," does this not prove that Joseph's remaining in the pit was meant to result in his death? How then could Reuben complain to his brothers?

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:29:2

Actually, Reuben argued that inasmuch as he was the oldest, his father would charge him with leading the search for the missing Joseph from one end of the earth to the other. If Joseph had remained in the pit, he would have brought Joseph's remains to his father and explained to him that wild beasts had killed him. This would have been the end of his involvement. Now he could not do this. This is why he said: "where shall I go?" As a result the brothers hit on the idea of slaughtering a male goat and dipping Joseph's tunic in its blood, etc. By returning the tattered and blood-soaked remains of Joseph's striped coat they made it unnecessary for Reuben to start a search for Joseph.

Radak on Genesis 37:29:1

וישב, he returned from wherever he had gone to his brothers, going back to the pit to see if he could rescue Joseph without his brothers finding out, and to return him to his father. There is a discussion in Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 as to where Reuven had been in the interval. According to some, it had been his turn to attend to the needs of his father, whereas according to Rabbi Eliezer he was engaged in doing penance, etc., for having slept with Bilhah, his father’s concubine.

Rashi on Genesis 37:29:1

וישב ראובן AND REUBEN RETURNED — When he (Joseph) was sold he had not been present, for it was his day (his turn) to go to attend to his father (Genesis Rabbah 84:19). Another explanation is: he had not sat with them at the meal because he was occupied with his sack-cloth and fast in penitence for having disturbed his father’s couch (Genesis Rabbah 84:19).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:29:1

He was not present when he was sold, for his day had arrived to go and attend to his father. [You might ask:] What forced Rashi to say this? Perhaps he went to take care of business. And the same [question can be asked] according to the alternate explanation, that “he was occupied with his sack-cloth and fasting.” The answer is: If he had gone for mundane business, how was he allowed to leave? He knew his brothers wanted to kill Yoseif. Why did he not fear they would kill Yoseif when he left? Perforce, he went for a mitzvah, as his day had arrived, etc. There is a question [on the first explanation]: Why does it say he “returned” (וישב)? It should say he “came.” Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation, [according to which וישב is] an expression of repentance (תשובה). And the second explanation is insufficient on its own, as he should have waited for another day [to do repentance], because of [the danger to] Yoseif. Thus Rashi explains that “his day had arrived...” and he could not delay. (Maharshal)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:29:2

Another explanation: He was occupied with his sack-cloth... Rashi deduces this because it is written here, “Reuvein returned to the pit,” and it says, “Mordechai returned to the king’s gate wearing sack-cloth” (Esther 6:12). Just as “returned” over there refers to sack-cloth and fasting, so too here. Reuvein must have done his repentance secretly, and thus he was absent at the time of Yoseif’s sale. Otherwise it would contradict Rashi’s explanation of וזאת ליהודה (Devarim 33:7), that Yehudah’s confession over the incident with Tamar was what influenced Reuvein to confess and repent over the incident with Bilhah. Therefore it must be that Reuvein first repented secretly and later he did so publicly.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:29

Reuben returned to the pit. Evidently, Reuben was not present at the time of the sale. And behold, Joseph was not in the pit; he rent his garments due to his concern regarding Joseph’s fate.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:29:1

וישב ראובן, “Reuven returned;” According to Rashi, Reuven reverted to wearing sackcloth and observing fasts as penitence over his indiscretion with Bilhah, even though he had not made a public confession until after he had heard his brother Yehudah publicly confess his sin against Tamar. (Genesis 38,26)

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:29:2

ויקרע את בגדיו, “he rent his outer garments.” When his father heard about Joseph’s apparent death, the Torah describes the rending of his garments with the words ויקרע שמלותיו, “he rent his (under)garments.” When mourning parents or children, one rends all of one’s clothing, whereas when mourning siblings one only rends outer garments. The word שמלה appears as covering for one’s skin” (Exodus 22,26)

Midrash

In Midrash Mishlei 1:9, it is discussed how Reuben was the only brother who wanted to save Joseph from harm, while the others plotted against him. In Bereshit Rabbah 84:19, Reuben's repentance is highlighted, and in Bereshit Rabbah 92:8, the accusation against Benjamin and the brothers' reaction to the discovery of the goblet in his sack are discussed.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:19

“Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he rent his garments” (Genesis 37:29). “Reuben returned to the pit” – where had he been? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua: Rabbi Eliezer said: In his sackcloth and his fasting. (He was preoccupied with his repentance for his action involving Bilha (Genesis 35:22).) When he was free, he went and peered into that pit. That is what is written: “Reuben returned to the pit.” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘A person has never sinned before Me and repented, and you are the first to initiate repentance. As you live, your descendant will arise and be the first to initiate repentance.’ (He will be the first to teach about the full power of repentance, such as the fact that repentance out of love can cause one’s sins to be considered as merits (Yefe To’ar). ) Who is that? It is Hosea, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hosea 14:2). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat” – why a goat? Because its blood is similar to that of man. “They sent the fine tunic, and they brought it to their father and said: We found this. Identify, please: Is it your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:32). “They sent the fine tunic…” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said: “Identify, please”; as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please”’ (Genesis 38:25). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him; Joseph has been mauled” (Genesis 37:33). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic” – he said: I do not know what I am seeing. (Jacob was used to a high level of perception, fueled by the Divine Spirit. But from this incident until he reunited with Joseph, that clarity left him, and he was unsure of the exact facts or full ramifications of what he was seeing (Maharzu). ) “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him…” – Rav Huna said: The Divine Spirit flashed in him: “A savage beast devoured him” – this is Potifar’s wife. (Rav Huna explains that although Jacob himself was unsure what had occurred, he said something that alluded to future events (Maharzu). )

Bereshit Rabbah 92:8

“He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words; the one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me, and you shall be exonerated” (Genesis 44:10). “He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words” – ten people, one of whom is implicated in theft, are they not all incarcerated? But I will not do so. “The one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me.” “He searched, he began with the eldest, and with the youngest he concluded; the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” (Genesis 44:12). “He searched, he began with the eldest and with the youngest he concluded” – why did he do so? It was so they would not say that he knew where it had been placed. “The goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” – once the goblet was found, they said to him: ‘What [have you done,] thief who is son of a thief?’ (The other brothers accused Benjamin of stealing the goblet and endangering them all, and criticized him as a thief son of a thief, as his mother, Rachel, stole her father’s household idols (Genesis 31:19).) He said to them: ‘Is the man [who sold] Joseph here? Are there goats here? (A reference to the goat the brothers had slaughtered in order to dip Joseph’s tunic in its blood so that Jacob would assume that Joseph had been mauled to death (Genesis 37:31). ) Can brothers who sold their brother [accuse me in this manner]? Astounding!’ “They rent their garments, and each man loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city” (Genesis 44:13). “They rent their garments…” – Rabbi Pinḥas in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: The tribes caused their father to rend, (Jacob rent his garments upon learning of Joseph’s disappearance (Genesis 37:34). ) that is why, they, too, were afflicted. “Each man loaded his donkey…” – each of them would take his burden with one hand and place it on his donkey. (This was an expression of their great strength.) “They returned to the city…” – Rabbi Abahu said: It was a metropolis, and it says: “To the city”? (The verse could have stated “to Egypt.” The phrase “to the city” implies that it was like any other city, not the seat of power of the Egyptian empire (Maharzu).) Rather, it teaches that it was no more significant in their eyes than a city of ten people. (The brothers were not afraid of having to wage war and conquer the city (Etz Yosef). )

Midrash Mishlei 1:9

[9] "If they say, 'Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause'" - These are the brothers of Joseph, who were lurking and saying, 'When will the end come, and we will kill him?' And when he came to them, they began to say to one another, 'This is the hour; this is the season,' and the Divine Presence (Shechinah) was jesting and saying, 'Woe to them for the blood of this righteous one.' Therefore, it is said, "We will lurk secretly for the innocent without cause." And of them all, none wanted to save him except Reuben, as it is said, "Reuben heard, and he saved him from their hand." He said to them, 'Come, and I will give you advice,' They said to him, 'What advice are you giving us?' He said to them, 'Let us throw him into the pit while he is alive, and our hand will not be upon him,' From where [do we learn this]? As it is stated: (Proverbs 1:12): "We will swallow them up alive as the grave, and whole, as those that go down into the pit" - that he went down to the pit in his innocence, and he did not know what they were going to do to him. Rabbi Levi ben Zavdai said: "Who lowered [Joseph] into the pit from among all his brothers? You must say it was Simeon and Levi, as it is said (Genesis 49:6), 'Into their council let my soul not enter.' But Reuben intended to save him and return him to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:22), 'That he might save him from their hand, to restore him to his father.' (Genesis 37:29): 'And Reuben returned to the pit' - where was he? Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah [disagreed]: Rabbi Judah said, 'The burden of the household was thrust upon him, and as soon as he was free from his burden, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him. This is the meaning of "And Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he tore his clothes."' Rabbi Nehemiah said, 'He was occupied in his sackcloth and fasting over the incident that occurred, and he did not turn [from it], and as soon as he was free from his sackcloth and fasting, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him, as it says "And Reuben returned to the pit, etc." ' Not only that, but once they sold him, the Divine Presence (Shechinah) mocked them and said to them (Isaiah 55:8), 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, etc.,' not with the thought that you think, 'nor your ways my ways,' and not in the way that you say, for if there were not a decree from before Me, your counsel would be nothing. (Proverbs 1:13): 'All precious substance shall we find, our houses shall be filled with spoil' - this is the sale of Joseph, who was a precious son to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:3), 'For he was the son of his old age,' he was found to sustain them, as it is written (Genesis 45:5), 'For God sent me before you to preserve life.' 'Our houses shall be filled with spoil' - that they filled their houses with silver and gold from Joseph's treasures. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: The ten martyrs were drawn [to their deaths] only by the sin of selling Joseph. Rabbi Avin said: You must say that ten were exacted from every generation, and still, that sin persists. (Proverbs 1:14): 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - when Joseph sat down, he took the key and was calling out: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Dan and Naphtali - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Gad and Asher - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; and he went back and hit with the key and said: Benjamin is an orphan, and I am an orphan, it is fitting for an orphan to sit with an orphan, 'One purse shall be ours' - for they all ate at one table at the banquet. How did he do it? He gave each one one portion, and to Benjamin five portions, how? He took his portion, and Benjamin's portion, and Ephraim's portion, and Manasseh's portion, and the portion of Asenath, Joseph's wife, and gave it to Benjamin, as it is said (Genesis 43:34): 'And he took and sent portions to them from before him, but Benjamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs, and they drank and were merry with him.' Rabbi Shmuelai said in the name of Rabbi Isaac from Magdala: From the day that Joseph separated from his brothers he did not taste the taste of wine until that day, as it is written (Genesis 49:26), 'And the crown of the head of his brothers' Nazirite.' Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: They also did not taste the taste of wine, as it is said, 'And they drank and were merry with him.' Another explanation, 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - this is the Torah, which was the lot of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and given to Israel; 'One purse shall be ours' - at the time when they stood at Mount Sinai and said (Exodus 24:7), 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do and we will hear.'"

Quoting Commentary

Reuben tried to save Joseph by suggesting to sell him to Ishmaelites, later finding him missing from the pit. Moses asked for resources for the tribe of Levi, referencing the fragrant incense. Reuben's city of refuge was in his territory due to his attempt to save Joseph, while Judah's public confession led Reuben to confess openly as well. Reuben fled to Betzer after thinking he caused Joseph's death accidentally. Yehudah's public confession influenced Reuben to admit openly his wrongdoing.

Chizkuni, Deuteronomy 33:7:1

וזאת ליהודה, “and this for Yehudah;” he meant that his blessing that Reuven should not suffer casualties in battle, should also apply to the men of military age of the tribe of Yehudah;At this point Rashi said (based on the Talmud tractate Sotah folio 7) that Moses gave the credit for Reuven’s having done penitence to how Yehudah had demeaned himself publicly when admitting that his daughterinlaw had become pregnant by him. (Genesis 38,26) In Genesis 37,29, we read about Reuven being mortified when Joseph was no longer in the pit the brothers had thrown him into. Although he had not even been present when Joseph was sold, he held himself responsible for not staying around at that time. Yehudah, though admitting his paternity of his daughterinlaw’s Tamar’s babies did not do so until challenged. Until Yehudah admitted his guilt publicly, Reuven had done so only privately; (Genesis 37,29). After hearing of Yehudah’s confession, he too admitted his defiling his father’s couch openly.

Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 4:43:1

ואת בצר במדבר, “and Betzer in the desert.” This is what Solomon referred to when he said in Proverbs 28,17: “a man burdened with blood guilt will flee to a pit;” he referred to someone who had incurred this guilt inadvertently, or even in self defense, i.e. accidentally. After Reuven (Genesis 37,29) found the pit in which he had left Joseph empty, i.e. he had to assume that he had been the cause of Joseph’s death; he supposedly fled to that town in the desert, later on in the territory of Reuven on the east bank of the Jordan.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Devarim 4:43:2

בארץ המישור לראובני, “in the land of the plain of the tribe of Reuven.” The reason this is mentioned first is that Reuven had tried to save the life of Joseph at the time when he prevailed on his brothers not to kill him (Genesis 36,21-22). This is why the first city of refuge was situated in Reuven’s part of the east bank. This is the meaning of Proverbs 28,17: “a man oppressed by blood guilt will flee to a pit, let none give him support.” The “pit” mentioned in that verse is a reference to the territory of Reuven of whom the Torah writes in Genesis 37,29: “Reuven returned to the pit.”

Siftei Chakhamim, Deuteronomy 33:7:2

Moshe said, “Who was responsible for Reuvein’s confession? Yehudah, etc.” According to this, Now this for Yehudah is an expression of surprise. [I.e., does Yehudah deserve that his bones roll in the coffin?!]. When Rashi explains, Who was responsible for Reuvein’s confession? he means, Who was responsible for Reuvein’s public confession? because Reuvein had confessed in private beforehand, as Rashi explained earlier in parshas Vayeishev (Bereishis 37:29), that [Reuvein] was occupied with his sack-cloth, etc., which was before the incident of Tamar and Yehudah. This indicates that Reuvein had already confessed. Perforce we must say that he was occupied with his sack-cloth, etc. in private. But after Yehudah had confessed, he was occupied with his sack-cloth even in public. So too answer Tosefos in Perek Hachovel (Bava Kamma 92a).

Tribal Lands, Chapter 1; Reuven 28

They sat down to a meal; looking up, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead.…Judah said to his brothers, “What do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.”…They pulled Joseph up out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites.…Reuben returned to the pit and behold! – Joseph was not in the pit! Genesis 37:25–29

Tur HaArokh, Deuteronomy 33:11:1

ברך ה' חילו, “Bless, O Hashem its resources, etc.” According to Nachmanides this is a plea by Moses to Hashem to grant the tribe of Levi plenty of human resources, seeing that in fulfilling their tasks they put their lives at risk if they make any of many possible mistakes which result in such people forfeiting their lives. Compare Numbers 4,18 “Do not let the tribe of the Kehatites be cut off from the rest of the tribe of Levi.” Onkelos translates חילו as “its material resources,” using Genesis 37,29 and Number 31,9 as his models. In both those verses the expression ואת כל חילם means: “all their physical possessions.” The verse is an appendix to ישימו קטורה באפך in the previous verse, which describes the material possession of man most closely related to a spiritual asset, i.e. the fragrance of the incense burned on the Altar.

Targum

Reuben returned to the pit where Joseph was supposed to be, but found him missing. He tore his clothes in grief, having not been there when Joseph was sold, as he had been fasting for his actions regarding his father's bed. Reuben had intended to bring Joseph back to their father to avoid his anger, but Joseph was no longer in the pit.

Onkelos Genesis 37:29

Reuvein returned to the pit, but behold, Yoseif was not in the pit. He [then] tore his clothes [in grief.]

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:29

And Reuben returned to the pit; for he had not been with them to assist when they sold him, because he had sat fasting on account that he had confounded the couch of his father; and he had gone and sat among the hills, that he might return to the pit and bring him up for his father, if haply he might avert his anger. But when he had returned, and looked, and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit, he rent his clothes,

וַיָּ֥שׇׁב אֶל־אֶחָ֖יו וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַיֶּ֣לֶד אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וַאֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא׃ 30 E Returning to his brothers, he said, “The boy is gone! Now, what am I to do?”
Reuben felt guilt and fear over Joseph's disappearance, worried about being blamed as the eldest brother, and expressed concern for his father's grief. The Ten Martyrs were executed for selling Joseph, with Reuben's involvement in a different sin hinted at. Reuben's relationship with his brothers was puzzling, and the redundancy in his words emphasized the matter at hand. In Targum Jonathan, Joseph returns to his brothers and expresses concern about facing his father without Joseph.

Commentary

Reuben, feeling responsible for Joseph, expressed concern over his father's grief and feared being blamed for Joseph's disappearance due to his own past mistakes and jealousy. He also worried about the potential accusations against him as the eldest brother and biological firstborn, leading to feelings of shame and regret. This sense of guilt and fear was heightened by his previous indiscretions and the favoritism shown by his father towards Joseph.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:30:1

ואני אנה אני בא, “as for me in what terrible situation have I gotten myself into?” Why was Reuven more concerned and afraid than the other brothers? On the contrary, the brother who should have been the one most afraid was Yehudah, who had acted as the brothers’ leader until that time! We must therefore say that he was more concerned because his father had treated Joseph as his firstborn, and he, his father’s biological firstborn could have been accused as being negligent in looking after him due to feelings of jealousy. In addition, he had already been guilty of an indiscretion in Bilhah’s bedroom, which had shown his father that he felt aggrieved about his father having favoured Rachel and her children. Rashi already commented concerning the tales Joseph had been telling to his father, all putting the sons of Leah in a bad light.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:30:1

AND AS FOR ME, WHITHER SHALL I GO? Ani (I) is used twice in this clause (The Hebrew literally reads: And I, whither shall I go.) even though one ani would have sufficed. (Scripture could have read: and whither shall I go.) The latter is in keeping with Hebrew style.

Radak on Genesis 37:30:1

וישב, he did not know that the brothers had sold him but thought that he had been stolen from the pit.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:30:1

אנה אני בא!, what did I came to the pit for!

Rashi on Genesis 37:30:1

אנה אני בא WHITHER SHALL I GO? — Whither can I flee from my father’s grief?

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:30:1

אנה אני בא, nicht אלך, nicht: wohin soll ich mich mit meinem Schmerze flüchten! Dazu liegt ja auch eigentlich kein Motiv vor. Er war ja nicht allein mit seinem Schmerze, hatte ja eine ganze Familie zu Schmerzensgenossen. בא heißt ja auch wesentlich: in einen heimischen Ort sich begeben, in den man hingehört (verwandt mit פֺא dem gewöhnlichen [Job 38, 11] פֺה, Ausdruck des Ortes, wohin ein Gegenstand gehört: hier; auch פֶה, Mund, die Mündung, die sich öffnet, um das Hineingehörige aufzunehmen). Es drücken daher diese Worte vielmehr ein Scham- oder Reuegefühl aus, das Gefühl eines zu erwartenden begründeten oder unbegründeten Vorwurfes. Ich werde keine Stätte haben, wo ich werde ruhig sein, wo ich werde meine Augen aufschlagen können, alle Welt wird mich meiden. Was können nun die Motive zu einem solchen Gefühle gewesen sein? Möglich ganz einfach der Grund, daß er nicht mit der nötigen Energie gegen das Verfahren aufzutreten angefangen. Er hatte die מצוה begonnen, ohne sie zu vollenden. Woher aber der Mangel dieser Energie, da er doch der älteste war? Vielleicht, weil er ja auch nicht rein von Makel gewesen, ihn noch das frische Bewusstsein einer Verirrung drückte. Das Bewusstsein der eigenen Schwäche raubte ihm die Kraft zu entschiedenerem Auftreten.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:30:2

Es kann jedoch noch ein anderes zu Grunde gelegen haben. Es war ja das Gefühl der Angst, das die Brüder zu dem Verbrechen getrieben, die Furcht, in der Selbständigkeit von Josef überragt zu werden. Dieses Gefühl hätte auf natürlichem Wege niemanden mehr als Reuben erfüllen müssen. Es waren ja in Jakobs Hause zwei Erstgeborne, Reuben und Josef, und zwar war Josef von der eigentlich beabsichtigten Frau. Der Verdacht musste also bei dieser Tat hinsichtlich der Motive zunächst auf Reuben fallen. Deshalb hatte er sich ganz ferngehalten, deshalb fürchtete er, daß nun ein jeder den Stein zuerst auf ihn werfen werde. Der Erfolg hat ja auch diese Bedenken scheinbar gerechtfertigt. Die Erstgeburt ward wirklich Reuben genommen und auf Josef übertragen.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:30:1

Where can I flee from my father’s grief? [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, would the boy not being there cause a lack of space for Reuvein, leaving him nowhere to flee? Perforce, it means: since the boy is not there, I must flee from my father’s grief, and where can I flee?

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:30

He returned to his brothers, and said: The boy is not there; and I, where do I go? What will happen to me? As the oldest brother, Reuben felt that the responsibility for Joseph rested on his shoulders.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 48-50

“What am I to do” [37:30]. Reuben came to the pit and did not find Joseph. He tore his clothes and said: I am the oldest; our father will hang it all on me. Hizkuni writes: Reuben was afraid that his father would say: certainly you Reuben killed him because the birthright was taken away from you and was given to Joseph. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:30.) Where was Reuben that day when the brothers sold Joseph? The explanation is that he was with Jacob, since every day one had to serve his father. He repented on that day that he had disturbed his father’s bed. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:29.)

Musar

Joseph told his brothers they could go to their father in peace, indicating they could safely come to their Father in Heaven without suffering punishment in this world for selling Joseph. The Ten Martyrs were executed for this sin, including Reuben who was not involved in the sale but had a different sin involving Bilhah. Reuben's words hint at this sin. The reincarnations of Joseph and Benjamin were not among the Ten Martyrs. (Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 12)

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 12

In Genesis 44,17, Joseph said to his brothers: ואתם עלו לשלום אל אביכם, "As for you, go up in peace to your father." The word אתם, in that connection was used advisedly. Joseph meant that the brothers themselves could come to their Father in Heaven safely, i.e. they would not in this world suffer the execution as kidnappers who sell their prey. On a future occasion, however, their re-incarnates would have to pay for the crime with their lives. The Ten Martyrs mentioned were the ones who had to pay with their lives for that sin which had gone unpunished for so long. The allusion in the verse just quoted serves some Kabbalists as the reason why Reuben, who had not been a party to the sale of Joseph, was included among those who were executed for the crime. His sin had been of a different nature, namely the incident described in Genesis 35, 22, involving Bilhah. Reuben's own words provide us with a hint of this when he said after discovering that Joseph had been removed from the pit (37, 30): ואני, אנה אני בא, "Where can I go to?" Rabbi Abraham Saba in his Tzror Hamor comments on this that the letters in the words and אני and אנה are the respective first letters of א-ל נקמות י-ה-ו-ה נקמות הופיע, "G–d of retribution, Lord, G–d of retribution, appear!" (Psalms 94, 1) The reincarnations of Joseph and Benjamin were not among the Ten Martyrs described.

Quoting Commentary

Reuben's relationship with his brothers in Genesis 37:21 is puzzling as he appears to be only present with them by chance and may have differed in views from them regarding Joseph. The redundancy in the phrase "if you, if you will hear me" in Genesis 23:13 is used for emphasis, similar to other examples of synonymous expressions found in the Bible, indicating a strong emphasis on the matter at hand.

Ramban on Genesis 23:13:1

‘LU’ (IF) THOU WILT HEAR ME. This is equivalent to saying, “If you, if you will hear me,” and the purport thereof is like, “if you, if you would hear me,” the redundancy being for the purpose of emphasizing the matter. Similar cases are found in these verses: Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; (Judges 4:18.) Art thou any better, better than Balak? (Ibid., 11:25.) And to speak against him, saying; (II Chronicles 32:17.) And as for me, whither shall I go?; (Further, 37:30.) And I turned myself; (Ecclesiastes 2:12.) And I saw myself; (Ibid., Verse 13.) Seeing all the congregation are all holy. (Numbers 16:3.) All these are examples of expressions of synonimity. In my opinion, this is also the case in the verse, If from a thread even to a sandal tie, if I take (anything that is thine), (Above, 14:23. Here too, there is a redundant “if.”) which is equivalent to saying, “If, from a thread even to a sandal tie, I take anything that is yours.” It may be that [in the verse here before us the meaning is], “If you are as you have said.” that is, if you are speaking what is in your heart concerning the matter, and if you will listen to me and consummate the sale. A similar usage of a missing word is found in the verse, And their brethren said unto them, What are ye? (Judges 18:8.) [which means, “What are you saying?”] In my opinion, a similar case of such usage is the verse, Wherefore am I? (Further, 25:2. See also Ramban there.) [meaning, “Wherefore am I in the world?”] Perhaps this is the opinion of Onkelos who translated here, “if you will do me a favor,” meaning, “if you will do my will as you have said.”

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:21:1

Reubens Verhältnis zu den Brüdern, wie er in dieser Begebenheit auftritt, dürfte rätselhaft erscheinen. Er scheint nur zufällig bei ihnen zu sein, da er ja sich sehr bald wieder von ihnen entfernt haben muss, und bei der eigentlichen Entwicklung gar nicht gegenwärtig war. Ob er überhaupt als בכור an den gewöhnlichen Tagesbeschäftigungen nicht Teil zu nehmen hatte, ob er schon im allgemeinen von ihren Ansichten über Josef differierte und daher an den Absichten und Beratungen, die sie nach Sichem geführt, nicht teilnehmen wollte, dürfte zweifelhaft sein. Wir werden noch Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: 30. wieder darauf zurückkommen. — לא נכנו נפש ist ganz positiv. Einen solchen Gedanken, wie ihr eben angeregt, werden wir nicht ausführen. Ich, als der ältere Bruder, leide das nicht. Indem V. 22 nochmals seine Rede eingeleitet wird, scheint es erst Diskussion gegeben zu haben, worauf er dann, um sie zu beschwichtigen, mit dem andern Vorschlag hervortrat.

Redeeming Relevance; Genesis 6:18

(Bereshit 37:29–30)

Targum

In Onkelos Genesis 37:30, Joseph's brothers tell their father that Joseph is not there. In Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:30, Joseph returns to his brothers and expresses concern about how he will face his father without Joseph.

Onkelos Genesis 37:30

He returned to his brothers and said, The boy is not there; and I—where can I go.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:30

and returned to his brethren, and said, The youth is not; and I,whither shall I go, and how shall I see the look of my father's face?

וַיִּקְח֖וּ אֶת־כְּתֹ֣נֶת יוֹסֵ֑ף וַֽיִּשְׁחֲטוּ֙ שְׂעִ֣יר עִזִּ֔ים וַיִּטְבְּל֥וּ אֶת־הַכֻּתֹּ֖נֶת בַּדָּֽם׃ 31 J Then they took Joseph’s tunic, slaughtered a kid, and dipped the tunic in the blood.
The brothers in Genesis 37:31 used a goat's blood to deceive their father about Joseph's disappearance, as it resembled human blood (Chizkuni). The priestly garments symbolize atonement for various sins, such as the tunic for bloodshed and the belt for licentious behavior (Jewish Thought). Moses advised Aaron to offer a sin-offering before entering the sanctuary to avoid condemnation from Satan, with the offerings of the princes of the tribes corresponding to significant figures and events in Jewish history (Midrash). Jacob's punishment for his brothers' actions included being sold as a servant and suspected of illicit relations, reflecting a measure-for-measure response (Musar). Ramban explains that the priestly garments atone for specific sins, such as the tunic for bloodshed and the pants for sexual prohibitions (Quoting Commentary). The tunic in Genesis 37:31 symbolizes the struggles faced by statesmen in their lives (Second Temple). The tunic atones for bloodshed, the trousers for forbidden sexual relations, and the turban for haughtiness, among other sins (Talmud). The Targum mentions that Joseph's coat was dipped in the blood of a male goat, as its blood resembles that of a man (Targum).

Commentary

The brothers in Genesis 37:31 slaughtered a goat to cover up Joseph's disappearance by dipping his tunic in its blood, which resembled human blood. They sent messengers with the tunic to deceive their father, fearing he would accuse them of killing Joseph. Chizkuni explains that the choice of a goat was based on its blood resembling human blood, as seen in the Talmud Gittin regarding Nebuzaradan's failed attempt to prove the blood of the prophet Zecharyah was human.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:31:1

שעיר עזים, “a male goat; ”according to Rashi they chose this animal as its blood most closely resembles the colour of human blood. When we read in the Talmud Gittin, folio 57, where the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan is reported of having tried to compare the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Jews he had slain in Jerusalem to that of the prophet of the prophet Zecharyah which had not stopped bubbling after having been stoned inside the Temple (he was also a priest) for having rebuked King Joash (about 150 years before the Temple was destroyed) and having failed to prove that that blood was human blood, we must assume that this was due to Zecharyah’s blood having become contaminated during all those years.

Radak on Genesis 37:31:1

וישחטו שעיר עזים, they said that its blood resembled the colour of human blood.

Rashi on Genesis 37:31:1

שעיר עזים A KID OF THE GOATS — its blood resembles that of a human being (Genesis Rabbah 84:19).

Rashi on Genesis 37:31:2

הַכֻּתֹּנֶת THE COAT — This is the form of the noun in the absolute state, but when it is in the construct state — as e.g., Joseph’s coat”, “the coat of many colours”, “the coat of linen”, — it is punctuated as כְּתֹנֶת.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:31

Selling one’s own brother is an especially egregious act. By Torah law, kidnapping and selling any member of Israel into slavery, let alone one’s relative, is a capital offense. The brothers therefore sought to prepare a cover story for Joseph’s disappearance: They took Joseph’s tunic, slaughtered a goat, whose blood resembles human blood, and dipped the tunic in the blood of the goat.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 51-53

“They dipped the tunic in blood” [37:31]. The brothers took a kid and slaughtered it. They tore the tunic and smeared it with blood, so that one should think that a wild animal tore him apart. Hizkuni writes that the brothers sent the garment with messengers. They were afraid that their father would note that they hated him and would say: you killed him. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:32.) Bahya also writes. It must be that the brothers did not go by themselves because it is written, “is it your son’s tunic” [37:32]? The messengers said: do you recognize this tunic, if it is your son’s tunic? If the children had brought the tunic, they would have said: see if this is Joseph’s tunic? (Bahya, Genesis, 37:32.) It is not customary for children to say to their father, is this your son’s?

Jewish Thought

The text discusses the importance of respecting holy items and making atonement for sins committed in ignorance, such as taking part of a holy thing for common use. It also explains the symbolism and atonement associated with the priestly garments, such as the breastplate atoning for errors in justice, the ephod for errors in worship, the robe for slander, the tunic for bloodshed, the belt for licentious behavior, the pants for incest, and the headband for obstinacy towards God. These garments serve as reminders of the need for proper character traits and the importance of atonement for various sins.

Akeidat Yitzchak 51:1:3

The Talmud Erchin 67 states that the reason the portion dealing with the priestly garments is written next to the portion dealing with the sacrifices, is to inform us that just as the function of the sacrifices is to obtain atonement, so the function of the priestly garments also is to achieve a degree of atonement for the people. The breastplate atones for errors in application of justice between man and man; the ephod for errors in worship of other deities. The robe, me-il atones for slander, the tunic for bloodshed, the belt for rationalisation of intended licentious behaviour. The pants atone for incestuous conduct, and the headband atones for individual obstinacy vis a vis G-d.

Akeidat Yitzchak 51:1:8

Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why does the Parshah commence with the word "ve-attah," "and you," instead of simply with the word tzav, command!? 2) Why did the Torah not wait with commanding Aaron to light the menorah until the tabernacle had been built? 3) This whole passage is repeated in Parshat Emor with the exception of the word attah. Why? The Rabbis tell us that the making of these garments and wearing them is the prerequisite to kindling the menorah. Just as the High Priest in Zecharyah 3,4, who had faced the menorah in soiled garments, had to be dressed in clean garments before he could perform his functions,- a reference to the removal of sin,- so the Torah teaches this lesson in our Parshah. We observe in Zecharyah that the High Priest Voshua could not even notice the flame of the golden candelabra until after his garments had been changed. "I have removed your iniquities from you." Obviously, the candelabra had been there before, but Yoshua had to be awakened to its presence. All this teaches that proper study should be preceded by suitable character traits, (the other meaning of the word middah) (1+2) The commandment therefore means "You, who in the future will be instructing the Jewish people to provide the proper fuel, which in turn will be arranged by Aaron and his sons nightly, will need to bring Aaron close to you, appoint him and his sons as priests. It would not be fitting for them to appear michutz laporochet, facing the curtain in the sanctuary in everyday clothing. Therefore, you will make for your brother holy garments, beautiful and impressive, as outlined in the Parshah. Even though the exterior appearance of these garments reflected pomp and ceremony, the inner garments were symbolic of purity and holiness, seeing that they were made of pure white linen. The artisans were to use their G-d given skill and wisdom in their construction, and all those who saw these garments would recognise the message they were meant to convey. The Midrash which compared the sacrifices to the priestly garments needs explaining. Sacrifices were primarily for atonement, whereas the function of the garments is described in the Torah as "le-chavod u-letif-eret," “for splendour and for beauty." (28,40) How then are the two comparable? However, just as the preoccupation with the sacrifices achieves a certain restraint, minimises the chance of such a person committing sins, so study of the deeper significance of these garments helps to remove one's own soiled garments, i.e. one's character imperfections. It spurs the student to garb himself in clean clothing, in innocence. There cannot be any greater atonement than this. Even though the garments reflect acquisition of character traits, as opposed to say the table or candelabra, which represent acquisition of knowledge and understanding, among these garments are also found the breastplate, shoulder plates and the golden headband which are distinct from the remainder of the garments in that the holy name of G-d was engraved upon them. Our sages say that the breastplate is to atone for social injustices committed. Social injustices can occur in four different ways, as mentioned by Moses, Deut. chapter four. The Torah addresses primarily the judges. 1) Do not show favoritism to litigants. 2) Do not give preference to matters involving large sums of money, if the matter involving a smaller amount has come to your attention first. 3) Do not display fear of either litigant. 4) Do not appear to know all the answers, but refer to experts any matter you are not certain about. Concerning point number one, the names of the tribes on the breastplate were arranged in chronological order of their birth, to conform with the commandment "rise in the presence of a senior person." (Leviticus 19,32) We do accord honour to natural birthright. Concerning the matter of not dealing first with litigation of matters involving large sums at the expense of keeping a litigant suing for a smaller sum waiting, the four rows of gems on the breastplate were not arranged in the order of their respective values. Neither were distinctions made in the respective sizes of the twelve gems. All this teaches that all of them are equally important in the eyes of the law. Concerning the fear of certain litigants that a judge might have, the name of G-d was engraved to remind us that "justice is the Lord's." (Deut. 1, 17) Finally, concerning item four, the most common pitfall for all judges, the desire to appear all knowing, the urim vetumim the name of G-d on a parchment embedded in a pocket in the breastplate, was to remind the judge that there is always a last recourse, i.e. revelation of Divine wisdom, which is available if human wisdom has failed to arrive at a valid decision. For the above mentioned reasons, the function of the breastplate to atone for errors in administering social justice, is clear. Our sages have stated that the Ephod, apron, and shoulder plate, atone for idol worship. They quote Hoseah 3,4, "when there will be no Ephod and Teraphim" (idols). We need a source of inspiration. We observe from Judges 18, 17, that Michah had such an Ephod and Teraphim and was therefore elected as the guru of the Danites. The Torah commands that this Ephod be worn on the back of the High Priest, on the lower part of his body. However, it was to be anchored in the two shoulder pieces linked to the breastplate by chains. This was to convey the thought that not all human resources are concentrated in the seat of the reproductive organs, but rather are drawn directly from the seat of the urim ve-tumim, the seat of Divine inspiration. Such inspiration was granted only to Israel by way of prophecy. When viewed in this light, all tendencies to worship idols would be countered effectively. Because the gift of the breastplate and what it stands for represents a special kindness on G-d’s part, David says in Psalms 147, 19, "He issues His words to Jacob, His statutes and rules to Israel. He has not done so for any other nation." Aaron constantly carried the names of the children of Israel to remind G-d of us. The Ephod is symbolic of our gift to G-d by means of which we express that we are aware that we are different from all other nations. The two gems on the shoulder pieces of the Ephod are "as a remembrance to the children of Israel,” a reminder to us of His relationship with us. Breastplate and Ephod relate to one another in a manner similar to that described by Moses in Deut. 26,17-18 "You have avouched G-d this day.. and G-d has avouched you this day." This is followed by the statement of our being a nation of special treasure to the Lord. Because of the aforesaid, it is fitting that the Ephod had to be made first, in accordance with the principle (Psalms 85, 12 ) "truth sprouts forth from earth," i.e. we first have to do our part. After that "righteousness will come down from the heavens." (ibid.) The me-il, robe, was to atone for slander, wicked use of the tongue. Several quotations throughout the Bible indicate that this robe was a type of garment worn only by superior people, people who were known to be such. Samuel I 28, 14, shows that Saul who had previously met the prophet Samuel was convinced it was he as soon as he saw a person wearing such a robe. Similarly, Job, when insisting on his own righteousness, refers to it as worn "like a robe." (Job 29, 14) So we have G-d commanding that Aaron wear a garment reflecting his piety and purity. The bells on the lower hem of this robe had to announce his entering the sanctuary. Aaron's movements were to be like a sounding to the people to commence holy communion. "Let the sound produced by a holy man, wearing pure golden bells awaken you to the imperative to seek out holiness yourself," is the message of that garment. The golden bells were set among red and blue wool and linen pomegarantes, muffling most of the sound of the bells. This teaches three lessons. 1) Man should not publicly proclaim his piety and holiness. Whatever part of his saintliness becomes public, he should consider as trifling. This is why the bells were attached to the bottom of the robe. So whatever is said about a person should be like a pomegranate, which is so much more wholesome and precious on the inside than its shell would indicate. 3) The only things which become public, are heard, should be good things, kodesh. For this reason, the sages say "may something involving sound, come and atone for matters which involved publicity. The tunic, kutonet, is to atone for bloodshed. On the one hand the Torah tells us of Joseph's brothers dipping his tunic in blood. (Genesis 37,31) Violent wicked people have a habit of wearing short tuniccs, so that the leggings would not impede them if they want to make a fast getaway. The tunic described in the Torah here is a long garment, extending down to the heel. Its wearer could not take big steps. It was the kind of garment worn by virgins. When Tamar was raped by Amnon, (Samuel I 13) we find that her tunic was torn after she had been raped. People who normally stay at home, like Joseph, wore such long tunics. Jacob had such a garment made for Joseph, a garment which impedes movement, especially if it is made- as the Torah instructs here- chequered, worked in a manner which adds to its weight, thus further impeding movement. Obviously then, its wearer not only has no designs to shed blood, but rather such a garment would inspire fear of potential murderers in its wearers. This is why the sages use the above mentioned verse (Genesis 37,31) as indicating that wearers are liable to become victims of bloodshed. The mitznefet, mitre, atones for boastfulness, pride. The High Priest did not wear a fancy high hat, but a tightly fitting cap, allowing room for the tefillin and headband, tzitz. This is in contrast with the fools nowadays who wear high hats as attention getters. We can learn modesty from the High Priest, the holiest of men, and act accordingly.

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 46:17

Our Sages say that the offering for the eighth day of dedication was “a calf, a young bullock, for a sin-offering” (Lev. 11:2), in order to atone for the sin of the Israelites in making a golden calf. The sin-offering, which was brought on the Day of Atonement (ibid. 16:3), was likewise explained as being an atonement for that sin. From this argument of our Sages I deduce that he-goats were always brought as sin-offerings, by individual persons and also by the whole congregation, viz., on the Festivals, New-moon, Day of Atonement, and for idolatry, because most of the transgressions and sins of the Israelites were sacrifices to spirits (se‘irim, lit., goats), as is clearly stated, “They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto spirits” (Lev. 17:7). Our Sages, however, explained the fact that goats were always the sin-offerings of the congregation, as an allusion to the sin of the whole congregation of Israel: for in the account of the selling of the pious Joseph we read, “And they killed a kid of the goats” (Gen. 37:31). Do not consider this as a weak argument; for it is the object of all these ceremonies to impress on the mind of every sinner and transgressor the necessity of continually remembering and mentioning his sins. Thus the Psalmist says, “And my sin is ever before me” (Ps. 51:3). The above-mentioned sin-offerings further show us that when we commit a sin, we, our children, and the children of our children, require atonement for that sin by some kind of service analogous to the sin committed. If a person has sinned in respect to property he must liberally spend his property in the service of God; if he indulged in sinful bodily enjoyments he must weary his body and trouble it by a service of privation and fasting, and rising early before daybreak. If he went astray in respect to his moral conduct he must oppose his failings by keeping to the opposite extreme, as we have pointed out in Mishneh-torah Hilkot De‘ot (chap. ii.) et passim. If his intellectual faculties have been concerned in the sin, if he has believed something false on account of the insufficiency of his intellect, and his neglect of research and proper study, he must remedy his fault by turning his thoughts entirely away from worldly affairs, and directing them exclusively to intellectual exercise, and by carefully reflecting on that which ought to form the subject of his belief. Comp. “And my heart hath been secretly enticed, but my hand touched my mouth” (Job 31:27). These words express figuratively the lesson that we should pause and stop at that which appears doubtful, as has been pointed out by us in the beginning of this treatise. The same we notice in the case of Aaron. He had his share in the sin of the golden calf, and therefore a bullock and a calf were brought by him and his successors as an offering. Similarly, the sin connected with a kid of goats was atoned for by a kid of goats. When this theory has been well established in the minds of the people, they must certainly be led by it to consider disobedience to God as a disgraceful thing. Every one will then be careful that he should not sin, and require a protracted and burdensome atonement; he will be afraid he might not be able to complete it, and will therefore altogether abstain from sinning, and avoid it. This object [of the laws under discussion] is very clear, and note it likewise.

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 46:9

In order that we may respect the sacrifices and all that is devoted to the name of God, we are told that whosoever takes part of a holy thing for common use has committed a trespass, must bring a sin-offering, and restore what he has taken with an addition of the fifth part of its value, although he may have committed the trespass in ignorance.

Midrash

Moses instructs Aaron to offer a sin-offering before entering the sanctuary to avoid condemnation from Satan, with Israel also needing atonement; the children of Israel are asked to bring more offerings than Aaron due to their past transgressions. In Song of Songs, the Temple is described as a source of awe, and the vestments of the High Priest are detailed, each atoning for specific transgressions. The Midrash also discusses the offerings brought by the princes of the tribes, each corresponding to significant figures and events in Jewish history, such as the patriarchs and the monarchy. Benjamin is falsely accused of theft, leading the brothers to return to the city.

Bamidbar Rabbah 13:14

Another matter, “vekorbano…” – what did the princes see that led them to present offerings in this manner? The Rabbis say: Even though each of them presented an identical offering, they offered it regarding significant matters, and each and every one presented according to his perspective. Naḥshon began and presented regarding the protocol of the monarchy, just as his father crowned him over his brothers, just as it says: “Judah, you, your brothers will acknowledge you…[your father's sons will prostrate themselves to you]. Judah is a lion cub…” (Genesis 49:8–9). Likewise it says: “For Judah prevailed over his brothers, as the prince would come from him” (I Chronicles 5:2). There was a tradition in the hand of the tribe of Judah, their Sages, and their prominent leaders, from Jacob our patriarch, regarding everything that is destined to befall each tribe until the messianic era. Likewise, there was a tradition in the hand of each and every tribe regarding what would befall it until the messianic era, from Jacob their father. “Vekorbano…” – he presented the dish and the basin corresponding to the kings of the house of David, who are destined to emerge from him, who ruled over the entire world, over the sea and over the land, e.g., Solomon and the messianic king. Solomon, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “For he ruled over the entire region beyond the river, from Tifsaḥ to Gaza” (I Kings 5:4). Rav and Shmuel, one said Tifsaḥ is at one end of the world and Gaza is at the other end of the world. One said: They stand adjacent to one another; just as he ruled over Tifsaḥ and over Gaza, so he ruled over the entire world. And it says: “All the world sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom…. Each would bring his tribute…” (I Kings 10:24–25). From where is it derived that he ruled over the sea? It is as it is written: “Also the fleet of Hiram, which had carried gold from Ophir…” (I Kings 10:11). “For the king had a fleet of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years…” (I Kings 10:22). And it says: “I will set his hand upon the seas, his right on the rivers” (Psalms 89:26). The messianic king, from where is it derived? It is, as it is written: "He will rule from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the land" (Psalms 72:8). Over the land, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “And all the kings, all the nations will bow to him, will serve him” (Psalms 72:11). And it says: “And behold, among the clouds of the heavens…. To him was given dominion, [honor, and kingship, and all the peoples, nations, and languages would serve him]” (Daniel 7:13–14). “The stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and filled the entire earth” (Daniel 2:35). This is why he presented a dish, corresponding to the sea that surrounds the entire world and resembles a dish. Why was “its weight one hundred and thirty”? (Numbers 7:13). It is because when the Holy One blessed be He gathered all the waters to one place on the third day of the formation of the world, he called them seas, as it is stated: “And to the gathering of the waters, He called seas [yamim]” (Genesis 1:10). The numerical value of yamim is one hundred; yod, yod are twenty, mem, mem are eighty, that is one hundred. Solomon came and added a sea to the construction of the Temple in which the priests could immerse themselves, just as it says: “He crafted the sea, of cast metal, ten cubits from brim to brim, [circular around, and its height was five cubits; a thirty-cubit line would wrap around it]” (I Kings 7:23). Corresponding to those thirty cubits that was the circumference of the sea that Solomon crafted, he added thirty shekels to the weight of the dish corresponding to the sea of Solomon. That is one hundred and thirty shekels, the weight of the dish, corresponding to the seas and to the sea of Solomon. “One silver basin” (Numbers 7:13), it is corresponding to the world, that is shaped like an orb that is tossed from hand to hand. Why was its weight “seventy shekels”? (Numbers 7:13). It is because both of them (Solomon and the Messianic king.) ruled over seventy nations, which exist from one end of the world to the other end. From where is it derived that the sea is shaped in the form of a dish and the world is shaped like an orb? It is like that which we learned: The Rabbis say: Only one that has in its hand a staff, a bird, an orb, a dish, a sword, a crown, or a ring is forbidden. (A statue of a person in whose hands one of these objects appears is considered an idol, and it is forbidden to benefit from it in any way.) A staff, as it rules the entire world with it. A bird: “My hand has grasped the riches of the peoples like a nest” (Isaiah 10:14). An orb, as the world is shaped like an orb. Rabbi Yona said: Alexander of Macedonia, when he sought to ascend heavenward, he would rise and rise until he would see the world as an orb and the sea as a dish. That is why, when they draw him, it is with an orb in his hand. Should they draw him with a dish in his hand? He does not have dominion over the sea. But the Holy One blessed be He has dominion over the sea and has dominion over the land, recues at sea and rescues on land; that is why they brought a dish corresponding to the sea and a basin corresponding to the land. “Both of them full [of high quality flour]" (Numbers 7:13), as the nation brought tributes [menaḥot] (The word menahot can also refer to meal offerings, which typically consist of high quality flour.) to Solomon; likewise they are destined to bring it to the messianic king, just as it says: “[The kings of Tarshish and of the islands will bring tribute [minḥa]]; the kings of Sheba and Seva will offer gifts” (Psalms 72:10). “Full [mele’im]” means nothing other than gifts, just as it says: “And gave them all [vaymalum] to the king” (I Samuel 18:27). “High quality flour [solet]" (Numbers 7:13), just as it says: "valued [hamesulaim] like gold" (Lamentations 4:2). "Mixed with oil” (Numbers 7:13), just as it says: “A good name is better than fragrant oil” (Ecclesiastes 7:1), and it says: “Your name is like poured oil” (Song of Songs 1:3), as their good name would go forth throughout the world. Why were they of silver? It is just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, [full of incense]” (Numbers 7:14), corresponding to the ten generations from Peretz to David, as it is stated: “These are the generations of Peretz: [Peretz begot Hetzron]; and Hetzron begot [Ram, and Ram begot Aminadav;] Aminadav begot Naḥshon, [and Naḥshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Oved]; and Oved begot [Yishai], and Yishai begot David” (Ruth 4:18–22). “One…ladle,” as they were all like one hand, all full-fledged righteous men. That is, “full of incense” (Numbers 7:14), as their actions were pleasant like the fragrance of the incense. “One young bull” (Numbers 7:15), corresponding to Abraham, who was the primary progenitor, and who, in his regard, it is stated: “Abraham ran to the cattle [and took a young bull]” (Genesis 18:7). “One ram” (Numbers 7:15), this is Isaac, as, in his regard it is stated: “He took the ram and he offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son” (Genesis 22:13). “One sheep” (Numbers 7:15), corresponding to Jacob, in whose regard it is stated: “Jacob separated the sheep” (Genesis 30:40). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:16), corresponding to Judah, who brought Joseph’s fine tunic that he had immersed in the blood of the goat, as it is stated: “They slaughtered a goat [and they dipped the tunic in the blood]" (Genesis 37:31). Judah brought it to his father and said: “Identify this, please, is it your son’s tunic?” (Genesis 37:32). That is why it was meted to him with the same measure, as Tamar said to him: “Identify, please, whose signet, belt, [and staff are these?]” (Genesis 38:25). That is why sin offering is stated in this regard, as they brought it as atonement for him, because he brought anguish to his father. “And for the peace offering [hashelamim], two cattle” (Numbers 7:17) – these are David and Solomon, as they initiated the monarchy, as cattle [bakar] is nothing other than an expression of monarchy, just as it says: “Butter of cattle [bakar] and milk of sheep…” (Deuteronomy 32:14), and we translate it: Give them the plunder of their kings. (Targum Onkelos on the verse. Shelamim) , because they were full-fledged righteous men, (Shelamim is expounded as though it is written shelemim, complete.) and in their days, Israel were flawless [mushlamim], and in the days of Solomon, the kingdom was complete [shelema], as it is stated: “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23). The two of them built the Temple; David made the foundation, and Solomon built it. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:17) – these are fifteen corresponding to the fifteen kings who were from Reḥavam until Zedekiah, king son of a king. Some were full-fledged righteous men, some were middling, and some were full-fledged wicked men. “This was the offering of Naḥshon son of Aminadav” (Numbers 7:17). When the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering corresponding to the order of the patriarchs and the royal dynasty, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Naḥshon son of Aminadav.”

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:5

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:49). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]….” – this is the offering that he presented in the name of Jacob, who had him precede Manasseh, and in the name of Joseph, who, because of his love, Jacob blessed him all those blessings, just as it says: “He blessed Joseph and said: The God [before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked…]” (Genesis 48:15), and it says: “By you Israel shall bless, saying: May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh…” (Genesis 48:20). “Dish [kaarat]” – this is Jacob; do not read it as kaarat, but rather, as akeret, who uprooted [akar] the right hand from Manasseh in favor of Ephraim. “Silver” – after, “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20); what he said to Joseph: “His father refused, and said: I know, my son, I know; he too shall become a people…” (Genesis 48:19). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – corresponding to the one hundred and thirty words that there are from “he laid it on Ephraim’s head” (Genesis 48:14) until “he placed Ephraim before Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – this is Joseph, who was cast away [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “One” – as he was king in Egypt, just as it says: “One of the people (Avimelekh said this referring to himself.) almost lay [with your wife]” (Genesis 26:10). Likewise it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land…” (Genesis 42:6). “Silver” – after “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver,” as due to his wisdom he was privileged to achieve kingship, just as it says: “After God has disclosed all this to you.… You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:39–40). “Seventy shekels in the sacred shekel” – as Gabriel came and added one letter from the name of the Holy One blessed be He to his name and taught him seventy languages, as it is stated: “He established it as a precept for Joseph [bihosef] (He added a heh, changing Joseph [Yosef] to Yehosef.) when he went out over Egypt; I learned a language I had not known” (Psalms 81:6), as were it not so, the Egyptians would not have accepted Joseph to rule over them. “Both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” – Jacob and Joseph were both full-fledged righteous men, and the two of them resembled one another. This accords with what Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2). It should have said nothing other than: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Reuben.” Why is it stated: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph”? It is to teach you that Joseph resembled his father in every respect. Just as Jacob was born circumcised, so too, Joseph was born circumcised. Just as this one, his mother was barren, so too, that one, his mother was barren. Just as this one, his mother suffered from the pain of her pregnancy, so too that one, his mother suffered during birth. Just as this one, his mother bore two, so too that one, his mother bore two. Just as this one, his brother seeks to kill him, this one, too, his brothers seek to kill him. This one, his brother hates [soneh] him, and that one, likewise. This one is a shepherd and that one is a shepherd. This one is hated [nistam] and that one is hated. (See Genesis 27:41, 49:23.) This one was stolen from twice: “Stolen in the day and stolen at night” (Genesis 31:39); that one, there is a double expression of stealing: “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti] [from the land of the Hebrews]” (Genesis 40:15). This one was blessed with ten blessings, (See Genesis 27:28–29.) and that one was blessed with ten blessings. (See Deuteronomy 33:13–17.) This one departed and went outside of the Land of Israel, and that one departed and went outside of the Land of Israel. This one took a wife outside of the Land of Israel, and that one took a wife outside of the Land of Israel. This one begot children outside of the Land of Israel, and that one begot children outside of the Land of Israel. This one, angels accompanied him, and that one, angels accompanied him. (A midrash says that when Joseph went to his brothers at the behest of his father, three angels accompanied him.) This one ascended to greatness by means of a dream (See Genesis 28:10–16.) and that one ascended to greatness by means of a dream. This one, his father-in-law’s household was blessed on his account, and that one, his father-in-law’s (According to Bereshit Rabba 86:3, Joseph’s father-in-law Potifera was Potifar.) household was blessed on his account. This one descended to Egypt, and that one descended to Egypt. This one ended the famine and that one ended the famine. (See Bereshit Rabba 89:9.) This one administered an oath to his son, and that one administered an oath to his brothers. This one died in Egypt, and that one died in Egypt. This one was embalmed, and that one was embalmed. This one, his bones ascended, and that one, his bones ascended. Because Joseph resembled his father, that is why it is stated: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph”; and that is why it is stated: “Both of them full…” – regarding Jacob and Joseph. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:50). “One…ladle [kaf]” – it corresponds to the palm of his right hand, which he placed on Ephraim’s head. Why does it call it “one”? It is because it is more significant than the left. “Gold…ten shekels” – it corresponds to the ten words that there are from: “Israel extended his right hand” (Genesis 48:14) until “and he was the younger” (Genesis 48:14). “Filled with incense” – Jacob saw this matter through the divine spirit, that Ephraim was worthy for him to place his right hand on his head. Likewise it says: “Guiding [sikel] his hands, as Manasseh was the first born” (Genesis 48:14). His hands were guided [hiskilu] by the divine spirit, just as it says: “Maskil of Eitan the Ezraḥite” (Psalms 89:1). (This is a psalm stated by Eitan the Ezraḥite with divine guidance.) “One young bull, one ram, one sheep in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:51). “One young [ben bakar] bull” – corresponding to Abraham, as it is stated: “Abraham ran to the cattle [habakar]” (Genesis 18:7). “One ram” – corresponding to Isaac, in whose regard it is written: “[Abraham…] took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son” (Genesis 22:13). “One sheep” – corresponding to Jacob, in whose regard it is written: “Jacob separated the sheep” (Genesis 30:40). Why did he sacrifice these three kinds of burnt offerings? It corresponds to the three patriarchs, corresponding to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “Let my name and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, be called upon them” (Genesis 48:16). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:52). “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Elishama son of Amihud” (Numbers 7:53). “One goat as a sin offering” – corresponding to Joseph, as it is written: “They slaughtered a goat” (Genesis 37:31). Why did he sacrifice this corresponding to Joseph? It is because when Jacob blessed them with the name of the three patriarchs, likewise, he blessed them with the name of Joseph and made them dependent upon him, as it is stated: “By you Israel shall bless, saying: May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the two blessings that he blessed them: the former, “[may the angel…] bless the lads” (Genesis 48:16), and the latter, “by you Israel shall bless….” “Five rams, [five goats, five lambs]” – three species, corresponding to three generations that Joseph saw for Ephraim, who were attributed to Joseph, and they were patrilineal houses, as it is stated: “Joseph saw great-grandchildren from Ephraim” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise it says: “These are the sons of Ephraim by their families: Of Shutelaḥ.… And these are the sons of Shutelaḥ: Of Eran…” (Numbers 26:35–36). Ephraim, Shutelaḥ, Eran, these are three sons from three generations. Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five words (In the Hebrew phrase.) of “he placed Ephraim before Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20), as it is from there that Ephraim merited to present his offering first. “This was the offering…” – because he presented the offering in this order, the Holy One blessed be He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Elishama….”

Bereshit Rabbah 84:19

“Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he rent his garments” (Genesis 37:29). “Reuben returned to the pit” – where had he been? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua: Rabbi Eliezer said: In his sackcloth and his fasting. (He was preoccupied with his repentance for his action involving Bilha (Genesis 35:22).) When he was free, he went and peered into that pit. That is what is written: “Reuben returned to the pit.” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘A person has never sinned before Me and repented, and you are the first to initiate repentance. As you live, your descendant will arise and be the first to initiate repentance.’ (He will be the first to teach about the full power of repentance, such as the fact that repentance out of love can cause one’s sins to be considered as merits (Yefe To’ar). ) Who is that? It is Hosea, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hosea 14:2). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat” – why a goat? Because its blood is similar to that of man. “They sent the fine tunic, and they brought it to their father and said: We found this. Identify, please: Is it your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:32). “They sent the fine tunic…” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said: “Identify, please”; as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please”’ (Genesis 38:25). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him; Joseph has been mauled” (Genesis 37:33). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic” – he said: I do not know what I am seeing. (Jacob was used to a high level of perception, fueled by the Divine Spirit. But from this incident until he reunited with Joseph, that clarity left him, and he was unsure of the exact facts or full ramifications of what he was seeing (Maharzu). ) “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him…” – Rav Huna said: The Divine Spirit flashed in him: “A savage beast devoured him” – this is Potifar’s wife. (Rav Huna explains that although Jacob himself was unsure what had occurred, he said something that alluded to future events (Maharzu). )

Bereshit Rabbah 84:7

“Joseph, seventeen years old…” – and you say he was a lad? (The term lad, used here in connection with Joseph, generally indicates someone younger than seventeen.) It is because he would perform the actions of a lad – he would groom his eyes, lift his heels, and curl his hair. “Was herding…Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” – what did he say? Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon: Rabbi Meir says: Your sons are suspected of eating the limb of a living animal. Rabbi Shimon says: They are directing their glances at the girls of the land. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are demeaning the sons of the maidservants and calling them slaves. Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said: He was punished for all three of them. “Balance and scales of justice are the Lord’s” (Proverbs 16:11) – the Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You said: Your sons are suspected of eating the limb of a living animal; as you live, even at their time of corruption, they will slaughter and only then will they eat’ – “and slaughtered a goat” (Genesis 37:31). (After the sale of Joseph, they slaughtered a goat and dipped Joseph’s tunic in its blood. The verse emphasizes that they first slaughtered the goat. ) ‘You said: They are demeaning the sons of the maidservants and calling them slaves’ – “Joseph was sold as a slave” (Psalms 105:17). ‘You said: They are directing their glances at the girls of the land; as you live, I will incite the bear against you’ – “His master’s wife cast her eyes [upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me]” (Genesis 39:7).

Bereshit Rabbah 92:8

“He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words; the one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me, and you shall be exonerated” (Genesis 44:10). “He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words” – ten people, one of whom is implicated in theft, are they not all incarcerated? But I will not do so. “The one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me.” “He searched, he began with the eldest, and with the youngest he concluded; the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” (Genesis 44:12). “He searched, he began with the eldest and with the youngest he concluded” – why did he do so? It was so they would not say that he knew where it had been placed. “The goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” – once the goblet was found, they said to him: ‘What [have you done,] thief who is son of a thief?’ (The other brothers accused Benjamin of stealing the goblet and endangering them all, and criticized him as a thief son of a thief, as his mother, Rachel, stole her father’s household idols (Genesis 31:19).) He said to them: ‘Is the man [who sold] Joseph here? Are there goats here? (A reference to the goat the brothers had slaughtered in order to dip Joseph’s tunic in its blood so that Jacob would assume that Joseph had been mauled to death (Genesis 37:31). ) Can brothers who sold their brother [accuse me in this manner]? Astounding!’ “They rent their garments, and each man loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city” (Genesis 44:13). “They rent their garments…” – Rabbi Pinḥas in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: The tribes caused their father to rend, (Jacob rent his garments upon learning of Joseph’s disappearance (Genesis 37:34). ) that is why, they, too, were afflicted. “Each man loaded his donkey…” – each of them would take his burden with one hand and place it on his donkey. (This was an expression of their great strength.) “They returned to the city…” – Rabbi Abahu said: It was a metropolis, and it says: “To the city”? (The verse could have stated “to Egypt.” The phrase “to the city” implies that it was like any other city, not the seat of power of the Egyptian empire (Maharzu).) Rather, it teaches that it was no more significant in their eyes than a city of ten people. (The brothers were not afraid of having to wage war and conquer the city (Etz Yosef). )

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 7:3

R. Judah held that he told his father: My brothers eat the limbs of living animals. However, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Even in the hour of their deepest degradation, they will not do that. They will slaughter their animals according to the rules of ritual slaughter, as is said: And they slaughtered the he-goat and dipped the coat (Gen. 37:31).

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 4:4:4

Another matter: “Behind your braid your hair is like a flock of goats that streams down [shegaleshu] from Mount Gilad” (Song of Songs 4:1) – the mountain from whose midst you took away [shegelashtem], I rendered a memorial for the nations of the world. Which is this? This is the Temple, as it is stated: “You are awesome, God, from Your Temple” (Psalms 68:36). From where does awe emerge? Is it not from the Temple? This is what it says: “You shall observe My Sabbaths and you shall revere My Sanctuary” (Leviticus 26:2) – as it is sanctified in its destruction just as it was sanctified while it was built. The matters can be inferred a fortiori: If to His Temple the Holy One blessed be He did not show favor, when He will come to exact punishment upon its destroyers all the more so. What is it that you took away from its midst? “Your teeth are like a flock of ordered ewes” (Song of Songs 4:2) – defined matters, these are the vestments of the High Priesthood, as we learned there: (Yoma 71b) The High Priest serves in eight vestments and the common [priest] in four: tunic, trousers, mitre, and sash. The High Priest adds beyond these the breastplate, ephod, robe, and the sacred frontplate. The tunic would atone for murderers, just as it states: “They dipped the tunic in blood” (Genesis 37:31); some say for those who don garments of diverse kinds, just as it states: “He made for him a fine tunic” (Genesis 37:3). (This verse refers to the tunic that Jacob made for Joseph. According to one opinion, it contained wool and linen (see Bereshit Rabba 84:8). At the very least, its stripes could be reminiscent of different types of materials. The midrash takes this as an allusion to the fact that the tunic of the High Priest atones for the transgression of diverse kinds.) The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, just as it states: “Make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the haughty, just as you say: “You shall place the mitre on his head” (Exodus 29:6). For what did the sash atone? For those with criminal thoughts. (Apparently text should be added here such that this sentence reads: For thieves, and some say for criminal thoughts (see Vayikra Rabba 10:6).) The reason for the one who says for the thieves, it is because it was hollow, corresponding to thieves who perform their actions clandestinely. (There was space inside the sash, like a secret hiding place.) According to the one who says it was for criminal thoughts, Rabbi Levi said: It was thirty-two cubits long, and he would twist it to this side and that. (He would wrap it all the way around himself multiple times, representing the twisted thoughts of those with criminal and dishonest intent.) The breastplate would atone for those who distort justice, just as it says: “You shall place in the breastplate of judgment” (Exodus 28:30). The ephod would atone for idol worshippers, just as it says: “No ephod and no terafim” (Hosea 3:4). (Terafim are household idols.) The robe would atone for evil speech. Rabbi Simon [said] in the name of Rabbi Yonatan of Beit Guvrin: There are two items for which there was no atonement (No offering designated to atone for it.) but the Torah designated atonement for them, and these are: Evil speech and one who murders unwittingly. There was no atonement for evil speech, but the Torah designated atonement for it: the bell of the robe, as it is stated: “It shall be upon Aaron to serve, and its sound shall be heard…” (Exodus 28:35). Let the sound come and atone for the sound of evil speech. There was no atonement for one who murders unwittingly, but the Torah designated atonement for it, this is the death of the High Priest, as it stated: “He shall dwell in it until the death of the High Priest” (Numbers 35:25). The frontplate would atone for the impudent, and there is one who says for the blasphemers. The one who says for the impudent, just as it says: “On Aaron’s forehead [metzaḥ]” (Exodus 28:38), and below it says: “Yet you had the impudence [metzaḥ] of a harlot…” (Jeremiah 3:3). According to the one who says for the blasphemers, “it shall be on his forehead always” (Exodus 28:38), and below it says: “the stone penetrated his forehead” (I Samuel 17:49). (The stone shot by David penetrated the forehead of Goliath, who had blasphemed God.) It is written: “He fell on his face to the ground” (I Samuel 17:49). Why is it that “he fell on his face”? (The force of the stone to his forehead should have caused him to fall backward.) Rather, initially you learn: “His height was six cubits and one span” (I Samuel 17:4) – so that this righteous one will not be inconvenienced to walk his entire height, therefore, it is written: “He fell on his face to the ground.” (Divine providence had Goliath fall forward so that David would not have to walk too far in order to cut off his head.) Rabbi Huna said: It is because Dagon his god was engraved on his heart, to fulfill what is stated: “I will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols” (Leviticus 26:30). Another matter: “He fell on his face to the ground” (I Samuel 17:49) – Rabbi said: So that the disgusting mouth that cursed and blasphemed would be hidden [in the ground], like that which is stated: “Hide them in the dust together” (Job 40:13). Alternatively, “he fell on his face to the ground” – so that this righteous one would not have a troubled mind. (He would be certain that Goliath no longer posed a danger even though he was not yet dead.) Alternatively, “he fell on his face” – so that this righteous one would come and step on [the back of] his neck, to fulfill what is stated: “You will trample their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:29). “That have come up from bathing” (Song of Songs 4:2) – they atone for Israel. “That are all paired” (Song of Songs 4:2) – these are the two braided chains of gold that emerge from the midst of the breastplate and appeared from its midst like two tassels. “And there is none missing among them” (Song of Songs 4:2) – that not one of them was tattered. “Your lips are like a scarlet thread” (Song of Songs 4:3) – this is the sacred crown. (This is a reference to the blue threads that passed over the head of the High Priest and fastened the frontlet to his forehead.) “Your speech is lovely” (Song of Songs 4:3) – this is the frontplate. Rabbi Yonatan was ascending to pray in Jerusalem. When he reached a certain Pelatinus, (This is a reference to Mount Gerizim, which the Cuthites and Samaritans considered sacred.) a certain Cuthite encountered him. He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Where are you going?’ [Rabbi Yonatan]said to him: ‘To pray in Jerusalem.’ He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Would it not be preferable for you to ascend and pray on this blessed mountain and not pray in those ruins [in Jerusalem]?’ [Rabbi Yonatan] said to him: ‘Why is this mountain blessed?’ He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Because it was not flooded with the Flood waters.’ That is what people say: The Land of Israel was not flooded with the Flood waters. An answer slipped the mind of Rabbi Yonatan at that moment and he did not respond to him. His donkey driver said to him: ‘Rabbi, allow me, and I will respond to him.’ He said to him: ‘Respond to him.’ He said to that Cuthite: ‘This mountain, what do you consider it? If it is one of the high mountains, is it not written: “All the high mountains were covered” (Genesis 7:19)? If it is one of the low mountains, it is written: “Fifteen cubits upward the waters intensified, and the mountains were covered” (Genesis 7:20). The verse did not address the low mountains. If regarding the high mountains it is written: “All the mountains were covered,” all the more so regarding the low ones.’ At that moment the Cuthite fell silent and was unable to find a response. At that moment, Rabbi Yonatan dismounted and drove his donkey driver three mil, and he read in his regard three verses: “You will be the most blessed of all the peoples; there will be no male or female infertile among you or among your animals” (Deuteronomy 7:14), even among those of you who work with animals; and this: “Any weapon crafted against you will not succeed…” (Isaiah 54:17); and this: “your temple is like a pomegranate slice [rakatekh]” (Song of Songs 4:3) – even the empty [reikan] among Israel is packed with answers like a pomegranate. “Behind your braid [letzamatekh]” – and it goes without saying regarding the modest and the fervent [metzumatin] among you.

Sifra, Shemini, Mekhilta DeMiluim II 3

3) (Vayikra 9:2): "And he said to Aaron: Take for yourself a bull-calf for a sin-offering": We are hereby taught that Moses said to Aaron: Aaron, my brother, even though the Holy One Blessed be He has consented to forgive your sins (in the episode of the golden calf), you must "place something in Satan's mouth." Send your gift before you before entering the sanctuary lest he condemn you upon your entering the sanctuary. And lest you say: Is it only I who need atonement? Israel, too, needs atonement, viz. (Vayikra 9:3): "And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying: Take a kid of goats for a sin-offering, and a calf, etc." And why was it Israel's lot to bring more than Aaron? He said to them: You are culpable in the beginning and culpable in the end. In the beginning (at the sale of Yosef) — (Bereshith 37:31): "And they slaughtered a kid of goats, etc."; in the end — (Shemoth 32:8): "They have made for themselves a molten calf." Let a kid of goats come and atone for the "act" of goats, let a calf come and atone for the "act" of the calf.

Musar

Chazal explain that Jacob was punished measure for measure for his brothers' actions, including being sold as a servant and being suspected of illicit relations. The removal of the letter א from Adam's name symbolized the introduction of death into the world, with Jacob's mourning for Joseph reflecting the departure of the Holy Spirit from him. Joseph's emotional distress mirrored Jacob's anguish, highlighting their spiritual connection. Joseph's inability to return to Canaan while alive was also politically motivated.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:8

And Chazal say concerning this in the Midrash (Midrash Rabbah): "(Mishlei 16:11): 'A scale and just balances are the L-rd's' — for all of them he was punished measure for measure. For 'they call their brothers servants' — Jacob was sold as a servant. For 'they are suspect of illicit relations' — all of Egypt suspected him with the wife of Potiphar. For 'they are suspect of eiver min hachai' because he did not see them perform shechitah — this was a mistake, and Scripture thus apprises us (Bereshith 37:3): 'And they slaughtered a kid of goats' (after having sold him) and did not eat it live."

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 26

We explained that those letters signified death, i.e. the spilling of man's blood. The removal of the letter א caused the substitution of the letter ע. This meant that עור ובשר, skin and flesh, replaced the entity previously called אדם, and death in the form of blood entered the world. Expressed differently, Adam's כתונת was removed. When Jacob provided Joseph with a כתונת, this symbolized the reversal of that negative development. When the brothers dipped that כתונת, coat, in blood, they symbolically nullified Jacob's intention. As a result of this, the Holy Spirit departed from Jacob; he remained in mourning, and until he received the news that Joseph was alive the Presence of the שכינה did not return to him. Only then does the Torah state: ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, "Jacob's (holy) spirit revived" (45,27). Onkelos translates those words as: "The prophetic spirit again came to rest on their father Jacob." It is reasonable to assume that the Holy Spirit departed from Joseph at the time it departed from Jacob. No doubt Joseph experienced emotional distress, if only because he felt the distress his father must have experienced by not knowing his favorite son's whereabouts. Besides, how could Joseph, who was the spiritual extension of Jacob, not be sensitive to his father's anguish? Jacob's descent to Egypt must also be seen from this angle, i.e. two parts becoming re-united. [It was politically impossible for Joseph to return to the land of Canaan while alive, since we know that he could not even be buried in Canaan after he died. Ed.]

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that the offerings brought on the eighth day after the seven-day consecration of the priests were a form of initiation for the priests, similar to the meal-offering of baken cakes for future generations on the day of anointment. These offerings were seen as atonement for the incident of the golden calf, with the he-goat sin-offering for the people symbolizing their sin at the beginning and the calf sin-offering for Aaron representing the incident of the golden calf. The tunic of the priestly garments atoned for the spilling of blood, the pants for sexual prohibitions, the turban for haughtiness, the belt for thoughts of the heart, the breastplate for incorrect judgments, the apron for idol worship, the robe for evil speech, and the frontplate for brazenness. The act of dipping karpas in salt water or vinegar on the seder night symbolizes the beginning and end of the Exodus story through acts of dipping, highlighting the journey from slavery to freedom.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 28:4:1

ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו, “These are the garments they are to make, etc.” Our sages in Erchin 16 say that just as the sacrifices themselves were instruments of atonement for the Jewish people, so the priestly garments (when worn at the right time in the right place by the right people) were also instruments helping the Jewish people to achieve atonement. This is the reason that the section dealing with the priestly garments was written right next to the section dealing with the sacrifices themselves (the consecration offerings 29,18). The breastplate would atone for sins committed erroneously by judges, as is written: ועשית חושן משפט, “you are to make the breastplate of judgment” (verse 15). The ephod would secure atonement for the sin of idolatry committed inadvertently as we are reminded by Hoseah 3,4: “and there will be no ephod and no teraphim.” It is also written in Judges 8,27 that Gideon converted gifts of gold given to him into a garment called ephod, something that was accounted a sin for him [seeing he did not treat it as a garment but as a sort of monument. Ed.]. The robe called מעיל secured atonement for loose use of one’s tongue, לשון הרע; this is symbolized by the bells at the lower hem of that tunic, מעיל. This robe had a number of bells at the lower edge of which could be heard when the High Priest wearing it was approaching. Just as the evil tongue is something that was spread in public, so the atonement procedure was by means of a garment heard in public. When evil was spoken in private by someone, (who was unaware that he was guilty of unfair comments) the means of atonement for this was the incense. The checkered tunic, כתונת תשבץ, would secure atonement for blood spilled inadvertently. This has been alluded to in Genesis 36,31: “they dipped the tunic in blood.” This tunic resembled a type of shirt and was worn next to the skin (like a T-shirt with sleeves). It was embroidered with gold threads designed in a checkered manner so that it appeared to have “stripes” through it. This is what is meant by (28,39) “you shall make the tunic of a box-like knit of fine linen.” The word תשבץ is the same as משבצות זהב (compare Maimonides Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 9,19). The headgear worn by the High Priest, i.e. the מצנפת, would obtain forgiveness for haughty bearing and deportment. It was appropriate that something worn high on top of one’s head should be the symbol by means of which haughtiness could be atoned for. The אבנט, belt, would secure atonement for lewd fantasies and other sinful thoughts. Our sages in Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 7,3 claim that the length of this belt was 32 cubits (about 20 meters) The golden head band, ציץ, worn by the High Priest on his forehead would atone for effrontery. We have a verse in Jeremiah 3,3 describing effrontery as associated with the forehead. The prophet speaks of the “brazenness of a harlot,” using the word מצח to define brazenness. Aaron had a total of eight garments of which the Torah lists only six. The Torah did not mention his linen trousers as only the garments Moses was to dress him in qualified for this paragraph. The headband, being made of pure gold, is also not enumerated as one of the garments, as, strictly speaking, it was an ornament rather than a garment. The instruction for Aaron to wear linen pants was given only in verse 42 after Moses had already been instructed to dress him in his garments. Had Moses been meant to dress Aaron in his pants the instructions to dress Aaron would not have been written only at the end of verse 42 The function of the pants as a means of securing atonement extended to sins of a sexual or incestuous nature as man is perceived as using his legs to run after chances to obtain sexual gratification.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 9:3:1

קחו שעיר עזים לחטאת ועגל וכבש בני שנה תמימה לעולה, “take a he-goat for a sin-offering and a calf as well as an unblemished sheep in its first year for a burnt-offering.” In Sifra Shemini 3 the question is posed why the Israelites had to offer more sacrifices than Aaron, i.e. both a he-goat, a calf and a sheep. The answer given is that the Israelites had sinned with a he-goat when they had drenched Joseph’s coat in its blood at the time; now they had been guilty of committing a sin using a calf. It was appropriate therefore that they receive expiation for both of these sins. Each of these two sin-offerings was to atone for the sin committed with its counterpart.

Ramban on Leviticus 9:3:1

And unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak. This means that Aaron is to speak to them thus, as it was His wish that Aaron should be the one who commands in the name of G-d, and that he should be the one who would bring the offerings, in order to elevate him in the eyes of the people. The correct interpretation is that the expression and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, means you [Aaron] and the elders mentioned [in Verse 1], since it was for that purpose that he called them, (As Verse 1 states: And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel.) so that they should speak to the children of Israel, as in the verse, And Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them: Draw out [and take you lambs]. (Exodus 12:21.) Or it may be that [Moses] said to each of the elders, and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak [the singular word thou thus referring to each one of the elders]. Accordingly, the meaning of the section is as follows: and he [Moses] said to Aaron: Take thee etc., and to [each of] the elders he said, and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak. For one who speaks to many people usually addresses his command to each person individually, something like that which it is said, And I commanded you at that time, saying etc.: Ye shall pass over armed before your brethren. (Deuteronomy 3:18.) There are many such cases in the Book of Deuteronomy [where Moses speaks to the whole congregation, when his message is actually addressed to each person individually]. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the verse, And Moses said: This is the thing which the Eternal commanded that ye should do, (Verse 6.) means that “Moses had already told them, this is the thing.” If so, it is possible that the meaning of the verses be as follows: Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel, and Moses said: This thing which the Eternal has commanded me ye should do, that the Glory of the Eternal may appear unto you; (Verse 6.) and he said unto Aaron: Take thee a bull-calf etc.; and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, saying: Take ye a he-goat for a sin-offering etc. (Verse 3. — Ibn Ezra thus transposes the contents of Verse 6, and explains that it was said immediately in Verse 1, as an introduction to the specific commands following.) Thus [Moses] spoke briefly at first [as in Verse 6] and then explained himself at the end [in Verses 2-4]. But this is not correct. Rather, after Moses had mentioned to them the offerings [which they were required to bring on that day], and they brought that which Moses commanded, (Verse 5.) he said to them again, This is the thing which the Eternal commanded that ye should do, (Verse 6.) meaning that they should bring the offerings in the order that he would command them, and afterwards the Glory of the Eternal would appear to them. Now since he had said, for today the Eternal appeareth unto you, (Verse 4.) he went back and said that He would appear to them through His Glory. Now these offerings [which were brought on the eighth day after the completion of the seven-day consecration of the priests], were not mentioned in the section of And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto Me, (Exodus 29:1.) for there He only gave the command about the consecration, and their days of consecration were completed with the seven days and their offerings, but now on the eighth day, they themselves brought the offerings [whereas on the seven days of the consecration, the offerings were brought by Moses]. Thus these offerings [brought on the eighth day] were a kind of initiation for the priests, as was the meal-offering of the baken cakes (Above, 6:13-15.) command for future generations [which were brought] on the day when he is anointed. (Ibid., Verse 13. I.e., on the day that the ordinary priests are installed into the priestly service. The High Priest, however, brought this meal-offering every day. Ramban thus suggests that the offerings brought on the eighth day [as explained in this section] were a sort of initiation, comparable to the meal-offering brought in future generations by the ordinary priest once in his lifetime, and by the High Priest every day.) It is possible that it was in order to atone for the incident of the golden calf that He now gave them these added offerings, for at the time when He commanded the section of And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto Me, (Exodus 29:1.) the golden calf had not yet been made, as I have explained, (See Ramban above, 8:1: “By way of the proper interpretation of Scripture etc.”) and therefore He did not mention them [these offerings] there. It is thus not as Rashi wrote there, (Exodus 29:1.) that the bullock [offered on each of the seven days of consecration] was to atone for the incident of the golden calf, but these bullocks were to purify the altar, (See Ramban above, 8:15.) and for Aaron and his sons in order to hallow them, (Exodus 29:1.) and it was this calf [brought] on the eighth day that was to atone for the incident of the golden calf. Thus Aaron’s offerings [on this eight day] were the same as his offerings on the Day of Atonement, (Further, 16:3: Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering.) [namely, the bull-calf for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering, as mentioned in the verse before us], and the people’s sin-offering [on this eighth day] was the same as their sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, namely, one he-goat for a sin-offering. (Verse 3 here, and further, 16:5. — On the Day of Atonement there were actually two he-goats for a sin-offering, but only one was brought as an offering in the Sanctuary (see further, 16:8-22).) So also have the Rabbis said in the Tosephta of the section of consecration, in the Torath Kohanim, (Torath Kohanim, at the beginning of Shemini 4.) that this calf [brought on the eighth day] was to atone for the incident of the golden calf. Thus they interpreted: “For what reason did Israel bring more offerings [on this day] than Aaron? (Israel’s sin-offering on that day was a he-goat, while Aaron’s was a calf. As a burnt-offering Israel brought a calf and a ram, while Aaron’s was only a ram. The Torath Kohanim suggests a reason why the people’s offerings had to be more than those of Aaron, and also why their sin-offering was a he-goat, unlike that of Aaron which was a calf.) It was on account of what He said to them: ‘You [the people] have in your hands [sin] at the beginning, and you have in your hands [sin] at the end.’ You have sinned at the beginning, as it is written [when the brothers sold Joseph], and they killed a he-goat, (Genesis 37:31.) and you have sinned at the end, as it is said, they have made them a molten calf. (Exodus 32:8.) Therefore let them bring the he-goat [for a sin-offering] to atone for the incident connected with that of the he-goat, and let them bring a calf [as a burnt-offering] to atone for the incident of the golden calf.” It would appear that because the reason for Aaron’s sin-offering [on this eighth day] was the same as that of his sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, therefore he burnt it [outside the camp] (Further, Verse 11. Rashi wrote that this was done at the express command of G-d. But Ramban at this point suggests that this procedure was adopted on the basis of a similar law on the Day of Atonement, since the reason for both offerings was identical.) as the one of the Day of Atonement is burnt, (Further, 16:27.) even though this sin-offering [of the eighth day] was “an outer sin-offering” (See in Seder Tzav, Note 52. Ramban’s concluding thought here — “for Moses did not explain that he should do so” — is thus to be understood as follows: Since Scripture does not relate that Moses commanded Aaron to burn his sin-offering outside the camp although it was not “an inner sin-offering,” the question arises why did Aaron do so [as stated in Verse 11]? It must be, Ramban suggests, because the reason for Aaron’s sin-offering on this eighth day of the initiation was the same as that of his sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, which being “an inner sin-offering” is rightfully burnt outside the camp, and hence Aaron on this eighth day did similarly. In the text following, Ramban will suggest that Aaron actually received this command from Moses, and the reason why Scripture did not mention it is explained in the text of Ramban.) [while that of the Day of Atonement was “an inner sin-offering”], for Moses did not explain that he should do so. But perhaps Aaron was indeed so commanded, and [it is not mentioned because] Scripture did not want to prolong the matter, it being known that Aaron would only do what Moses said, and that Moses would only say what G-d had commanded.

Rashi on Ezekiel 23:15:2

hanging turbans [Heb. סְרוּחֵי טְבוּלִים.] [סְרוּחֵי means] oversized, large hats. Menachem (p. 97) explains [טְבוּלִים] like (Gen. 37: 31) “and dipped (וַיִטְבְּלוּ) the shirt in the blood.” Thus the interpretation of סְרוּחֵי טְבוּלִים is as follows (Exod. 26:12): “The overhanging (וְסֵרַח) length” of the dyed turban. There is no [other occurrence of a word] similar to טְבוּלִים, and its meaning is derived from the context, and so did Jonathan render: helmets placed on their heads].

Rashi on Genesis 37:2:4

את דבתם רעה THEIR EVIL REPORT — Whatever he saw wrong in his brothers, the sons of Leah, he reported to his father: that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal, that they treated the sons of the handmaids with contempt, calling them slaves, and that they were suspected of living in an immoral manner. With three such similar matters he was therefore punished. In consequence of his having stated that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal Scripture states, (Genesis 37:31) “And they slew a he-goat" after they had sold him and they did not eat its flesh whilst the animal was still living. And because of the slander which he related about them that they called their brothers slaves — (Psalms 105:17) “Joseph was sold for a slave.” And because he charged them with immorality (Genesis 39:7) “his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 84:7).

Rashi on Numbers 7:22:1

שעיר עזים [ONE] KID OF THE GOATS — in order to make expiation for the “selling of Joseph” with reference to whom it states, (Genesis 37:31) “and they slaughtered a kid of the goats” (Numbers Rabbah 13:13).

Rashi on Proverbs 19:7:4

he pursues statements which are futile He seeks to promulgate the halachah, but it is not in his possession. The midrash interprets it as concerning Joseph, who spread slander about his brothers. He would say to his father that they were suspected of [eating] limbs from a living animal. Therefore, they hated him, and he was called a poor man because he would spread false rumors about them and look for statements that were not true (לא המה). We read לו, “to him,” for he would pursue statements for his own benefit, and in Joseph’s matter, they were his, because his slander returned upon him. He would say that they ate limbs from a living animal, but Scripture testifies about them that even in the time of sin, they would slaughter a kid, as it is said: (Gen. 37:31) “and they slaughtered a kid.” He would say that they degraded the sons of the maidservants. Therefore, Joseph was sold as a slave. He would say that they gazed upon the women of the land. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “By your life, I will incite a bear upon you.” Therefore, (ibid. 39:7) “his master’s wife lifted, etc.” [This appears] in Genesis Rabbah [see 84:7].

The Jonathan Sacks Haggadah, Karpas 1:1

KARPAS Dipping karpas in salt water or vinegar is one of the things we do on the seder night to arouse the curiosity of children so they will ask, “What makes this night unlike all other nights?” It is one of the two acts referred to in the question “every other night we do not dip [our food] at all, but tonight we will dip it twice.” The other, just before the meal, is the dipping of maror in ḥaroset. There is symbolic significance in these two acts. The Exodus began and ended with acts of dipping. It began when Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. They dipped his robe in the blood of a slaughtered goat (Gen. 37:31) and brought it to Jacob to persuade him that Joseph had been attacked and killed by a wild animal. The sale of Joseph into slavery in Egypt was the beginning of the long process through which the entire family of Jacob traveled to Egypt and eventually became slaves. The exile ended with the Israelites’ taking bunches of hyssop, dipping them in the blood of the Paschal offering, and daubing them on the door-frames of their houses (Ex. 12:22). God “passed over” these houses during the final plague, after which they went free. The two dippings recall these events. The karpas, itself sweet, is dipped in salt and becomes sour. The maror, itself bitter, is dipped in the sweet ḥaroset and has some of the bitterness removed. These two acts remind us that freedom, which is sweet, becomes sour when we use it to mistreat others. Slavery, which is bitter, is sweetened when collective suffering becomes human solidarity and thus a prelude to freedom.

Torah Temimah on Torah, Exodus 29:1:2

And this is the thing: Rabbi Anani bar Sasson said, "Why was the section about the sacrifices juxtaposed to the section about the garments of the priesthood? To tell you, just like the sacrifices atone, so too do the garments of the priesthood atone." (Rashi explained, Why in Parshat Tzav was, "This is the law of the burnt-offering, etc.," juxtaposed to what it goes to, "Take Aharon [etc.] and the garments." To here are his [words]. But in Arakhin 15a, it explains that the intention is about this section, which is the section of the inauguration, and it is juxtaposed to the section of the garments earlier. And it seems like the main approach is like the explanation in Arakhin. For the main section about the priestly garments is here. And I have also carefully noted in several place that when the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said, "Why was this section juxtaposed to that section," they always first took the passage that is written later in the Torah. For example, in Berakhot 10a, "Why was the section about Avshalom juxtaposed to the section about Gog and Magog (Psalms 2,3)?" And behold that the section of Avshalom is written after the section of Gog and Magog... And likewise in Moed Katan 28a, "Why was the the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the section about the heiffer?"... In all of them, they are arranged that the later is placed first. And here too, if it was like Rashi wrote here, that it is intending Parsaht Tzav, in which it is written, "This is the law of the burnt-offering," and then, "Take Aharon [etc.] and the garments," it should have said, "Why is the section about the garments of the priesthood juxtaposed to the section of the sacrifices." Examine this and you will find it simple. And the simple understanding of the matter indicates that the garments of the priesthood themselves atone. But according to that, there is a need to investigate Rashi in Yoma 72b at the top, in his explanation of, "Were it not for the garments of the priesthood, nothing would have remained of [the Jewish people], etc." He wrote: Were it not for the garments of the priesthood, with which they would offer sacrifices that atone for the Jewish people. To here are his [words]. But why did he not explain more simply that the garments of the priesthood themselves atone, like the simple reading here? And it must be said that he holds that the garments only atone then when they are doing the holy service with them, the enactment of the sacrifices; and not with their being worn itself.) The tunic atoned for the spilling of blood, as it is stated (Parsaht Vayeshev, Genesis 37:31), "and they slaughtered a goat, and immersed the coat in the blood." (This is a hint to the future when the atonement for the spilling of blood would be with the tunic of the garments of the priesthood. And immersion means atonement. And it is explained in the Gemara that this atonement is only with a murderer that is impossible to judge, such as if they did not warn him. But a murderer who is liable for death is not atoned towards the congregation so long as they have not judged him, as it is written (at the end of Parshat Maasei, "and for the land there can be no atonement for the blood that was spilled in it, except through the blood of the one who spilled it." And see what I have written at the beginning of Parshat Haazinu on the verse, "Let my instruction flow like rainfall" (Deuteronomy 32:2). But in the Yerushalmi, Yoma7:3, it is found that the tunic atones for those who have worn forbidden mixtures. And so is it in the Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Tzav; and Shir HaShirim [Rabbah] 4:7. However the reason of this thing, [that] the tunic atones for those who have worn forbidden mixtures, is not explained. And in the glosses of the Radal (R. David Luria) on the Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Tzav, he writes there it is because the tunic consisted of forbidden mixtures. And it is a great wonder about such an unusual genius as he, that he erred about something well known and simple: For in all of the garments of the priesthood, only the belt, the breastplate and the apron were [from forbidden mixtures;] (unless we say it was a copier's mistake in his words, and it should say, because the tunic did not consist of forbidden mixtures. Meaning that since there were no forbidden mixtures in it, that is why it atones for the iniquity of forbidden mixtures. However according to this, it is not clear why specifically the tunic, and not the other garments of the priesthood that did not have forbidden mixtures? And that requires investigation.) And I wonder about that which the Maharil wrote (Laws of Yom Kippur 3:2), that the custom in Mainz on Yom Kippur is not to recite the penitential prayer, "But we are guilty," because it has fixed in it that the tunic of the high priest would atone for the iniquity of forbidden mixtures. And the Ravah (R. Wolf Heidenheim) explained his words: It is because this is against the opinion of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, in Zevachim 88b, that the tunic atones for the spilling of blood; and not as it is written in the formula of [this] prayer, that it atones for the iniquity of forbidden mixtures. To here are his [words]. And this is a wonderous thing! For behold this opinion is explicitly expressed in the Yerushalmi and in two places in the Midrash Rabbah! And that which the writer of the penitential prayer chose this opinion against that which is expressed in the Babylonian Talmud (and in general, we hold that the Babylonian Talmud is the main one) - that is nothing new with the liturgical poets. And the Tosafot in Chagigah 13a already wrote that the liturgical poets are accustomed in several places to put aside the the position of the Babylonian Talmud and to grasp on to the Yerushalmi. And see Tosafot on Chullin 109b, and these are their [words]: And [the liturgical poet] did everything according to the Yerushalmi. To here are their [words]. And the same is true here. However there is certainly no reason and logic at all to prevent the saying of the penitential prayer on account of this.) And the pants atone for sexual prohibitions, as it is stated (Exodus 28:42), "Make for them linen pants to cover the nakedness of their flesh." The turban atones for those who are haughty, let something high come and atone for haughtiness. The belt atones for the thoughts of the heart, where it is. (As they would tie it across from the underarms, meaning across from the heart. And see Tosafot on Arakhin 15b.) The breastplate atones for [incorrect] judgments, as it is stated (Exodus 28:15), "And you shall make a breastplate of judgment." The apron atones for idol worship, as it is stated (Hosea 3:4), "and without breastplate or oracle idols." (Rashi explained: When there is no apron, there is the iniquity of oracle idols. To here are his [words]. And I did not know where he found a hint to expound like this. And is not the simple understanding that there is no apron and also no oracle idols? And maybe he found a hint in the rest of the wording of that verse, "without a king, without officials, without sacrifice, without cult pillars and without an apron and oracle idols." And behold in every detail, it attached the word, without (ein), even though it could have written, "without king, or officials, without sacrifice or cult pillars." But since it wrote, "without," for each detail; and it only left out writing, "without," with the oracle gods; that is why he expounded, "without an apron (meaning, when there is no apron), there are oracle idols.) The robe atones for evil speech. Let something with noise (kol) come and atone for an evil noise. ("Let something with noise come," means the bells in the robe, which give off a noise. And that which it describes evil speech with the word, noise, even though it is possible to also be muted - is because we learn the main matter of evil speech from the verse in Proverbs (27:14), "He who greets his fellow loudly," as it is explained in the discussion in Arakhin 16a. Indeed, it is the incense that actually atones for muted evil speech, as will be explained ahead in Parashat Korach, on the verse (Number 17:12), "and he put on incense and atoned for the people." And they said [about this], "Let something that is muted come (since the incense is done in a muted way, as it is written about this, 'No man shall be present in the Tent of Meeting'), and atone for something muted." See there ahead.) And the frontplate of the High Priest atones for brazenness. With the frontplate, it is written (Exodus 28:38), "And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead"; and with brazenness it is written (Jeremiah 3:3), "and you had a harlot’s forehead." (And the end of the verse is, "you refused to be ashamed." And it is the way of the brazen not to be ashamed. And see the Yerushalmi, Yoma 7:3; and in the Midrash Rabbah on Shir HaShirim 4 - there are different variants about this homily. ) (Zevachim 88b)

Second Temple

Moses introduced a blood-stained coat in Genesis 37:31 to symbolize the struggles and challenges faced by statesmen in their lives, reflecting the insight of a philosopher on the nature of political life (On Dreams, Book I 38:3).

On Dreams, Book I 38:3

[221] So Moses shews the insight of a philosopher in introducing this coat all blood-stained (Gen. 37:31), since the whole life of the statesman is stained, warring and being warred upon, receiving blows and shots from the mishaps which befall it.

Talmud

The tunic atones for bloodshed, the trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, the mitre atones for the arrogant, the shirt atones for wearers of kilaim, the trousers atone for uncovering nakedness, the turban atones for haughtiness, the belt atones for thieves, the breast plate atones for those who bend the law, the vest atones for idol worshippers, the coat atones for slanderers and involuntary homicide. A liar's punishment is that even when speaking the truth, no one listens. Garments of the High Priest atone like sacrifices.

Arakhin 16a:13

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Doesn’t Rabbi Anani bar Sason say: Why was the passage in the Torah that discusses the priestly vestments (Leviticus 8) juxtaposed to the passage that discusses offerings (Leviticus, chapters 1–7)? To tell you that just as offerings atone, so too the priestly vestments atone. For what does each garment atone? The tunic [ketonet] atones for bloodshed, as it is written with regard to Joseph’s brothers after they plotted to kill him: “And they killed a goat, and dipped the coat [ketonet] in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is written with regard to the priestly vestments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42).

Avot DeRabbi Natan 30:4

Rabbi Shimon would say: Such is the punishment for a liar, that even when he speaks the truth, no one listens to him. So we find with the children of Jacob, who deceived their father. In the beginning he believed them, as it says (Genesis 37:31), “They took Joseph’s coat, slaughtered a goat,” and then it says (Genesis 37:33), “He recognized it, and said: This is my son’s coat! But afterward, even when they spoke the truth to him, he did not believe them, as it says (Genesis 45:26), ([“His heart became numb, for he did not believe them.”]) “They told him, and said: Joseph is still alive…[but] he did not believe them.” Some say that the holy spirit that had departed from Jacob now returned to him, as it says (Genesis 45:27), “And the spirit of their father Jacob was revived.”

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 7:3:4

(A parallel (except for the corrector’s additions) is found in the Babli, Zevaḥim88b, Arakhin 16a, in the name of R. Anani bar Sason.) Rebbi Simon said, just as sacrifices atone, so the garments (The High Priest’s.) atone, shirt, trousers, turban, and vest. The shirt was atoning for [wearers of kilaim (While most of the High Priest’s garments contained kilaim, only the shirt was worn directly on the body. It seems that the trident here interprets the argument at the start of kilaim 9:1 to mean that biblically on kilaim which gives immediate protection to the body is forbidden.) There are those who want to say,] (Corrector’s addition (from a different source, not in the parallel in the Babli.)) for spillers of blood, as you are saying, (Gen. 37:31.) they dipped the shirt in blood. The trousers were atoning for uncovering nakedness (The technical term for incest and adultery.) , as you are saying (Ex. 28:42.) , make for them linen trousers to cover the flesh (“Flesh” as a limb always denotes the penis, the only boneless limb.) of nakedness. The turban was atoning for haughtiness, as you are saying, (Lev. 8:9. This is a pun on the expression “thick of head” for “haughty”.) he put the turban on his head. The belt was atoning for [thieves; but some are saying, for] (Corrector’s addition (from a different source, not in the parallel in the Babli.)) the crooked ones. Rebbi Levi said, it was 32 cubits and he wound it around on both sides. The breast plate was atoning for those who bend the law, as you are saying (Ex. 28.15.) , you shall make a breast-plate of judgment. The vest was atoning for idol worshippers, as you are saying (Hos.3:5.) , without vest and household-gods. The coat. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Jonathan of Bet-Guvrin: For two things there was no atonement (They do qualify for any obligatory sacrifice.) but the Torah established atonement for them. These are those: one who spreads slander, and the involuntary homicide. For him who spreads slander there was no atonement, but the Torah fixed atonement for them, the bells of the coat: it shall be on Aaron in service, and its sound be heard (Ex. 28:35.) . The sound may come to atone for the sound. For the involuntary manslaughter there was no atonement but the Torah established atonement for them, the death of the High Priest (Num. 35:25.) . He shall dwell there until the High Priest’s death

Zevachim 88b:6

The tunic atones for bloodshed, as it is stated with regard to the brothers of Joseph after they plotted to kill him: “And they killed a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is stated with regard to fashioning the priestly vestments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the arrogant. From where is this derived? Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item that is placed at an elevation, i.e., on the head of a priest, shall come and atone for the sin of an elevated heart.

Targum

In Genesis 37:31, Onkelos mentions that Yoseif's coat was dipped in the blood of a male goat. Targum Jonathan adds that they killed a kid of the goats because its blood is similar to that of a man, and they dipped the coat in the blood.

Onkelos Genesis 37:31

They took Yoseif’s coat, slaughtered a [male] goat, and dipped the coat in the blood.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:31

But they took the garment of Joseph, and killed a kid of the goats, because his blood is like the blood of a man, and they dabbled the garment in the blood.

וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ אֶת־כְּתֹ֣נֶת הַפַּסִּ֗ים וַיָּבִ֙יאוּ֙ אֶל־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ זֹ֣את מָצָ֑אנוּ הַכֶּר־נָ֗א הַכְּתֹ֧נֶת בִּנְךָ֛ הִ֖וא אִם־לֹֽא׃ 32 J They had the ornamented tunic taken to their father, and they said, “We found this. Please examine it; is it your son’s tunic or not?”
Chasidut discusses overcoming negative forces through serving the Lord and removing earthly aspirations. Commentary delves into the brothers sending Joseph's coat to Jacob, emphasizing the significance of the word "hapasim." Jewish Thought highlights the importance of memory joggers in reinforcing character traits and fulfilling commandments. Kabbalah connects Jacob's trembling to Joseph's punishment, while Midrash focuses on parallels between Judah and Tamar. Musar discusses Judah's punishment for the sale of Joseph. Quoting Commentary links the stories of Joseph's brothers and Tamar showing Judah evidence. Talmud explains Judah's use of the word "discern" in informing Jacob and when Tamar presented evidence. Targum mentions the brothers sending Joseph's coat to Jacob for identification.

Chasidut

The text discusses how when a person serves the Lord, the negative forces (referred to as "sparks" in this context) feel ashamed and are unable to distract the person from fulfilling God's commandments. This is based on the idea that God created the universe so that His creatures would be in awe of Him. However, the person must free themselves from subjective, sensually influenced considerations in order to overcome external obstacles. The use of the word "send" in the text is compared to Genesis 37:32 where it is translated as "strip," symbolizing the removal of earthly aspirations.

Kedushat Levi, Numbers, Sh'lach 1

Numbers 13,2. “send out men for your own ‎satisfaction.” We have a rule that when an Israelite ‎arrives at a place where he serves the Lord, all the ”sparks” (that ‎had fallen to earth from the Shechinah on account of some ‎misdemeanour) that are scattered around him, feel ashamed in ‎the presence of such people. [The expression ‎ניצוצות‎, ‎sparks, occurs both as something material, though not tangible, ‎in the writings of Maimonides for instance, examples hilchot ‎Shabbat 28/25 and hilchot tefillin 4,18, whereas in ‎‎Yalkut Shimoni, i.e. midrashic exegesis, it occurs as more ‎esoteric, though not as applicable to purely spiritual beings as in ‎‎kabbalah. Up until this point, our author always used the ‎term for spiritual concepts such as “fallen angels.” At this point I ‎am not quite sure how to understand his reference to it. ‎Ed.] In the Talmud Shabbat 31 we read that G’d created the ‎universe only in order that His creatures be in awe of Him. ‎‎(opinion of Rabbi Yehudah) The scriptural “proof” for this ‎opinion quoted is Kohelet 3,14 ‎והאלוקים עשה שייראו מלפניו‎, ‎‎“and G’d has acted so that [man] should stand in awe of Him.” ‎Accordingly, it appears that the author understands the word ‎ניצוצות‎ here as negative forces that obstruct man in his quest to ‎fulfill the Creator’s commandments. When these negative forces ‎‎(commonly called Satan) observe how man goes out of his way to ‎fulfill G’d’s commandments, they become ashamed, and while in ‎that state man can easily overcome their feeble efforts to distract ‎him from serving G’d. (and, according to our author elevate these ‎negative forces to a higher spiritual level in the process of his ‎worshipping Gd.) There is, however, a limitation to the statement ‎expressed in the rule expressed at the beginning of our exegesis, ‎and this is that the rule that the person wishing to worship G’d ‎can overcome external obstacles is based on the premise that he ‎himself has freed himself of subjective, sensually influenced ‎considerations when setting out to perform one of G’d’s ‎commandments.‎ The choice of the words ‎שלח‎, at the beginning of our portion ‎is reminiscent of Genesis 37:32 where Onkelos translates the word ‎וישלחו‎, commonly translated as: “they sent,” as ‎ושלחו‎, “they ‎stripped” [Joseph of his striped coat, the personification of ‎his earthly aspirations. Ed.]

Commentary

The brothers sent the coat of many colors to their father through messengers to feign ignorance of Joseph's fate, with some scholars suggesting they pierced the coat with a sword to make it appear torn by animals (Ramban, Radak). The messengers did not identify themselves to Jacob when presenting the coat, and the brothers may have sent the coat home and brought it to their father themselves later (Tur HaArokh, Rabbeinu Bahya). The word "hapasim" was used to help Jacob recognize the coat, emphasizing the stripes on it (Tur HaArokh, Da'at Zekenim). Judah's use of the phrase "הכר נא" was significant, as it led to Tamar using the same phrase to reveal his identity as the father of her child (Radak, Da'at Zekenim).

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:32:1

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, “they sent the striped coat, etc.” the Torah abbreviated here; the full text should have been: “they sent the striped coat to their father, and the messengers who delivered it said: “this is what we found;” the brothers themselves did not want to become associated with the find, so as not becoming suspect in having had anything to do with Joseph’s death. After all, the fact that they had hated Joseph had been common knowledge.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:32:1

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, “they sent Joseph’s special garment,” (suitably torn and drenched in blood). The correct interpretation of this verse which on the face of it contains a contradiction, when it continues with: ”they brought it to their father,” claiming that they had found it, is that the carriers of Joseph’s garment brought it to the brothers’ father, Yaakov. Another interpretation of the word וישלחו, is “they dragged it.” The expression “שלח” is also used for a weapon, a kind of sword or dagger, used in personal combat. It appears in that sense in Job 33,18: מעבור בשלח, “from perishing by the sword,” or in Song of Songs 4,13: שלחתיך פרדס, “your offshoot will be pomegranate;” if understood as in Song of Songs, the brothers themselves brought Joseph’s blood drenched and ripped up garment to their father. They did so in order to have an excuse for getting their father to exclaim that Joseph had become the victim of a ferocious beast, (as he did).

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:32:2

!הכר, “know!” Yehudah was the brother who said this to his father; this is why he was the one charged with causing his father this anguish (losing a son, so that he lost two sons) This interpretation may be understood more literally, i.e. why Tamar when about to be burned at the stake for supposedly having committed adultery used the same wording when asking her father-in-law and judge: הכר נא למי החותמת, “please identify whom this signet ring belongs!” (Genesis 38,25) (Based on B’reshit Rabbah, 84,19)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:32:1

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים אל אביהם, “they sent the striped coat to their father.” According to the plain meaning of the text the messengers presented the coat to Yaakov. This is why the Torah phrases the handing over as accompanied by such an impersonal sounding statement as: “this is what we have found, please identify if this is the coat of your son?” If the brothers had brought the coat to Yaakov themselves they would have said: “is this Joseph’s coat?” The implication in all this was that if some robbers had killed Joseph, surely they would have retained such a precious garment as the striped coat. Other commentators understand the wording of the Torah here as applying to the brothers themselves. In support of their view they cite the words ויביאו אל אביהם, “they brought (it) to their father.” According to this view, the Torah highlighted the cruelty of the brothers’ conduct vis-a-vis their father.

Radak on Genesis 37:32:1

וישלחו, some of the brothers were the messengers who delivered this tattered blood-spattered tunic. Some commentators believe that the word is derived from Job 36,12 בשלח יעברו, “they will die by the sword.” According to this, the brothers imitated the incisions made by the sharp teeth of wild beasts so that Yaakov would think that Joseph’s fate had been that he had been devoured or at least killed by such a marauding animal.

Radak on Genesis 37:32:2

הכר נא, According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 G’d repaid Yehudah for his use of the phrase הכר נא when tricking his father into making a false deduction, by Tamar challenging him with the very same expression הכר נא, which embarrassed him into admitting that he was the father of the fetus that Tamar his daughter-in-law was pregnant with (38,25)

Ramban on Genesis 37:32:1

AND THEY SENT THE COAT OF MANY COLORS, AND THEY BROUGHT IT TO THEIR FATHER. I.e., by command. (Ramban’s intent is to resolve the following difficulty: The verse, And they sent the coat of many colors, clearly indicates that they did not bring it themselves. Ramban answers that the second half of the verse means that they commanded others to bring the coat to their father.) Perhaps the word vayavi’u (and they brought) refers to the messengers who brought the coat, for the brothers dispatched it when they were still in Dothan, and it was the messengers who said, This we have found; recognize now. It may be that they sent the coat to Hebron, to one of their homes, and when they arrived they brought it before their father, and said to him, This we have found. They did all of this in order to feign ignorance of the matter, for had they remained quiet, he would have suspected them, saying; “You killed him,” for he knew that they were jealous of him. And some scholars (Mentioned in R’dak in the name of “some” scholars.) explain the word vayeshalchu — ordinarily translated as “and they sent” — to mean that they pierced the coat with a sword in order to tear it in many places, to give the appearance of having been torn by the teeth of animals. The word vayeshalchu would thus be derived from the verse, By the sword (‘b’shelach’) they shall perish. (Job 36:12.) The significance of the word hapasim (many colors) is that they sent him the coat so that he might recognize it by the colors which he had made for him.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:32:1

וישלחו, by means of human messengers who would not identify themselves, saying only: “this is what we have found!”

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:32:1

Sie schickten den Rock nicht direkt, sondern ließen ihn durch andere erst in andere Häuser und dann erst zum Vater kommen.

Sforno on Genesis 37:32:1

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, they brought it with a dagger, shelach, to show that the tears in the tunic corresponded to those made by the sharp teeth of a wild beast.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:32

They sent the fine tunic to Jacob, and they brought it to their father and they said: We found this. Identify now: Is it your son’s tunic or not? Clearly this is a fine tunic, but is it Joseph’s? We never paid attention to the details of his tunic, but since you made it, you must recognize it.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:32:1

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים ויביאו אל אביהם, “they sent the striped coat and brought it to their father.” Either they instructed the bearer to bring it to their father, or the bearers brought it to their father without having had specific instructions. It is also possible that they sent the coat home, and when they came home the next time [after all, Dotan is over 70 km from Chevron. Ed.] they themselves brought it to their father. The Torah emphasizes the striped coat, as the stripes would help to identify who had worn it.

Jewish Thought

The text discusses the importance of memory joggers in reinforcing character traits and fulfilling commandments. It emphasizes the use of imagination and associations to overcome weaknesses and build trust in God. Examples include prophets condensing Torah into slogans for constant reminders and the keriyat shema being included in daily prayers for its significance in recalling past triumphs achieved through Divine intervention. The text also highlights the need for personal responsibility in avoiding ailments like colds and heatstrokes, attributing them to negligence rather than external forces.

Akeidat Yitzchak 90:1:4

Joseph's brothers say to their father: "recognise whether this is the coat of your son or not." (Genesis 37,32) We are told to remember what Amalek did to us. (Deut. 25,17) We are told not to fear nations surrounding us. (Deut 7,18-21) Since we are human beings, not just animals, it is expected that we can refine certain characteristics, are not limited to instinctive reactions. If one can learn to compensate for the weakness of certain of one's senses, then surely one can find means to reinforce certain character traits. A blind man develops a more acute sense of hearing. A shortsighted person can improve his vision by the use of spectacles. A person suffering from certain character weaknesses must also find means to compensate for this. Using one's power of imagination, one can imagine situations that make one's phobias seem unjustified and ridiculous. The process of thought association with specific objects is known to be an excellent memory jogger. These aids must be applied when we are asked to observe certain commandments involving remembrances. Seeing the tzitzit reminds us of other mitzvot such as kilayim, forbidden mixtures. This has been discussed at greater length in chapter sixty five. Awareness of the importance of memory joggers may have led some prophets to find common denominators for certain mitzvot, and thus make it easy for us to have these short summaries constantly at our command. Isaiah manages to condense Torah into two slogans, "observe justice and perform righteousness." (chapter 56) Chabakuk manages to sum it up in a single slogan, "the righteous will live by his faith" (2,4). No doubt the purpose of these apparent over simplifications is simply to provide a constant reminder, which when triggered will remind us of all the other mitzvot which are incumbent upon us to perform. When the Talmud (Ketuvot 30) tells us that all is in the hands of Heaven except the contracting of colds and heatstrokes, we know very well that both those phenomena are natural phenomena and as such not subject to our control. In fact, no remedy has yet been found for the common cold. Nevertheless, the sages are telling us that if one falls victim to those two ailments, this is due to negligence on the part of man, to wilful over-exposure etc, and cannot be blamed on outside forces. Just as one can control colds and heatstrokes, so, by employing memory properly, one can reinforce one's senses of trust and confidence in the help of G'd, no matter what the circumstances. This is what David said (Psalms 27,1) "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?, The Lord is the source of my strength, of whom shall I be afraid?" He means that if his attitude is based on remembering G'ds many past acts of kindness and assistance, why would he be afraid of anyone in the future? In the same vein, Moses tells the people: "you are today about to cross the Jordan in order to dispossess people greater and more powerful than you etc." (9,1). This calls for faith and confidence based on the recollection of all the past triumphs achieved through Divine intervention. The foremost memory jogger is the keriyat shema, which for that reason has been included in our daily prayers three times. We will examine the passage in detail to gain a better understanding of its significance. The following questions suggest themselves:

Kabbalah

Rabbi Yehuda explained that Jacob's trembling caused by deceiving Isaac led to Joseph's punishment, as seen when Joseph trembled upon finding his brothers' deception. The use of the word "אֵיפֹה" in both instances symbolized Jacob's punishment, even though God approved the blessings. The mention of "very great trembling" in the scripture indicates Gehenom's presence, while the term "very" refers to the Angel of Death. Isaac's realization that Jacob had received the blessings meant for Esau further emphasizes the consequences of Jacob's actions.

Zohar, Toldot 19:174

Rabbi Yehuda said that for this trembling that Jacob brought upon Isaac his father, Jacob was punished by Joseph, and he trembled when they said to him "This we have found" (Beresheet 37:32). Isaac said "Who then (Heb. אֵיפֹה)." And by "אֵיפֹה," Jacob was punished. And although the Holy One, blessed be He, approved all the blessings, nevertheless he was punished by "eifoh" as it is written, "Where (אֵיפֹה) they feed their flock" (Beresheet 37:6), where Joseph was lost to him, and he was thereby punished. "...and Isaac trembled very much (lit. 'trembled very great trembling')." What is the meaning of the word "great" as used in the scripture? It is written "great" here and elsewhere, as in "and this great fire" (Devarim 18:16). (Meaning) that Gehenom entered with him. What does "very" mean? It is written "very" here and elsewhere, as in "and, behold, it was very good" (Beresheet 1:31), referring to the Angel of Death. He then said "Who then..." (Beresheet 27:33), when he understood that the blessings belonged to Jacob and not Esau.

Midrash

R. Yohanan's argument focuses on the use of the word "haker" in both the Yosef and Tamar narratives, highlighting the parallels between the verses. Reuben's repentance for his actions involving Bilha led to his descendants being the first to initiate repentance. Judah's use of "Identify, please" to Yaakov foreshadowed Tamar's use of the same phrase to Judah. The text juxtaposes the stories of Judah and Tamar, as well as the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshatzar, and Darius the Mede, to emphasize divine inspiration. Judah's descent from his brothers led to his marriage to a gentile woman, symbolizing a descent for him.

Aggadat Bereshit 61:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Bamidbar Rabbah 13:14

Another matter, “vekorbano…” – what did the princes see that led them to present offerings in this manner? The Rabbis say: Even though each of them presented an identical offering, they offered it regarding significant matters, and each and every one presented according to his perspective. Naḥshon began and presented regarding the protocol of the monarchy, just as his father crowned him over his brothers, just as it says: “Judah, you, your brothers will acknowledge you…[your father's sons will prostrate themselves to you]. Judah is a lion cub…” (Genesis 49:8–9). Likewise it says: “For Judah prevailed over his brothers, as the prince would come from him” (I Chronicles 5:2). There was a tradition in the hand of the tribe of Judah, their Sages, and their prominent leaders, from Jacob our patriarch, regarding everything that is destined to befall each tribe until the messianic era. Likewise, there was a tradition in the hand of each and every tribe regarding what would befall it until the messianic era, from Jacob their father. “Vekorbano…” – he presented the dish and the basin corresponding to the kings of the house of David, who are destined to emerge from him, who ruled over the entire world, over the sea and over the land, e.g., Solomon and the messianic king. Solomon, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “For he ruled over the entire region beyond the river, from Tifsaḥ to Gaza” (I Kings 5:4). Rav and Shmuel, one said Tifsaḥ is at one end of the world and Gaza is at the other end of the world. One said: They stand adjacent to one another; just as he ruled over Tifsaḥ and over Gaza, so he ruled over the entire world. And it says: “All the world sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom…. Each would bring his tribute…” (I Kings 10:24–25). From where is it derived that he ruled over the sea? It is as it is written: “Also the fleet of Hiram, which had carried gold from Ophir…” (I Kings 10:11). “For the king had a fleet of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years…” (I Kings 10:22). And it says: “I will set his hand upon the seas, his right on the rivers” (Psalms 89:26). The messianic king, from where is it derived? It is, as it is written: "He will rule from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the land" (Psalms 72:8). Over the land, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “And all the kings, all the nations will bow to him, will serve him” (Psalms 72:11). And it says: “And behold, among the clouds of the heavens…. To him was given dominion, [honor, and kingship, and all the peoples, nations, and languages would serve him]” (Daniel 7:13–14). “The stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and filled the entire earth” (Daniel 2:35). This is why he presented a dish, corresponding to the sea that surrounds the entire world and resembles a dish. Why was “its weight one hundred and thirty”? (Numbers 7:13). It is because when the Holy One blessed be He gathered all the waters to one place on the third day of the formation of the world, he called them seas, as it is stated: “And to the gathering of the waters, He called seas [yamim]” (Genesis 1:10). The numerical value of yamim is one hundred; yod, yod are twenty, mem, mem are eighty, that is one hundred. Solomon came and added a sea to the construction of the Temple in which the priests could immerse themselves, just as it says: “He crafted the sea, of cast metal, ten cubits from brim to brim, [circular around, and its height was five cubits; a thirty-cubit line would wrap around it]” (I Kings 7:23). Corresponding to those thirty cubits that was the circumference of the sea that Solomon crafted, he added thirty shekels to the weight of the dish corresponding to the sea of Solomon. That is one hundred and thirty shekels, the weight of the dish, corresponding to the seas and to the sea of Solomon. “One silver basin” (Numbers 7:13), it is corresponding to the world, that is shaped like an orb that is tossed from hand to hand. Why was its weight “seventy shekels”? (Numbers 7:13). It is because both of them (Solomon and the Messianic king.) ruled over seventy nations, which exist from one end of the world to the other end. From where is it derived that the sea is shaped in the form of a dish and the world is shaped like an orb? It is like that which we learned: The Rabbis say: Only one that has in its hand a staff, a bird, an orb, a dish, a sword, a crown, or a ring is forbidden. (A statue of a person in whose hands one of these objects appears is considered an idol, and it is forbidden to benefit from it in any way.) A staff, as it rules the entire world with it. A bird: “My hand has grasped the riches of the peoples like a nest” (Isaiah 10:14). An orb, as the world is shaped like an orb. Rabbi Yona said: Alexander of Macedonia, when he sought to ascend heavenward, he would rise and rise until he would see the world as an orb and the sea as a dish. That is why, when they draw him, it is with an orb in his hand. Should they draw him with a dish in his hand? He does not have dominion over the sea. But the Holy One blessed be He has dominion over the sea and has dominion over the land, recues at sea and rescues on land; that is why they brought a dish corresponding to the sea and a basin corresponding to the land. “Both of them full [of high quality flour]" (Numbers 7:13), as the nation brought tributes [menaḥot] (The word menahot can also refer to meal offerings, which typically consist of high quality flour.) to Solomon; likewise they are destined to bring it to the messianic king, just as it says: “[The kings of Tarshish and of the islands will bring tribute [minḥa]]; the kings of Sheba and Seva will offer gifts” (Psalms 72:10). “Full [mele’im]” means nothing other than gifts, just as it says: “And gave them all [vaymalum] to the king” (I Samuel 18:27). “High quality flour [solet]" (Numbers 7:13), just as it says: "valued [hamesulaim] like gold" (Lamentations 4:2). "Mixed with oil” (Numbers 7:13), just as it says: “A good name is better than fragrant oil” (Ecclesiastes 7:1), and it says: “Your name is like poured oil” (Song of Songs 1:3), as their good name would go forth throughout the world. Why were they of silver? It is just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, [full of incense]” (Numbers 7:14), corresponding to the ten generations from Peretz to David, as it is stated: “These are the generations of Peretz: [Peretz begot Hetzron]; and Hetzron begot [Ram, and Ram begot Aminadav;] Aminadav begot Naḥshon, [and Naḥshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Oved]; and Oved begot [Yishai], and Yishai begot David” (Ruth 4:18–22). “One…ladle,” as they were all like one hand, all full-fledged righteous men. That is, “full of incense” (Numbers 7:14), as their actions were pleasant like the fragrance of the incense. “One young bull” (Numbers 7:15), corresponding to Abraham, who was the primary progenitor, and who, in his regard, it is stated: “Abraham ran to the cattle [and took a young bull]” (Genesis 18:7). “One ram” (Numbers 7:15), this is Isaac, as, in his regard it is stated: “He took the ram and he offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son” (Genesis 22:13). “One sheep” (Numbers 7:15), corresponding to Jacob, in whose regard it is stated: “Jacob separated the sheep” (Genesis 30:40). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:16), corresponding to Judah, who brought Joseph’s fine tunic that he had immersed in the blood of the goat, as it is stated: “They slaughtered a goat [and they dipped the tunic in the blood]" (Genesis 37:31). Judah brought it to his father and said: “Identify this, please, is it your son’s tunic?” (Genesis 37:32). That is why it was meted to him with the same measure, as Tamar said to him: “Identify, please, whose signet, belt, [and staff are these?]” (Genesis 38:25). That is why sin offering is stated in this regard, as they brought it as atonement for him, because he brought anguish to his father. “And for the peace offering [hashelamim], two cattle” (Numbers 7:17) – these are David and Solomon, as they initiated the monarchy, as cattle [bakar] is nothing other than an expression of monarchy, just as it says: “Butter of cattle [bakar] and milk of sheep…” (Deuteronomy 32:14), and we translate it: Give them the plunder of their kings. (Targum Onkelos on the verse. Shelamim) , because they were full-fledged righteous men, (Shelamim is expounded as though it is written shelemim, complete.) and in their days, Israel were flawless [mushlamim], and in the days of Solomon, the kingdom was complete [shelema], as it is stated: “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23). The two of them built the Temple; David made the foundation, and Solomon built it. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:17) – these are fifteen corresponding to the fifteen kings who were from Reḥavam until Zedekiah, king son of a king. Some were full-fledged righteous men, some were middling, and some were full-fledged wicked men. “This was the offering of Naḥshon son of Aminadav” (Numbers 7:17). When the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering corresponding to the order of the patriarchs and the royal dynasty, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Naḥshon son of Aminadav.”

Bereshit Rabbah 84:19

“Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he rent his garments” (Genesis 37:29). “Reuben returned to the pit” – where had he been? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua: Rabbi Eliezer said: In his sackcloth and his fasting. (He was preoccupied with his repentance for his action involving Bilha (Genesis 35:22).) When he was free, he went and peered into that pit. That is what is written: “Reuben returned to the pit.” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘A person has never sinned before Me and repented, and you are the first to initiate repentance. As you live, your descendant will arise and be the first to initiate repentance.’ (He will be the first to teach about the full power of repentance, such as the fact that repentance out of love can cause one’s sins to be considered as merits (Yefe To’ar). ) Who is that? It is Hosea, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hosea 14:2). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat” – why a goat? Because its blood is similar to that of man. “They sent the fine tunic, and they brought it to their father and said: We found this. Identify, please: Is it your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:32). “They sent the fine tunic…” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said: “Identify, please”; as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please”’ (Genesis 38:25). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him; Joseph has been mauled” (Genesis 37:33). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic” – he said: I do not know what I am seeing. (Jacob was used to a high level of perception, fueled by the Divine Spirit. But from this incident until he reunited with Joseph, that clarity left him, and he was unsure of the exact facts or full ramifications of what he was seeing (Maharzu). ) “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him…” – Rav Huna said: The Divine Spirit flashed in him: “A savage beast devoured him” – this is Potifar’s wife. (Rav Huna explains that although Jacob himself was unsure what had occurred, he said something that alluded to future events (Maharzu). )

Bereshit Rabbah 85:11

“She was taken out, and she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man to whom these belong I am with child. She said: Identify, please, whose signet, and belt, and staff these are” (Genesis 38:25). “She was taken out [mutzet]…” – Rabbi Yudan said: [It may be derived] from here that [Judah’s items] were lost, and the Holy One blessed be He provided [himtzi] her with others in their place, just as it says: “Or found [matza] a lost item…” (Leviticus 5:22). Rav Huna said: “She was taken out” – he and she should be taken out. (This is expounded from the fact that “she [hi]” is spelled heh vav alef, which can also be read “he [hu].” The point is that just as she would ostensibly be killed for her violation, so would the man with whom she had committed adultery. ) “She sent to her father-in-law, saying…[identify, please [haker na]…]” – he sought to deny it. She said to him: ‘Acknowledge now [haker na] your Creator; they belong to you and your Creator.’ (This is because the items had been miraculously recreated after they were lost, as explained above (Yefe To’ar). ) “Identify, please, whose signet” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said to your father: “Identify, please” (Genesis 37:32); as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please.”’

Bereshit Rabbah 85:2

“It was at that time” – the verse should have said only: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). (This verse, describing the sale of Joseph to Potifar in Egypt, is the direct continuation of chapter 37, which concludes with Joseph being brought down to Egypt. This narrative is interrupted by the story of Judah in chapter 38. ) Why, then, did it juxtapose this portion to that one? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Elazar said: In order to juxtapose descent to descent. (The story of Judah’s descent is embedded within the story of Joseph’s descent to imply that Judah lost stature among his brothers due to the sale of Joseph, when they saw how much pain it caused their father (Yefe To’ar). ) Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In order to juxtapose “identify” (Genesis 37:32) to “identify” (Genesis 38:25). (Because Judah was responsible for the sale of Joseph, in which the brothers asked Jacob to identify Joseph’s tunic, he experienced the embarrassment of having to admit his error when Tamar asked him to identify the possessions he had left with her (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose the incident of Tamar to the incident of Potifar’s wife. Just as this one, [Tamar, acted] for the sake of Heaven, so too, that one, [Potifar’s wife, acted] for the sake of Heaven, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: She saw through her astrology that she was destined to bring forth a child from him, but she did not know whether it would be from her or from her daughter. That is what is written: “[The astrologers, the stargazers,] who foretell by the new moons of that which will befall you” (Isaiah 47:13). Rabbi Aivu said: [They foretell] “of that which [will befall you]” but not all that [will befall you]. (They do not provide all the details.) Similarly, “[They were both naked, the man and his wife,] and they were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25), “the serpent was…cunning” (Genesis 3:1). The verse should have said only: “The Lord God made for Adam and for his wife [hide tunics, and clothed them]” (Genesis 3:21). (Why is the story of the serpent inserted in between the verse stating that Adam and Eve were naked and the verse stating that God clothed them? ) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: It is to inform you for what reason that wicked one [the serpent] accosted them; because it saw them engaged in conjugal relations, it lusted after them. Rabbi Yaakov of Kefar Ḥanin said: So as not to end with the portion of the serpent. (The verse regarding the hide tunics was placed after the incident of the serpent so as not to conclude a passage with God’s curses, given in the aftermath of the story of the serpent. ) Similarly, “[Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt, and glorify the King of heaven…] and He is able to humble those who walk in arrogance” (Daniel 4:34), “King Belshatzar” (Daniel 5:1) and “Darius the Mede” (Daniel 6:1). Where is Evil Merodakh? (The text proceeds from discussing Nebuchadnezzar to King Belshatzar and to Darius the Mede, while skipping Evil Merodakh, who reigned between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshatzar. ) Rabbi Elazar said: To juxtapose a wicked one to a wicked one, a tormentor to a tormentor, a conceited one to a conceited one. (Both Nebuchadnezzar and his grandson Belshatzar were wicked, tormentors, and conceited.) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose a reign that was truncated to a reign that was truncated. Similarly, “During that night, Belshatzar the Chaldean king was killed” (Daniel 5:30), “and Darius the Mede [received the kingdom]” (Daniel 6:1). Where is [the chapter beginning:] “In the third year of the reign of King Belshatzar” (Daniel 8:1)? (Why does this chapter, which is set during the reign of Belshatzar, not precede the transition in the text to the reign of Darius? ) Rav Huna said: So that they will not say that this is mere literature; so that everyone will know that he said it through the divine spirit. (At times, works composed with the divine spirit arrange events out of chronological order for esoteric reasons (Maharzu). ) The Rabbis say: In order to indicate regarding the whole book that it was stated through the divine spirit. Here too, it should have said: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1), but it is written: “Judah descended from his brothers.” [Judah] said [to his brothers]: (This is an additional insight into the phrase “Judah descended from his brothers” (Yefe To’ar). ) ‘Let us disperse ourselves, for so long as we are together, the promissory note is liable to be collected.’ (Since we sinned together in the sale of Joseph, it would be fitting for the punishment to occur when we are all together (Etz Yosef). Alternatively, the promissory note refers to the prophecy to Abraham that his descendants would be oppressed in a foreign land. Judah sensed that the departure of Joseph might eventually lead to their all descending to exile. That would be more likely to occur if they were all together (Yefe To’ar). ) The Holy One blessed be He said to them: If ten people were implicated for robbery, can one not be apprehended for the act of them all? (I can punish each of you separately, or I can punish even just one of you for the entire episode. ) When they were implicated regarding the goblet, they said: “God has found [matza] the iniquity of your servants” (Genesis 44:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The creditor has found the opportunity to collect on his promissory note. Rabbi Levi said: Like this one who empties [mematze] the barrel and leaves it with only its dregs. (God is punishing us for the sin in its entirety, to the last drop. ) The Rabbis say: (The Rabbis say another reason for the juxtaposition of the story of Judah descending from his brothers and marrying, to the story of the sale of Joseph. ) [Judah said:] ‘Come and let us provide for ourselves. In the past, he [Jacob] would have felt obligated to arrange for us to marry wives, but now he is preoccupied with his sackcloth and fasting. It is not right that he should engage in [arranging for us to marry wives.’ They said to Judah: ‘Are you not the leader of us all? You arise and provide for yourself.’ Immediately, “Judah descended” – it is a descent for him that he married a gentile woman. It is a descent for him that he buried his wife and his sons.

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 14; The Meaning of a Chronological Problem; Connecting Yosef and Yehuda 115

R. Yohanan’s argument focuses on the use of the same word in two different contexts within the extended narrative of the Yosef story. The first place this word appears is when the brothers come to Yaakov to inform him of Yosef’s “death.” They do not actually tell Yaakov that Yosef has been killed. Instead, they “sent the striped coat, and they brought it to their father, and they said, ‘This we have found. Recognize (‘haker’), please, is this the coat of your son or not?’” (Genesis 37:32) The second use of the word occurs when Tamar, about to be burned for her “sin,” “…sent to her father-in-law saying, ‘By the man to whom these belong I have conceived’; and she said, ‘Recognize (‘haker’), please, whose these are, the signet ring, the belt, and the staff.’” (The parallels between the verses do not end with the presence of the word haker (recognize) in both of them. The phrase in which the word occurs is identical in both verses: “Recognize, please…” and in both verses the objects to be identified are sent to the person being questioned.)

Musar

Judah was punished for causing the sale of Joseph by mourning over his sons and experiencing the same "rending" punishment as his brothers. Jacob mourned Joseph for many days, and as a result, Judah's wife died after many days. Judah deceived his father with a kid of goats, so he was deceived with a kid of goats. They said "Recognize, now," so Judah was punished through Tamar by being asked to recognize his signet and cloak. The shame and mortification he suffered were immense.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:18

From here on, Scripture begins to relate the punishments and the mortifications that they suffered for this, all "measure for measure." First of all, Judah was punished, who was the immediate cause of the sale. He became a mourner over his sons, and certainly also rent his garments over them, according to the din. And his brothers, too, were not exempt from the punishment of "rending" [k'riyah], for they, too, rent their garments on their day of woe [viz. Ibid. 44:13]. And because he [Jacob] mourned his son "many days," therefore, (Ibid. 38:12): "And after 'many days,' the daughter of Shua, Judah's wife, died." And because he deceived his father with a kid of goats, dipping Joseph's robe in its blood, they deceived him, too, with a kid of goats, as we find in the Midrash. And because they said (Ibid. 37:32): "Recognize, now," he, too, was punished through Tamar with (Ibid. 38:25): "Recognize, now, whose are this signet and cloak and staff? Who can imagine the greatness of the shame and the mortification that he suffered then!

Quoting Commentary

Chizkuni explains that the he-goat sin offering in Leviticus 9:3:1 was to atone for the sins of the forefathers who mistreated Joseph, possibly by using the goat's blood on his tunic or by burning he-goats for idols in Egypt. The linen garments worn by the priests symbolize the merits of various biblical figures like Yaakov, Yosef, Moshe, and Aharon. Additionally, the Torah uses the same phrase "please recognize" in Genesis 37 and 38 to link the stories of Joseph's brothers showing their father a bloodstained cloak and Tamar showing Judah evidence of their interactions.

Alshekh on Torah, Leviticus 16:1:16

The linen tunic is the merit of Yaakov, who experienced pain over the tunic of many colors. The linen pants represent the merit of Yosef who kept the holy covenant, and the linen sash is in the merit of Moshe who includes and encompasses all of Israel like a sash. The linen turban represents the merit of Aharon.

Chizkuni, Leviticus 9:3:1

קחו שעיר עזים, “take a he-goat as a sin offering to atone for your sins, etc;” they had to pray for atonement for what their forefathers had done to Joseph, when they had sent his tunic soaked in the blood they had taken from the heg-oat they slaughtered for that purpose. (Genesis 37, 31-32) (Sifra) An alternate explanation: They needed to offer a sin offering for idolatry they had been guilty by burning he goats for idols. (in Egypt) (Tanchuma, section 4 on this portion) We find that also on other occasions such animals were burned in idolatrous rites outside the camp. (Torat Kohanim, chovah chapter 6,5.) This is why this he-goat was burned outside the camp, as we are told in verse 11.

Covenant and Conversation; Numbers; The Wilderness Years, Sh'lach, Law and Narrative; Believing and Seeing 4

How does the Torah signal intertextuality? Often it does so by using the same word or words in two passages. A classic example is the phrase haker na, “please recognise,” used in both Genesis 37 and 38 to link the story of Joseph’s brothers and the bloodstained cloak they show their father, with that of Tamar and her father-in-law Judah. (Gen. 37:32; 38:25. These are the only two places in Tanakh where the phrase appears. For the significance of the connection, see Genesis Rabba 84:19; David Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947); Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (London: George Allen and Unwin), 1981. )

Redeeming Relevance; Exodus, CHAPTER 6 Clothing Aharon 37

The rabbis also notice that Yehudah’s recognition of his own belongings (Bereshit 38:26) (Bereshit 38:26.) is couched in the same language that the brothers used in showing Yosef’s bloodied clothing to their father, Ya’akov (Bereshit 37:32). (Ibid., 37:32.) This additional observation sets up a powerful contrast between the two episodes (Bereshit Rabba 85:11). (Bereshit Rabba 85:11.)

Talmud

Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, explains that Judah informed his father Jacob about Joseph being lost and about the signs using the word "discern" in Genesis 38:25. This word was also used when Judah brought Joseph's coat to Jacob and when Tamar presented the signet, cords, and staff to Judah.

Sotah 10b:7

The verse continues: “And she said: Discern, please, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff” (Genesis 38:25). Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: With use of the word discern Judah informed his father that Joseph was lost, and also with use of the word discern they informed Judah about the signs. The Gemara explains: With the word discern he informed Jacob his father when he brought him the coat of Joseph and said to his father: “And they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father; and said: This have we found. Discern now whether it is your son’s coat or not” (Genesis 37:32). With the word discern they informed him: “And she said: Discern, please, whose are these.”

Targum

The brothers sent Joseph's colorful coat to their father, asking him to identify if it belonged to his son or not. (Onkelos Genesis 37:32; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:32)

Onkelos Genesis 37:32

They sent the long, colorful coat and brought it to their father, and said, We found this. Please [Now] identify it. Is it your son’s coat or not?

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:32

And they sent it by the hand of the sons of Zilpha and of the sons of Bilhah the figured garment; and they brought it to their father, and said, This have we found; know now, whether it be thy son's garment, or not.

וַיַּכִּירָ֤הּ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ כְּתֹ֣נֶת בְּנִ֔י חַיָּ֥ה רָעָ֖ה אֲכָלָ֑תְהוּ טָרֹ֥ף טֹרַ֖ף יוֹסֵֽף׃ 33 J He recognized it, and said, “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him! Joseph was torn by a beast!”
Jacob identified Joseph's torn coat, believing he had been devoured by a wild beast, as his sons had deceived him to prevent a curse and fulfill a divine decree. Deception and manipulation are seen in biblical leaders and followers, such as the snake lying to Eve and Jacob's sons presenting a false confirmation of Joseph's death. The distress of the speaker in the liturgy is described, seeking salvation in the month of Tevet. Midrash discusses the punishment of Joseph's brothers and the symbolism of the olive leaf. Various commentaries provide interpretations of different aspects of the story, including the identity of Asher's daughter Serach and the symbolism of gemstones on the High Priest's breastplate. In the Second Temple text, Joseph's pursuit of artificiality is likened to being devoured by an evil beast. Rabbi Shimon teaches in the Talmud about the punishment for liars, illustrated by Jacob's sons deceiving him. In Tanakh, it is stated that a guardian is not required to replace an animal torn by beasts. The Targum suggests that Jacob believed Joseph was still alive, with an evil woman possibly involved.

Commentary

Jacob identified Joseph's torn coat and concluded that a wild beast had devoured him, as the brothers had led him to believe that Joseph was dead and had made a pact not to reveal the truth, including God in their agreement. This was done to prevent Jacob from cursing them and to fulfill a divine decree. The ban was considered similar to an oath, preventing repentance from nullifying the punishment. The evil beast symbolized Potiphar's wife's attempt to ensnare Joseph, with the redemption of Israel depending on his righteousness. Ultimately, Joseph's faith and righteousness saved him from destruction.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:33:1

חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has eaten him;” for if he had fallen into the hands of robbers they would not have left the striped coat behind.

Chomat Anakh on Torah, Genesis 37:33:1

A wicked beast devoured him; Joseph was truly devoured. It is possible that the Holy Spirit alluded to it in his mouth, and the intention is that, just as the Holy Spirit is directed, so was the wicked beast Potiphar's wife, who was possessed by the evil inclination. She was intensely involved in every possible way to ensnare Joseph because the redemption of Israel and the rectification of Adam's sin depended on him. If, God forbid, Joseph would sin, the world would be destroyed. The adversary sought to tempt him doubly, and the rest of the nations hoped to see Joseph fail, God forbid. However, God did not forsake him, and he was saved. It was a rectification for Adam's sin and the salvation of Israel from exile. But this wicked beast, an evil thought, God associates with the action, and it is considered as if a wicked beast devoured him. But the truth is, Joseph was truly devoured, tormented and afflicted, even though he later ended up in prison, as our sages have said. But after all the torment, Joseph remained righteous, firm in his faith, and was saved by the mercy of God.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:33:1

WITHOUT DOUBT TORN IN PIECES. Toraf (torn) is a pu’al. The tet is vocalized with a cholam (Rather than a kubbutz as is the rule in the pu’al. Hence the reading toraf rather than turaf.) because it precedes a resh which cannot receive a dagesh. (All middle root letters in the pu’al receive a dagesh. However, the resh cannot receive a dagesh; thus the preceding vowel changes from a kubbutz to a cholam.) Morak (It, too, is a pu’al, and because the middle letter is a resh the preceding letter is vocalized with a cholam.) (scoured) in it shall be scoured (u-morek), and rinsed in water (Lev. 6:21) is similar.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:33:1

טרוף טורף יוסף, "Joseph has been torn to shreds!" Jacob meant that Joseph had endured a twofold tearing (this is why Jacob said טרף twice). 1) A wild beast had torn him and killed him. 2) That animal had dragged him to its lair; as a result of this even a search for his remains was futile and he, Jacob, could not even bury his body. Were it not for this interpretation why did Jacob not organise a search for Joseph's remains? The brothers were clever enough to stress: "this we have found, examine please, etc." They made it plain to Jacob that they had not even found any bones.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:33:1-2

כתונת בני, “the coat of my son!” He meant: “this is the coat of my son.” חיה רעה אכלתהו,“a wild beast has devoured him.” According to the plain meaning of the text he meant: “had robbers slain him they would have taken the coat. Therefore it must have been a beast.” According to Bereshit Rabbah (84,10) Yaakov had a flash of insight seeing in his mind’s eye that Joseph would become provoked by the wife of Potiphar. We may be permitted the question that if G’d granted him such a flash of insight, why did He not reveal to him that Joseph was alive? Our sages answered this by saying that the brothers had all made a solemn agreement that whosoever would reveal what happened to Yaakov would be ostracised. They had included G’d in that agreement, i.e. they did specifically impose silence even on G’d (compare Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer 38). In order to make such a weird sounding statement more plausible, let us consider the following. There were nine brothers present at the time the sale took place (Binyamin and Reuven were absent. Joseph, as the victim was not part of this agreement). In order to make such a solemn oath or agreement legally valid a quorum of ten adult males was required. They had decided to make G’d the tenth member of that quorum (not that they “forbade” G’d to reveal to Yaakov what He saw fit to reveal). If you find this concept difficult to accept, consider, if you will that when Avraham prayed for the cities of Sodom, etc. to be saved if they contained a certain number of righteous individuals, he asked if G’d would spare them if He could find there forty-five such people. Why did he mention the number 45, and not 35, 25, or 15? He began with he number 50 to say that if there could be found a quorum of ten good people in each of the five towns under threat of extinction G’d should spare the town on account of them. In mentioning the number 45, he assumed that if each of these towns would have only nine righteous men G’d would be willing to make up the missing tenth and thus He would complement the required number (Genesis 18,28 according to Rashi). If you were to reject this comparison saying that whereas Avraham wanted to make G’d a partner in order to save a town, in this instance the brothers made G’d their partner in a destructive scheme, remember that their objective was not a nefarious one. Their objective all along had been to preserve the people of Israel and the honour of G’d as they considered how Yaakov would curse all of them if he became aware of what they had done to his favourite son. If the sons and family of Yaakov would perish, who would proclaim the name and glory of G’d in the world? The situation which would then come about is similar to the one mentioned in Joshua 7,9 when Joshua felt that the Israelites were threatened by the defeat they had suffered at the hands of the little town of Ai, and he implored G’d to reverse this defeat. He said: והכיתו את שמנו מן הארץ ומה תעשה לשמך הגדול, “and they will wipe out our name from the land and then what will You do to promote Your great name?” On account of these considerations the brothers had felt justified in including G’d Himself in their scheme. Incidentally, we find that Moses also included G’d and his heavenly tribunal at the time he received the Torah. You might ask that seeing the sages (Bereshit Rabbah 84,21) have told us that Yitzchak knew that Joseph was alive but decided not to reveal this to his son Yaakov as he felt that G’d must have had a good reason if He Himself had not revealed it to him, whence did Yitzchak have his information? We must obviously conclude that G’d had told Yitzchak. He also told Binyamin that Joseph was alive. We know this (compare Bereshit Rabbah 71,8) because the gem on Aaron’s breastplate which represented the tribe of Binyamin was the ישפה, which may be read as יש פה, “there is a mouth”. The Midrash implies that though Binyamin was not included in that solemn undertaking of the nine brothers and he could have told his father that Joseph was alive without violating that pact, he decided to keep his mouth shut as he appreciated the motivations which had guided his brothers when making such a pact, and he too did not want to take the chance that his father would curse the brothers.

Rashi on Genesis 37:33:1

ויאמר כתנת בני AND HE SAID, MY SON’S COAT —is this (i.e. supply the words היא זו after בני).

Rashi on Genesis 37:33:2

חיה רעה אכלתהו AN EVIL BEAST HATH EATEN HIM — The spirit of prophecy was enkindled within him, for these words may be taken to mean that at some future time Potiphar’s wife would attack him (Genesis Rabbah 84:19). Why did not the Holy One, blessed be He, make known to him (Jacob) that he was still living? Because they had placed under a ban and a curse anyone of them who would make it known, and they made the Holy One, blessed be He, a party with them to this agreement (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2) Isaac, however, knew that he was living, but he thought, “How dare I reveal it since the Holy One, blessed be He does not wish to reveal it” (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:33:1

אכלתהו vergegenwärtigt ihm den Verlust, טרוף טורף das Entsetzliche des Vorgangs, — er sieht den Sohn, das geliebte Kind, den blühenden Jüngling in den fletschenden Zähnen des Raubtieres: zerrissen, zerrissen ist Josef worden! Siehe jedoch zu Schmot 22, 30 eigentlich: zum Fraß genommen.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:33:1

Is this. It is an abbreviated verse. For without [adding] “is this,” it is not understandable.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:33:2

It is his destiny that Potiphar’s wife would provoke him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should have written, “Yoseif has been torn to pieces,” [omitting “evil beast had devoured him”]. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: How would Yaakov know that a wild animal tore him up? Perhaps bandits attacked him.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:33:3

Because they banned and cursed anyone who would reveal it and they included God with them... Hashem surely was not “forced” [as it were]. But He willingly agreed with the ban for a number of reasons. First, so that [the decree of] “Your descendants will be foreigners in a land not theirs...” (15:13) could be fulfilled. If Yaakov had known that Yoseif was brought to Egypt, he would have given all the money in the world to redeem him! Second, if Yaakov had known [what the brothers did] he would have cursed them that their names be blotted out, and the seed of Yisrael would have perished — whereas Hashem wanted them to be fruitful and multiply. As Rashi proceeds to explain, “Hashem does not wish to reveal it to him,” implying that He was not forced. Had He wished, He could have revealed it, but He agreed with them in order to fulfill the decree, “...They will enslave them and oppress them” (ibid). Third, it says: “He mourned his son for many days” (v. 24), and Rashi explains that it was twenty-two years. Why did Rashi say specifically twenty-two? He must have been answering the question: Why did Hashem put Yaakov in anguish for twenty-two years, and not tell him [that Yoseif was alive]? Perforce, it was for the twenty-two years that Yaakov did not honor his parents. Whereas if Hashem would tell Yaakov, he would repent, nullifying the twentytwo year decree of anguish. But because Hashem wished to punish him for not having honored his parents, He agreed to the brothers’ ban on revealing it. A ban (חרם) is like an oath, and when Hashem takes an oath [over a decree of punishment], repentance cannot nullify it. For it says [about Moshe’s punishment]: “Therefore, you will not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them” (Bamidbar 20:12). And Rashi there explains: “This was said as an oath... He swore precipitously, so that he should not pray at length about it [to nullify the decree].” Here as well, the ban was like an oath; thus Hashem agreed with them.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:33

He identified it, and said: This is my son’s tunic; clearly an evil beast devoured him; Joseph was mauled. The brothers told Jacob that they discovered only the tunic. They found no traces of Joseph’s body, as the wild beast would have dragged it to its lair. Since the animal would not consume the tunic, it was left and therefore recovered.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:33:1

חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has devoured him.” He did not say that robbers had slain him, for if so they would have robbed him of his precious tunic.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 54

“A savage beast devoured him” [37:33]. Jacob recognized it and said: a wild animal certainly devoured Joseph. If robbers had killed him, they would have taken away the tunic. The Midrash says that he saw prophetically that Potiphar’s wife would cast aspersions on Joseph and he would be thrown in prison. (Genesis Rabbah, 84.19.) Bahya writes. Why did the Holy One not say to Jacob that Joseph was still alive? The explanation is that his nine brothers put a ban on anyone who would tell that Joseph was sold; he should be cursed. They joined the Holy One to their group so that there should be a quorum of ten, so that the ban should be strong. Abraham did the same thing with regard to Sodom. He wanted to join the Holy One to nine righteous people, who together with the Holy One would be ten righteous ones and should protect a city in which there would be ten righteous ones. If you want to ask, the Holy One would not join with the children for evil, that they wanted to make a ban not to tell Jacob. The explanation is that there was no evil. The Holy One joined the ban, since if Jacob had heard that his children had sold Joseph he would have cursed them that they should be taken from this world, heaven forbid. Therefore, the Holy One joined with them. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:33.)

Jewish Thought

The Bible contains instances of deception and manipulation in the words of leaders and followers, such as the snake lying to Eve and Jacob deceiving his father to steal a blessing. Jacob's sons also use deception, causing their father great pain by presenting him with Joseph's coat dipped in blood as a false confirmation of his death. These examples highlight the dark side of leadership and language in the Bible [Leadership in the Wilderness; Authority and Anarchy in the Book of Numbers, Part III, Chapter 13; Leadership and Language 12].

Leadership in the Wilderness; Authority and Anarchy in the Book of Numbers, Part III, Chapter 13; Leadership and Language 12

Words in the mouths of leaders and followers have a dark side in the Bible as well; littered across its pages are many words of deception and recrimination. We open Genesis with the snake lying to Eve, and Eve lying to Adam. Later, Jacob’s stilted conversation with his father when he dressed as his brother to steal the blessing pains the reader with its manipulation: “I am Esau, your first-born” (Gen. 27:19). Isaac did not immediately accept this self-identification: “The voice is the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau…. Are you really my son Esau?” (Gen. 27:22, 24). At this juncture, Jacob could have raised his hands in self-disgust and confessed. Instead he hammered the lie in deeper. “I am.” Still later in Genesis, Jacob tasted the impact of lies in bitter recriminations. Joseph’s brothers turned up at Jacob’s door with a coat dipped in animal blood, asking the not-so-innocent question: “We found this. Please examine it; is it your son’s tunic or not?” (Gen. 37:33). They knew exactly whose coat it was, but they let an object tell their lie; a gift of love came back to Jacob as a prop of deception. His sons wounded their father with words in stabbing convulsions of loss.

Liturgy

The distress of the speaker is described, mentioning three specific blows received in the month, fasting established on three days, the Greek king's forced conversion, the shame and loss of glory on the Ninth, the tearing apart of Ezra the Scribe, and the command to Ben Buzi the Visionary on the Tenth. The speaker expresses deep sorrow and supplication for salvation, acknowledging transgressions and seeking God's mercy despite feeling hard-hit in the month of Tevet.

Siddur Ashkenaz, Festivals, Selichot, Ten of Tevet 14

14. I will describe the distress that calls me. He hit me with three blows this month. He cut me down, prevented me, hit me. Even now, He wears me out. He depressed me on the Eighth, right and left. Did I not establish fasts on all three of the days? And the Greek king forced me to write my religion in Greek. "Those who plow use my back to plow, they make the furrow long." I fumed on the Ninth with deep-dug shame. He removed from me the cloak of glory and alacrity. The one who had said beautiful words was torn apart on that day. This was Ezra the Scribe. (Ezekiel) Ben Buzi the Visionary was commanded about the Tenth day. He wrote for You in his book of visions. For a remembrance for a nation who is melted and disgraced. "This very day." The count of the monthly calendar was awakened against me. I stretch out my mouth with dirges and wailing. The order of the tragedies will burn in my heart. When "the refugee came to me saying the city had been hit." About these, I throw dirt on my face. I have been wounded by these four things- if only I had shot an arrow into my heart! In distress over these, I dig myself a grave. "God is justified, because I transgressed his word." I called Your name, the One comforted about my evil doings. See my suffering, hear the voice of my supplication. Listen to my pleas, quicken my salvation. "Do not shut your ear to my cry for ease, to my appeal." In the month of Tevet I was very hard-hit. The order of its celestial paths were changed against me. I rebelled, I violated, but let Him reveal His goodness to me. The One who tells the sea, "You may come up until here."

Midrash

In Vayikra Rabbah 31:10, it is explained that the olive leaf brought back by the dove to Noah symbolizes the Land of Israel not being affected by the flood. In Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2:6, it is discussed how the brothers of Joseph were punished for selling him and that their sin was not forgiven until they died. In Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:15:4, the dove bringing back the olive leaf is seen as a symbol of bringing light to the world. In Bereshit Rabbah 33:6, the dove not finding rest after the flood is likened to the Jewish people not finding rest in exile.

Aggadat Bereshit 61:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Bereshit Rabbah 33:6

“He sent the dove from him, to see if the water abated from upon the surface of the ground” (Genesis 8:8). “But the dove did not find rest for its foot, and it returned to him to the ark, as water was upon the surface of the entire earth; and he extended his hand and took it, and brought it to him to the ark” (Genesis 8:9). “He sent the dove…but the dove did not find rest…” – Yehuda bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Had it found rest, it would not have returned. Similarly, “it (The people of Israel.) dwells among the nations, finding no rest” (Lamentations 1:3) – had it found rest, it would never have returned [from exile]. Similarly, “and among these nations you will not be calm, and there will be no rest…” (Deuteronomy 28:65) – but had it (The people of Israel.) found rest they would never have returned. “He waited yet another seven days and again sent the dove from the ark. The dove came to him at evening time, and behold, it had a plucked olive leaf in its mouth; and Noah knew that the water had abated from upon the earth” (Genesis 8:10–11). “He waited yet another seven days” – Rabbi Yosei said: There were three sets of seven days. (There was a seven-day period between the sending of the raven and the first sending of the dove, though that is not mentioned in the verses, in addition to the two seven-day periods between the three times the dove was sent.) And again sent the dove from the ark…the dove came to him…plucked [taraf]…in its mouth” – what is taraf? “Killed,” (The plucking of the leaf led to the tree’s death.) just as you say: “Joseph had been mauled [tarof toraf]” (Genesis 37:33). He said to it: Had you left it, it would have become a great tree. From where did it [the dove] bring it [the leaf]? (Given that the entire surface of the earth had been destroyed.) It was from the branches in the Land of Israel that it brought it. Rabbi Levi said: It brought it from the Mount of Olives, as the Land of Israel was not inundated in the Flood. That is what the Holy One blessed be He said to Ezekiel: “It is a land that has not been purified, that was not rained upon on the day of fury” (Ezekiel 22:24). Rav Beivai said: The gates of the Garden of Eden opened up before it, and it brought it [from there]. Rabbi Abbahu said: Had it brought it from the Garden of Eden, would it not have brought an item of greater excellence, either cinnamon or balsam? It is, rather, that it was alluding to a lesson for him. It was saying to Noah: Better this bitter item, and not something sweet dependent upon your hand. (Through the allusion of the dove with the olive leaf, God implied that it is better for a person to work for his own sustenance, even if he can afford only bitter food, than to receive sweet food as a handout. ) “He waited yet another seven days and sent the dove, and it did not return again to him anymore” (Genesis 8:12). “He waited yet another seven days” – this supports what Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: There were three sets of seven days; “He…sent the dove, and it did not return again to him anymore.”

Bereshit Rabbah 84:10

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

Bereshit Rabbah 84:19

“Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he rent his garments” (Genesis 37:29). “Reuben returned to the pit” – where had he been? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua: Rabbi Eliezer said: In his sackcloth and his fasting. (He was preoccupied with his repentance for his action involving Bilha (Genesis 35:22).) When he was free, he went and peered into that pit. That is what is written: “Reuben returned to the pit.” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘A person has never sinned before Me and repented, and you are the first to initiate repentance. As you live, your descendant will arise and be the first to initiate repentance.’ (He will be the first to teach about the full power of repentance, such as the fact that repentance out of love can cause one’s sins to be considered as merits (Yefe To’ar). ) Who is that? It is Hosea, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hosea 14:2). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat” – why a goat? Because its blood is similar to that of man. “They sent the fine tunic, and they brought it to their father and said: We found this. Identify, please: Is it your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:32). “They sent the fine tunic…” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said: “Identify, please”; as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please”’ (Genesis 38:25). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him; Joseph has been mauled” (Genesis 37:33). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic” – he said: I do not know what I am seeing. (Jacob was used to a high level of perception, fueled by the Divine Spirit. But from this incident until he reunited with Joseph, that clarity left him, and he was unsure of the exact facts or full ramifications of what he was seeing (Maharzu). ) “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him…” – Rav Huna said: The Divine Spirit flashed in him: “A savage beast devoured him” – this is Potifar’s wife. (Rav Huna explains that although Jacob himself was unsure what had occurred, he said something that alluded to future events (Maharzu). )

Bereshit Rabbah 93:8

“My lord asked his servants, saying: Do you have a father or a brother?” (Genesis 44:19). “My lord asked his servants…” – [Judah] said to him: ‘From the outset you came against us with malice. How many countries descended to Egypt to purchase food? But you did not ask [this of] any of them. Did we, perhaps, come to take our daughter, or are you planning to marry our sister? Nevertheless, we hid nothing from you.’ [Joseph] said to him: ‘I see that you are a prattler. Is there among your brothers a prattler like you?’ (Why are you the only one of the brothers talking? According to Tanḥuma (Vayigash 5), Joseph claimed that he knew through divination that Judah was not the oldest of the brothers, and therefore it was even more surprising that he was doing all the talking. ) [Judah] said to him: ‘All this that you see is because I became a guarantor for him.’ [Joseph] said to him: ‘Why did you not do so on behalf of your brother when you sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver pieces, and you brought anguish to your father and said to him: “Joseph was mauled”?’ (Genesis 37:33). When Judah heard this he screamed and cried in a loud voice. (Judah screamed and cried because Joseph was not giving in to his demand to release Benjamin. ) He said: “For how will I go up to my father?” (Genesis 44:34). Judah said to Naphtali: ‘Go and see how many marketplaces there are in Egypt.’ He leapt and returned and said to him: ‘Twelve.’ Judah said to his brothers: ‘I will destroy three of them, and each and every one of you take one each, “and no man will be left among them”’ (I Samuel 14:36). His brothers said to him: ‘Egypt is not like Shekhem. If you destroy Egypt you will be destroying the entire world.’ “Joseph could not restrain himself before all those standing before him, and he called: Remove every man from before me. No man stood with him when Joseph revealed himself to his brothers” (Genesis 45:1). “He raised his voice in weeping; the Egyptians heard, and the house of Pharaoh heard” (Genesis 45:2). “Joseph said to his brothers: I am Joseph; does my father still live? And his brothers could not answer him because they were alarmed before him” (Genesis 45:3). “Joseph said to his brothers: Please approach me, and they approached. He said: I am Joseph your brother whom you sold to Egypt” (Genesis 45:4). At that moment, “Joseph could not restrain himself” (Genesis 45:1). When Joseph saw that they had come to an agreement to destroy Egypt, Joseph said to himself: ‘It is preferable that I reveal myself to them and they will not destroy Egypt.’ Joseph said to them: ‘Did you not say that this one’s brother was dead? I will call him and he will come to you.’ He was calling: ‘Joseph son of Jacob, come to me. Joseph son of Jacob come to me.’ They were looking to the four corners of the palace. He said to them: ‘What are you looking for? “I am Joseph your brother”’ (Genesis 45:4). Immediately, their souls departed, as it is stated: “His brothers could not [answer him because they were alarmed before him]” (Genesis 45:3). But they did not believe him until he uncovered himself and showed them his circumcision.

Bereshit Rabbah 94:8

“And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Bekher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Eḥi, and Rosh, Mupim, and Ḥupim, and Ard” (Genesis 46:21). “And the sons of Benjamin: Bela…” – when Joseph stood with Benjamin, he asked him: ‘Do you have sons?’ He said to him: ‘Yes.’ He said to him: ‘How many?’ He said to him: ‘Ten.’ He said: ‘What are their names?’ He said to him: ‘I had one brother. His actions were fine and pleasant, and he was taken captive from me, and I gave them names based on his experience. “Bela” – as he was swallowed [nivla] up from me; “Bekher” – as he was my firstborn [bekhor] [brother]; “Ashbel” – as he was taken captive [nishba] from me; “Gera” – as he resides [gar] in another land; “Naaman” – as his actions were fine [na’im] and pleasant [ne’imim]; “Eḥi” – as he was my full-fledged brother [aḥi]; “and Rosh” – as he was a leader [rosh] for me, and he was the head [roshan] of his brothers, as it is stated: “May his blessing rest on the head of [lerosh] Joseph” (Deuteronomy 33:16); “Mupim” – as he was very fine [yafeh] in all respects, and all the halakhot that Shem and Ever transmitted to Jacob, he transmitted to him. (Mupim – mo pihem – directly from their mouths.) “And Ḥupim” – as he did not see my wedding canopy [beḥupati] and I did not see his wedding canopy [beḥupato], and they concealed [veḥipu] matters in his regard and said: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:33). “And Ard” – as he was like a rose [vered]. “And Ard” – after: [Jacob said:] “For I will descend [ered] mourning to my son to the grave” (Genesis 37:35).’ “And the sons of Naphtali: Yaḥtze'el, and Guni, and Yetzer, and Shilem” (Genesis 46:24). “And the sons of Naphtali” – their [creations] were twisted [muftalin] on seventy-two heddles; (A heddle is an integral part of a loom.) as they twisted [potelin] the work of heddles. (They were expert weavers. ) “Yaḥtze'el” – they broke [sheḥitzu] the gods in their hand and they cut [metzaḥtzeḥin] with their teeth and would sneer with their lips. (They would break idols, and make cutting remarks and disdainful facial expressions about idolatry (see Yefeh To’ar; Etz Yosef). However, see Matnot Kehuna, where these statements are interpreted to mean that they fashioned idols and made disparaging comments toward God. ) “And Guni” – they spoke in derogatory [megunim] language. “And Yetzer” – their [evil] inclination was stronger than that of all [other] people. “And Shilem” – they were devoted [mushlamim] to their inclination (Alternatively, they were devoted to God despite their strong evil inclination (Yefeh To’ar). ) and would repay [umshalmin] goodness with evil.

Bereshit Rabbah 95:2

The verse states: “The jealousy of Ephraim will cease” (Isaiah 11:13) – because Jacob our patriarch believed that Judah had killed Joseph when he brought him the tunic, as it is stated: “He recognized it, and said: My son's tunic, an evil beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:33), and an evil beast is none other than a lion.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Miketz 13:10

(Ibid., cont.:) GOD HAS FOUND OUT THE CRIME OF YOUR SERVANTS. Do not read: "He has found out" but: "He has caused < others > to find out." Two < of us > brothers never enter a banquet hall together because of the < evil > eye. Now all of us find ourselves in a single garden bed through a single offense which took place at our hands. He said to them: This brother of yours was not with you at that time. They said to him: Everything found with the thief is seized with him. He said to them: But, if in the case of your former brother, who neither stole nor caused you grief, you said (in Gen. 37:33 // 44:28): HE HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS; how much the more < are these words applicable > in the case of this one who has stolen and caused you grief! Go, say to his father: HE HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS. Now are not < these > words an argument a fortiori? And, if an unfortunate incident which came about through righteous ones (like Joseph) has been sustaining the whole world, (Cf. the parallel version in Tanh., Gen. 10:10: “So if, in the case of an unfortunate incident which comes about through this righteous person, he has been sustaining all who come into the world…. ” In this version the reference is more clearly to Joseph’s misfortune which resulted in his feeding the world during the famine.) how much the more so in the case of merit which the Holy One brings about through them! (See above, note 35.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Miketz 15:3

[Another interpretation: IN ANTICIPATION OF THE TIME OF DISCOVERY.] < It means > that someone had to be hoping for something until he knew his end. Who was this? This was Jacob. Although he said (in Gen. 37:33 // 44:28): HE HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS, he was waiting for the Holy One. In the end he informed him that Joseph was alive. And not only that, but he < himself > brought him the good news that he was alive. (Gen. 43:14, cont.:) AND MAY GOD ALMIGHTY GRANT YOU MERCY. (Cf. Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34: “And not only that, but his mouth proclaimed the good news that he was alive. Where is it shown? Where it says (in Gen. 43:14, cont.): AND MAY GOD ALMIGHTY GRANT YOU MERCY BEFORE THE MAN THAT HE MAY RELEASE TO YOU YOUR BROTHER, i.e.. Simeon. THE OTHER ONE, i e., Joseph. AND BENJAMIN, i.e., Benjamin.”)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 10:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Is. 11:13): THEN EPHRAIM'S JEALOUSY SHALL DEPART. (Tanh., Gen. 11:9; Gen. R. 95:2.) < He was sent > because our father Jacob thought that Judah had killed Joseph because he had brought him the tunic, about which it is stated (in Gen. 37:33): HE RECOGNIZED IT AND SAID: MY SON'S TUNIC! AN EVIL BEAST HAS EATEN HIM. Now AN EVIL BEAST is nothing but a lion. (According to Gen. 49:9, JUDAH IS A LION’S WHELP.) So Jacob said to him: You have torn him to pieces, and you are going to tear his brother to pieces. You would not have torn him to pieces except out of jealousy. Immediately (there follows in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS….

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2:6

When Reuben descended to the pit during the night to rescue his brother, and found that Joseph was no longer there, he tore his clothing and wept. He returned to his brothers and told them: The child is not; and as for me, whither shall I go? (ibid., v. 30). They related to him what had transpired and told him about the pact they had entered into. And he remained silent. Though it is written about the Holy One, blessed be He: He declareth His word to Jacob (Ps. 147:19), He did not disclose this matter to him because of the pact of excommunication. That is why Jacob said: Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces (Gen. 37:33). R. Mana maintained: The tribes were punished because they sold Joseph, and their sin was not forgiven until they died. Hence Scripture says of them: Surely, this iniquity shall not be expiated by you until you die (Isa. 22:17).

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 5:5

Joseph retorted. “Why do you speak in behalf of all your brothers? I have discovered through this cup that you do have older brothers, and that you are, indeed, a garrulous creature.” Judah replied: “What you see is correct, but I am compelled to speak because I pledged myself as a surety for my brother.” “Then why were you not surety for your brother when you sold him to the Midianites for twenty pieces of silver, and why did you distress your father by telling him Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces (Gen. 37:33)? Joseph did you no evil, but this one sinned in stealing the goblet. Go tell your father: The rope has followed after the bucket.” (That is, Benjamin suffered the same fate as Joseph.)

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere in reference to this verse: The envy also of Ephraim shall depart … Ephraim shall not envy Judah (Isa. 11:13). Jacob our patriarch sent Judah before him because he believed that Judah had killed Joseph at the time he brought him the coat of many colors, as it is said: And he knew it, and said: “It is my son’s coat; an evil beast hath devoured him” (Gen. 37:33). An evil beast refers to Judah, since it is said: Judah is a lion’s whelp. And Jacob said to Judah: “Thou art the one who hath rent him asunder.” Whereupon Jacob rent his garments … and all his sons and daughters rose up to comfort him (ibid., vv. 34–35).

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 38:12

And Reuben || went down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit, but he did not find him there. He said to them: Ye have slain Joseph; "and I, whither shall I go?" (Gen. 37:80). And they told him what they had done, and the ban which they had proclaimed; and Reuben heard of the ban, and was silent; the Holy One, blessed be He, because of the ban, did not tell the matter to Jacob, and (though) concerning Him it is written, "He sheweth his word unto Jacob" (Ps. 147:19); but this word He did not shew unto Jacob, therefore Jacob did not know what had been done to Joseph, and he said: "Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces" (Gen. 37:33).

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:15:4

“Your eyes are like doves.” Like doves; your quality is like that of the dove. Just as the dove brought light to the world, you, too, bring light to the world, as it is stated: “The nations will walk by your light” (Isaiah 60:3). When did the dove bring light to the world? During the days of Noah. That is what is written: “The dove came to him at evening time and behold, there was an olive leaf plucked [taraf] in its mouth” (Genesis 8:11). What is “taraf in its mouth”? (The root tet-resh-pei can refer to food or to killing.) Killed, just as you say: “Joseph was mauled [tarof taraf]” (Genesis 37:33). Rabbi Berekhya said: Had it not killed it, it would have become a great tree. (The dove brought a leaf from a living tree, indicating to Noah that there was life in the world.) From where did it bring it? Rabbi Levi said: It brought it from the branches of the Land of Israel. That is what people say: The Land of Israel was not stricken with the flood waters. That is what was stated by Ezekiel: “Son of man, say to it: You are a land that has not been cleansed, that has not been rained upon on the day of fury” (Ezekiel 22:24). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even the lower millstones were dissolved in the water. (Thus, since the destruction wrought by the flood was so devastating, it must be that if a tree was growing at that time, it was from the Land of Israel (Etz Yosef).) Rabbi Taryi said: The gates of the Garden of Eden opened for it, and it brought it from there. Rabbi Aivu said to him: Had it brought it from the Garden of Eden, should it not have brought a high-quality item, e.g., cinnamon or balsam? Rather it was hinting to Noah, [as though] it said to him: My master, Noah: [It is preferable to have something] bitter from this [tree] from the hand of the Holy One blessed be He, and not [something] sweet from your hand.

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 4:1:2

“Your eyes are doves” – your eyes are the Sanhedrin, who are the eyes of the congregation. That is what is written: “It shall be, if from the eyes of the congregation” (Numbers 15:24). There are two hundred and forty-eight limbs in a person, and all of them come and go only after the eyes. So too, Israel is unable to do anything without their Sanhedrin. “Doves” – just as this dove is faultless, so too, Israel is pleasant as they walk when they ascend on the occasions of the pilgrimage festivals. Just as the dove is conspicuous, so too, Israel is conspicuous in haircut, circumcision, and ritual fringes. Just as the dove is modest, so too, Israel is modest. Just as a dove extends its neck for slaughter, so too, Israel: “For we are killed for You all day” (Psalms 44:23). Just as the dove atones for evils, so too, Israel atones for the nations, as all the seventy bulls that they sacrifice on the festival [of Sukkot] correspond to the seventy nations, so that the world will not be bereft of them. That is what is written: “In return for my love, they accuse me; but I am all prayer” (Psalms 109:4). Just as the dove, from the time it meets its mate, it does not exchange it for another, so too Israel, from the time they came to know the Holy One blessed be He, they did not exchange Him for another. Just as the dove enters its nest and knows its nest, its dovecote, its fledglings, its chicks, and its windows, so are the three rows of Torah scholars when they sit before them, (Three rows of scholars would sit before the members of the Sanhedrin when the Sanhedrin would deliberate. When new judges for the Sanhedrin were needed, they were chosen from these scholars (see Sanhedrin 37a).) each and every one knows his place. Just as the dove, even though you take its fledglings from beneath it, it will never forsake its dovecote, so too Israel, even though the Temple was destroyed, the three annual pilgrimage festivals were not abrogated. Just as the dove produces a new brood each and every month, so too Israel renew for themselves Torah, mitzvot, and good deeds each month. Just as the dove travels far afield and returns to its dovecote, so too Israel; that is what is written: “They will stir like a bird from Egypt” (Hosea 11:11) – this is the generation of the wilderness; “and like a dove from the land of Assyria” (Hosea 11:11) – these are the Ten Tribes. These and those, “I will settle them in their houses, the utterance of the Lord” (Hosea 11:11). Rabbi says: There is a type of dove that they feed it, and its counterparts smell it and come to its dovecote. So too, when an elder sits and teaches, many proselytes convert at that time, such as Yitro, who heard and came, and Raḥav heard and came. So too Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya, many proselytes converted at that time. What is the reason? “When he sees his children” (Isaiah 29:23); what is written thereafter? “Those of misguided spirit will attain understanding” (Isaiah 29:24). Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] was sitting and expounding, and the audience was dozing. He sought to rouse them. He said: A certain woman in Egypt bore six hundred thousand in a single womb. There was one student there, Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yosei was his name. He said to [Rabbi]: ‘For whom was it so?’ [Rabbi] said to him: ‘This is Yokheved, who bore Moses, who is the equivalent of six hundred thousand of Israel. That is what is written: “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel” (Exodus 15:1). “The children of Israel did according to everything that the Lord commanded Moses, so they did” (Numbers 1:54). (The verse does not say that God commanded Israel, but rather that He commanded Moses and Israel did what He commanded.) “There has not arisen another prophet in Israel like Moses” (Deuteronomy 34:10).’ (The verse is formulated such that the last phrase quoted here can be translated as “Israel is like Moses.”) “Your eyes are doves” – like doves; your characteristic is like that of a dove; just as this dove brought light to the world, so too, Israel brings light to the world, as it is stated: “Nations will walk by your light” (Isaiah 60:3). When did the dove bring light to the world? In the days of Noah. That is what is written: “The dove came to him in the evening, and there was an olive leaf plucked in its mouth…” (Genesis 8:11). What is plucked [taraf]? Dead, just as you say: “Joseph has been torn apart [tarof toraf]” (Genesis 37:33). Rabbi Berekhya said: Had it not killed it, (Had the dove not plucked the olive leaf.) it would have become a great tree. From where did it bring it? Rabbi Levi said: It brought it from the branches of the Land of Israel. That is what people say: The Land of Israel was not stricken with the water of the Flood. That is what was stated by Ezekiel: “Son of man, say to it: You are a land that has not been cleansed, that has not been rained upon on the day of fury” (Ezekiel 22:24). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even the upper millstones were dissolved in the water. (This strengthens the question: If the destruction was so great, where did the dove find an olive branch (Maharzu). Alternatively, this supports Rabbi Levi’s answer: Since the destruction was so great, it must be that the olive branch was found in a place that remained unaffected by the Flood (Etz Yosef).) Rabbi Taryi said: The gates of The Garden of Eden were opened for it, and from there it brought it. Rabbi Aivu said to him: Had it brought it from the Garden of Eden, should it not have brought a quality item such as cinnamon or balsam? Rather, it was hinting to Noah as though saying to him: My master Noah, [it is preferable to have] something bitter like this from the hand of the Holy One blessed be He and not something sweet from you.

Vayikra Rabbah 31:10

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Olive oil, but not sesame oil, nor walnut oil, nor turnip oil, nor almond oil, but rather, olive oil from your olive trees. Rabbi Avin said: This is analogous to a king whose legions revolted against him. One legion of his did not revolt. The king said: That legion that did not revolt against me will be appointed commanders, lieutenants, and military governors. So, the Holy One blessed be He said: This olive tree brought light to the world in the days of Noah; that is what is written: “The dove came to him at evening time and, behold, a plucked [taraf] olive leaf was in its mouth” (Genesis 8:11). What is “taraf”? Killed, just as it says: “Joseph was mauled [tarof taraf]” (Genesis 37:33). (And presumed dead.) Rabbi Berekhya said: Had it not killed it, it would have become a great tree. (When the dove plucked the olive leaf that it brought back to Noah, it killed the olive tree, which was a small sapling but could have grown into a great tree.) From where did it bring it? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: It brought it from the Mount of Olives. Rabbi Levi said: It brought it from the branches of the Land of Israel. That is what they say: The Land of Israel was not stricken with the Flood waters. That is what the Holy One blessed be He said by means of Ezekiel: “Son of man, say to it: You are a land that has not been purified, [that has not been rained upon on the day of fury]” (Ezekiel 22:24). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even the lower millstone was obliterated in the waters. (Since the Flood was so destructive that even large stones, such as millstones, were eroded, the dove could have found an olive leaf only in the Land of Israel, which was not destroyed in the flood. ) Rabbi Berekhya said; The gates of the Garden of Eden opened before it, and it brought it from there. Rabbi Aivu said: Had it brought it from the Garden of Eden, was there not a more exceptional item to bring, e.g., cinnamon or balsam? Rather, it [brought the olive leaf] as an indication to him, saying: My master, Noah, [I prefer something] bitter like this from the hand of the Holy One blessed be He, and not something sweet from your hand. “Outside the curtain of the testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, Aaron shall arrange it from evening until morning before the Lord continually; an eternal statute for your generations” (Leviticus 24:3).

Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 160:1

... "Until he comes to Shiloh" - as in the future all of the nations of the world will bring a present to (shai le) the Messiah, the son of David, as it is stated (Isaiah 18:7), "at that time, a present shall be brought to the Lord of hosts" ...

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that Judah was suspected of being involved in Joseph's disappearance, as hinted at in Genesis 37:33. Tur HaArokh discusses the identity of Asher's daughter Serach, suggesting she was actually his wife. Rabbeinu Bahya delves into the symbolism of gemstones on the High Priest's breastplate, linking them to the tribes of Israel. Da'at Zekenim and Chizkuni provide interpretations of the word "torn" in different contexts, such as in Noah's recognition of receding waters and Jacob's mourning of Joseph. Additionally, a commentary on Joseph's robe in Genesis 37:33 is mentioned.

Chizkuni, Genesis 48:11:1

לא פללתי, an expression describing prayer as a request from G-d. We find this word in this sense also in Psalms 106,30, where it quotes Pinchas as having prayed. Yaakov says that he had not even prayed to see Joseph again, as it would have been inappropriate seeing that he thought he had seen evidence that Joseph had been the victim of a wild beast. (Genesis 37,33) An alternate explanation: whenever this word occurs it refers to making a judgment, i.e. arriving at a definitive conclusion. Yaakov would have been saying that he had never even entertained real hope to see Joseph again. (Rash’bam)

Chizkuni, Genesis 8:11:1

וידע נח כי קלו המים, “then Noach knew that the waters had subsided substantially. The fact that the pigeon stayed out all day long convinced Noach that there was what to look at other than mere water. According to the view that the deluge did not affect the land of Israel (Zevachim 113) how could Noach have known from the torn olive leaf that the waters had indeed subsided so much? He could have deduced that this leaf had originated in the Holy Land, or it had been picked up floating on the surface of the waters? The word חטף used by the Torah here, always is used in connection with something that has been plucked from a tree. If it had been picked up floating, it would have been a whole leaf, and would not have shown signs of having been picked from its branch. The translation by Yonathan ben Uzziel is further proof of this. He translates: נחית, i.e. plucked by mouth or beak. [The Hebrew equivalent of when Yaakov mourned his son Joseph as having been torn to shreds by a wild beast, טרף טרף יוסף, Genesis 37,33.]

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 8:11:1

והנה עלי זית טרף בפיה, “and behold, it had a sprouting olive leaf in its beak.” The word טרף in this sense also occurs in Ezekiel 17,9 i.e. כל טרפי צמחה תיבש, “all its sprouting leaves may wither.” [The normal translation of the word טרף is familiar to us from Genesis 37,33, where Yaakov used it when confronted with the bloodied shreds of his son Joseph, is “torn.” Presumably, the author felt that if that was the meaning of the word here, it would have been unnecessary, as how else could the pigeon have gotten hold of it. Ed.] Seeing the sprouting leaf, Noach knew that the waters had receded significantly. It was also clear to him that the pigeon had not found that leaf floating on top of the water. He was certain that it had been plucked from a tree that was in good condition.

Essays in Ethics; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Miketz; Appearance and Reality 11

Joseph’s stained robe was produced by the brothers to disguise the fact that they were responsible for Joseph’s disappearance. Jacob “recognised it and said, ‘It is my son’s robe! A wild animal has devoured him. Joseph has surely been torn to pieces’” (Gen. 37:33).

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 31:39:1

.טרפה לא הבאתי אליך , “that which was mangled I never brought to you.” Yaakov meant that while under his care no ferocious beast mangled any of Lavan’s animals. The expression טרפה is employed as in 37,33 חיה רעה אכלתהו, טרוף טורף יוסף, “a wild beast has devoured him, Joseph has been horribly mangled.” We have other verses in Scripture using the word in the same sense.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 28:15:3

Scientific books claim that the basic number of gemstones, (not allowing for variants, mutations) are only 12 in number, so that they were all represented on the breastplate of the High Priest. They may be considered as the “patriarchs” of all other precious stones. The reason that the gemstone assigned to the tribe of Reuven was the אודם was the fact that it symbolised the blush on his face when he owned up to being guilty of his misdemeanour in Bilhah’s tent. The fact that he was not ashamed to admit his guilt is a credit to him reflected by this red-coloured stone known as “rubin.” It is supposedly found in certain areas at the bottom of the sea. It is chipped of a great rock beneath the sea, and is mined similar to silver and gold. The rock is known as Balax. Rubin and Balax are supposedly two names for the same kind of stone. The difference between them is only that the variety known as rubin is reddish looking. Onkelos also translates the word אודם as סמקן, a red stone. It is the choicest of a number of sub-categories of the same basic kind of precious stone. Seeing it is red, an essential colour reminding us of blood, it is reputed to have the power to protect a woman who wears this jewel against ever aborting any fetus she carries. Women who wear jewelry made from this stone will give birth to babies that have been growing in their wombs for the full nine months. The stone is even supposed to have positive effects upon women who are having a difficult delivery. If this stone will be crushed into powder and consumed with food and drink it displays properties similar to those of the דודאים (mandrakes?), the plant which Leah “sold” Rachel in order to help her achieve pregnancy (compare author’s comment on Genesis 30,14). The shape of those dudaim which Reuven had found at the time was the outline of a human being. This is the reason that the word אודם, normally spelled with the letter ו was spelled without that letter in order to draw our attention to the spelling which could be read “Adam,”אדם . The reading of the word teaches the nature of the stone, whereas the spelling teaches the effect of that stone, its function. Shimon’s stone פטדה, is a greenish-looking gemstone, similar to the turquoise colour of the sea in certain coastal cities. Onkelos also translates it as ירקן (emerald?). It is of the same group as the gemstone נפך, the stone with the name of Yehudah inscribed on it. Both are of similar colour, except that the stone described as נפך is the more precious of its group. It sparkles very much. The פטדה is inferior to the נפך both in colour and in sparkle. The greenish colour symbolises the terrible sexual licentiousness committed by that tribe who had caused the face of their leader Zimri to turn green in shame (Numbers 28,14). The same happened to all the other members of the tribe of Shimon who took part in that sin at that time. Darkon, dropsy, was the illness from which these people died. The positive feature of that gemstone is that it cools the body. This may be the reason it is found in hot countries such as Nubia (the Sudan). The people in that country are especially steeped in sexual licentiousness. They need to “cool off” in order to counteract their tendencies. This is why we read in Job 28,19 “topaz from Nubia cannot match its value (that of rubies).” The reason Job made this comparison was because these stones were found in Nubia. The stone which bore the name of Levi was the ברקת, known popularly as carbuncle (a rounded gemstone without facets). It is so called as it flashes just like a bolt of lightning, ברק. It illuminates like a lamp. Onkelos also translates it as ברקן, a flashing stone. This was the gemstone Noach hung in the ark to provide him with light. The Torah referred to this light in Genesis 6,15 צהר תעשה לתבה. Isaiah refers to it as אקדח, in Isaiah 54,12 where, speaking of the future of Israel he writes: ”I will make your battlements rubies and your gates of precious stones, i.e. לאבני אקדח.” The name is justified as it appears glowing like red-hot coals. A similar expression occurs also in Isaiah 50,11: “kindlers of fire.” The reason this stone was chosen to symbolise Levi was that the Levites illuminate the people by teaching them spiritual illumination, i.e. Torah, as we know from Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל, “they teach Your judgments to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel.” We also know of Moses, who was of the tribe of Levi, that the whole house was filled with light when he was born as the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 1,24) interpreted the words in Exodus there (Exodus 2,2) that “she (his mother) saw that he was good.” Furthermore, when Moses returned from Mount Sinai with the second sets of Tablets the Torah testified that the skin of his face emitted rays of light (Exodus 34,29). We have another verse (Kohelet 8,1) “a man’s wisdom lights up his face.” The positive value of this gemstone is that it is apt to enlighten the foolish, providing him with insights he never had. This is in addition to the general usefulness of that jewel in providing light just as does a lamp. People say that if one pounds this carbuncle into fine dust and mixes it with food or drink as one mixes certain medicinal herbs into the food it proves very capable of providing wisdom and opening up previously “closed” hearts. Yehudah’s name was inscribed on the gemstone called נפך as we mentioned already. This jewel is known either as merkedy or zemurah in Arabic. Onkelos’ translation azmoragdin, (emerald) can support either one of these names. He chose a combination of these two words. As already mentioned, it is a greenish stone of high luster and represented his shame-facedness in accusing his daughter-in-law Tamar’s pregnancy as being the result of harlotry when he himself had fathered the child she was carrying (Genesis 38,26). Seeing that he overcame his embarrassment and made a public confession of his own involvement, this stone, i.e. its color, was chosen as appropriate for him. In addition he also had had to bear the shame, i.e. his face turning green, in the matter of having sold Joseph and his father suspecting him of this though the matter had never been spoken of. When Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his deathbed saying: “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself,” he wanted him to know that he suspected him of having been involved in the deception which had made Yaakov call out in anguish: “a wild beast has torn Joseph to shreds (Genesis 37,33).” When hearing his father say that he considered Yehudah as having elevated himself, i.e. having exonerated himself from that guilt, his face was restored to its original colour after all these years. It then resembled the appearance of the emerald giving off a sparkle. It is also written of Yehudah (Genesis 49,8) “your hand is at the neck of your enemy,” and the outstanding feature of the gemstone emerald is that people wearing it experience that their enemies turn their neck towards them, i.e. that they attempt to flee. This is the reason this jewel is known as נפך. The Bible comments on Yehudah’s bravery in battle more than once, and it is written of David (Samuel I 18,7) that he defeated his enemies in their tens of thousands, Of the messiah it is written: (Isaiah 11,4) “with the spirit (breath) of his mouth he will kill the wicked.” Issachar’s name was inscribed on a jewel called ספיר, sapphire, a jewel known as sephily of a blue colour. It had been assigned to Issachar because he was extremely wise and his tribe excelled in Torah knowledge. This has been attested to in Chronicles I 12,32. We have a tradition that the Tablets with the Ten Commandments were made of sapphire (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 26). We also find another reference to this jewel in Exodus 24,10 where the vision of G’d seen by the elders and the nobles is described as their observing with their mental eyes the appearance of bricks made of sapphire. It is a well known fact that the souls of Torah scholars are part of a whole bundle of souls beneath the throne of G’d’s attribute כבוד. This is derived from Ezekiel 1,26: “as the semblance of a throne, in appearance like sapphire.” The blue color of this jewel is not like the blue which denotes haughtiness similar to certain shades of red or green; on the contrary, it is a color symbolizing humility, modesty, a character trait equally becoming to both young and old. This is what Isaiah 57,15 meant when he wrote: “I dwell on high, in holiness; yet with the contrite and lowly in spirit.” The outstanding feature of this jewel is that it is good for one’s eyesight; this is the reason people have a habit of passing this jewel back and forth in front of their eyes. It was appropriate for Issachar as Torah also provides enlightenment. There is a popular saying that this jewel is useful in getting rid of all manner of pains and any swelling one experiences in any part of one’s body. The Torah too is a powerful remedy for all parts of the body. We have been told in Eyruvin 54 that if someone suffers from headaches the best remedy is to immerse oneself in the study of Torah. The name of Zevulun was inscribed on the gemstone known as יהלום, diamond. This gemstone is known as pirle, same as bedolach. It is clear, transparent. It is to remind us of “white” silver, an allusion to the material wealth of the tribe of Zevulun. We know from Yaakov’s blessing of Zevulun in Genesis 49,13 that he was a great trader sending his ships far afield in order to bring home wealth from foreign lands. It was appropriate therefore that the stone bearing his name was the diamond. The special property of the diamond for man is that it helps one to go to sleep, something Leah referred to when she (the mother of Zevulun) said after he was born: “this time my husband will make his permanent home with me” (Genesis 30,20). [I believe what the author meant was that possession of diamonds allows people to sleep easy as they feel emotionally and economically secure. Ed.] The name of the tribe of Dan was inscribed on a gemstone called לשם, known as opal, or ashtefassis. It shows a human face turned upside down, reminiscent of the time when the tribe of Dan attempted to reverse the norms of Judaism by appointing for themselves a non-Levite as religious leader (compare Judges 18,31). We find in Joshua 19,47 that a certain town previously called Leshem was renamed Dan in commemoration of the founding father of that tribe. This city became an integral part of the land of Israel. The name of the tribe of Naftali was inscribed on a jewel known as שבו, agate. It is commonly known as turquoise. [The various names which I have spelled in italics appear to be the equivalents of these gems’ names in Spanish or old French during the time of the author. Ed.] Onkelos also translates it as טרקיא. The special property ascribed to that gemstone was that it “pulls” man while riding in carriages or riding horses and enables him to become successful as a driver or rider. This occurs through man and beast developing mutual affinity for each other while man sits in the saddle. It was appropriate for Naftali to be associated with this gemstone as at the time he was born his step-mother Rachel had said that she had prevailed in a struggle with the attribute of Justice and her sister and as a result her handmaid had born this son for her. Rachel also had to use all her abilities (she thought) in order to have a son at least through her handmaid (compare Genesis 30,8). The gemstone bearing the name of Gad was the אחלמה, popularly known as crystal. This is why Onkelos translates the word as עין עגלא. A better known gemstone called lemon is similar to it but reddish in appearance. The reason this gemstone was used to symbolize Gad was that seeing the gemstone crystal is very common and everyone is familiar with it, the members of the tribe of Gad were also widely known as were the people who had been slain by this tribe in the wars of Israel against the Canaanites. This is the meaning of Deut. 33,20 וטרף זרעו קדקד , “tearing off arm, and even head.” The special property of this gemstone is that it reinforces the resolve of one’s heart when going to war and prevents one from becoming faint-hearted. The gemstone gives man strength. It is called אחלמה, as that word is connected to מלחמה, attributes needed to be successful in battle. The expression occurs in that sense in Isaiah 38,16: ותחלימני ותחיני, “You have restored me to health and have revived me.” The idea is that G’d made King Chiskiyah strong again. Another verse with a similar message is Job 39,4 where G’d speaks to Job about the health of the hinds, etc., saying יחלמו בניהם ירבו בבר, “their young are healthy (strong) able to grow up in the open fields.” The gemstone on which the name of the tribe of Asher was inscribed is called תרשיש, better known as cariolica, topaz, chrysolite. Its color is close to that of oil (olive oil). Others say that its color is azure-blue (compare R' David Kimchi). Onkelos translates it as כרום ימא, aquamarine. The reason is that the color of the sea resembles that of azure-blue. The name Tarshish appears also as a destination in the ship hired by the prophet Jonah, presumably because these gems could be found in that country. The special property of this topaz is to facilitate in the digestion of foods. It is even more important if one first pulverizes it and mixes the powder into one’s food. It will then make a mass similar to a mixture of flour and oil. The Torah extols Asher’s land portion within the land of Israel as being particularly full of oil, i.e. rich soil as we know from Yaakov’s blessing in Genesis 49,20. The gemstone bearing the name of the tribe of Joseph was called שהם, better known as onyx. The special property of this jewel is that its owners enjoy favor in the eyes of people. The letters in that stone also spell השם when read in a different order. This is an allusion to the verse in Genesis 39,2: “G’d was with Joseph and he became a successful man;” or, Genesis 39,24 “G’d made the warden of the prison like Joseph, etc.” Anyone who wears the jewel in the king’s palace will find that he becomes very successful and that his suggestions will be well received. The name of the gemstone on which Binyamin’s name was inscribed was ישפה, better known as jasper. It is a multi-colored gem consisting of red, black, green. Binyamin had many contradictory thoughts about the sale of Joseph by his brothers, all of which are reflected in the different colours of the jasper. The special property of that stone is that it stops the flow of blood. The reason this gemstone was assigned to the tribe of Binyamin had to do with the founder of that tribe not being able to decide if to tell his father that Joseph was most likely alive, or to keep silent as he could not foresee how Yaakov would react to such information. In the end he controlled himself, stopped himself, and did not reveal what he knew. The word ישפה may be understood as two words, i.e. יש פה, “he has a mouth,” or words to that effect. The name of that stone alludes to the fact hat Binyamin deserved credit for keeping silent about what he knew his brothers had done to his older brother Joseph. This completes the discussion about the twelve gemstones on the breastplate of the High Priest. All the details connected with the stones, the breastplate, the inscriptions, etc., are part and parcel of the detailed supervision G’d exercises over the fate of the Jewish people in all its aspects.

Rashi on Genesis 49:9:2

מטרף FROM THE PREY (literally, tearing) — From the deed of which I suspected you when I said (Genesis 37:33) “Joseph is torn in pieces, an evil beast hath devoured him” — and by that Judah was meant who was likened to a lion —

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 46:17:1

וסרח אחותם, “and their sister Serach.” Some commentators claim that seeing the Torah did not use the customary “and Search, his daughter,” as for instance “and Dinah his daughter,” but defined her as someone’s “sister,” that this is proof that Serach had not been sired by Asher at all, but had been born to his wife. This view is also held by Onkelos in his translation of our verse, where he adds the word: “his wife.” I fail to understand the validity of such a commentary as how could she then have been included in what were specifically described in verse 5 of our chapter as “the names of the descendants (biological) who made up the Children of Israel who arrived in Egypt?” The end of the chapter repeats “all the people who were biologically related to Yaakov’s offspring, etc.” We can only explain all this by again referring to the style of the Torah when narrating such details, i.e. that daughters are lumped together with their brothers when the Torah relates family relationships. Another prominent example of the style of the Torah in this regard is the line:ואחות לוטן תמנע, “Lotan had a sister named Timna.” The Torah does not describe Timna’s father as having a daughter by that name. Rashi writes that according to the view of the sage that the brothers all married half sisters who were born as twins with their male counterparts, that now, at the time when the family moved to Egypt, they were not enumerated in the list of seventy descendants as they had all died before this point in time. Nachmanides writes that we do not need to fall back on such an unlikely scenario as the brothers all having married half sisters by the father who had died before they could have reached the age of 40 or so, but that the meaning of Rabbi Yehudah (Bereshit Rabbah 84,21) who claims that Yaakov’s sons married their “sisters” who had been born as twins of their brothers, is that their names had not needed to be listed, except with the words מלבד נשי בני יעקב, “not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons,” adequately covered the subject. If the sons of Yaakov had indeed married Canaanite women, why would the Torah in Genesis 37,33 mention these women as Yaakov’s daughters? Unless they had been biologically related to Yaakov, such as being twin daughters, there would have been no point in referring to them in this entire chapter. Their names were not mentioned in this chapter just as they had not been mentioned at the time they had been born. The main purpose of the Torah listing the incredibly small number of people who came to Egypt with Yaakov, i.e. 70, was to show that these formed the nucleus of a great nation which developed into millions, counting wives and children who were minors, by the time they left Egypt 210 years later. It was in order to alert us to this miraculous population explosion of the Jewish people while they were on Egyptian soil. Man and wife are considered as one unit, as only as a pair can they sire offspring.

Second Temple

The text from the Second Temple discusses how Joseph, in pursuing artificiality, is perceived by those with sound sense as being devoured by an evil beast.

On Dreams, Book II 9:6

[65] And so the practisers of sound sense, perceiving that Joseph first with his senses, and afterwards with his understanding, pursues this way of artificiality, cry outright, “An evil beast has seized and devoured him”  (Gen. 37:33).

Talmud

Rabbi Shimon teaches that the punishment for a liar is that even when they speak the truth, no one believes them. This is illustrated by the story of Jacob's sons deceiving him about Joseph's fate, leading to Jacob not believing them even when they were telling the truth. Some suggest that the return of the holy spirit to Jacob was the reason for his change in belief.

Avot DeRabbi Natan 30:4

Rabbi Shimon would say: Such is the punishment for a liar, that even when he speaks the truth, no one listens to him. So we find with the children of Jacob, who deceived their father. In the beginning he believed them, as it says (Genesis 37:31), “They took Joseph’s coat, slaughtered a goat,” and then it says (Genesis 37:33), “He recognized it, and said: This is my son’s coat! But afterward, even when they spoke the truth to him, he did not believe them, as it says (Genesis 45:26), ([“His heart became numb, for he did not believe them.”]) “They told him, and said: Joseph is still alive…[but] he did not believe them.” Some say that the holy spirit that had departed from Jacob now returned to him, as it says (Genesis 45:27), “And the spirit of their father Jacob was revived.”

Tanakh

In Exodus 22:12, it is stated that if an animal under someone's care is torn by beasts, the guardian is not required to replace it but must bring it as evidence.

Exodus 22:12

If it was torn by beasts, the guardian shall bring it as evidence—not needing to replace what has been torn by beasts.

Targum

Jacob recognized Joseph's coat covered in blood and assumed he had been killed by a wild animal, but the Targum Jonathan and Targum Jerusalem suggest that Jacob believed Joseph was still alive, with the Targum Jonathan indicating that an evil woman was involved in his disappearance.

Onkelos Genesis 37:33

He recognized it and said, It is my son’s coat. An evil beast has devoured him. Yoseif has been torn to pieces [surely killed].

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 37:33

And he discerned it and said, It is my son's garment: yet a wild beast hath not devoured him, neither is my son Joseph slain ; but I see by the Spirit of the sanctuary, that an evil woman standeth against him.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:33

And he recognised it and said, It is my son's garment: a beast of the wilderness hath not devoured him, neither hath he been slain by the hand of man; but I see by the Holy Spirit, that an evil woman standeth against him.

וַיִּקְרַ֤ע יַעֲקֹב֙ שִׂמְלֹתָ֔יו וַיָּ֥שֶׂם שַׂ֖ק בְּמׇתְנָ֑יו וַיִּתְאַבֵּ֥ל עַל־בְּנ֖וֹ יָמִ֥ים רַבִּֽים׃ 34 J Jacob rent his clothes, put sackcloth on his loins, and observed mourning for his son many days.
Jacob mourned Joseph for twenty-two years, tearing his garments and wearing sackcloth as a sign of deep grief, despite protests from his family. Tearing clothes is a traditional expression of sorrow in Jewish mourning customs, with biblical examples including Jacob and the Israelites. The Midrash draws parallels between Joseph and Zion, highlighting similarities in experiences and consequences faced by different biblical figures. Jacob's punishment for not honoring his parents during his time with Laban was seen as a sin, lasting the same amount of time as Joseph's separation from him. In Targum, Jacob mourned for his son for many days, demonstrating his enduring sorrow.

Commentary

Jacob mourned Joseph for twenty-two years, corresponding to the years he did not honor his parents due to his time with Laban and on the journey back, as explained by various commentators. His mourning included tearing his garments and wearing sackcloth as a sign of his deep grief, even though his actions were seen as excessive by his family. Despite their protests, Jacob remained steadfast in his mourning, showing his unwavering sorrow over the loss of his son.

Ba'alei Brit Avram, Vayeshev 2

.."And Jacob tore his clothes, put sackcloth on his loins, etc. It is suggested that the reason it says 'his clothes' and not 'his garments' as it did for Reuben is to emphasize that Jacob tore his precious garments. Similarly, it mentions 'sackcloth on his loins' and not 'girded with sackcloth' like 'gird with sackcloth.' Alternatively, it could be 'he put on sackcloth,' as in the case of Mordecai. Another reason for this excessive mourning is that, since one does not find comfort in life, as the sages said, it was not fitting for him to perform mourning rites for these actions. The verse also says 'and they rose,' not 'and they came.' It also mentions 'all his sons and all his daughters' without specifying that the comforters were young boys and girls. The reason for saying 'I will go down mourning' is questioned; what comfort did he find in this? It seems that Jacob mourned for Joseph in two ways: first, due to the loss of a great and righteous man like Joseph, for whom everyone should mourn. Second, because he was his son, and he had no merit to protect him, and his brothers' transgressions led to these events. Therefore, to express his awareness of Joseph's worth, he tore his splendid clothes, according to the saying, 'The garment makes the man.' And as 'and put your clothes upon you,' it is expounded as 'wear mourning garments' like the explanation in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 5:7 and Rabbah). This is due to the general mourning, even if he didn't have a son; he would do this, as explained. The second point: 'and put sackcloth upon his loins.' It means that he placed the sackcloth directly on his flesh from the inside, and it stuck to his skin beneath his garments. He put it on his loins to signify mourning for his son who came out from his loins and his abdomen. He acted with this private mourning for many days. Later, his sons and daughters sensed this, and they saw his actions as a bad omen. As the Sages say (Midrash Kohelet 27): 'Anyone who prolongs mourning for a deceased more than necessary is doing so over another deceased.' This is what they felt against him, thinking that what he was doing was a bad sign for them. Therefore, they rose up to forcefully put an end to his behavior. Perhaps they demanded that he console himself for their sake, as he had other sons and daughters, and the sons had their own children. This is the meaning of 'all his sons and all his daughters.' He replied that he wasn't concerned about them, even though they were numerous, as he was mourning and lamenting for his son, and none of them would fill his place. According to the first interpretation, he meant that he would go down to his sons' level of mourning, behaving in mourning throughout his life for his son, for whom he did not merit to protect. And there are pious individuals who weep and mourn all their days when they see that, Heaven forbid, they stumbled even in a minor matter, as exemplified by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah, who fasted every day because his teeth turned black, as he said, 'I am ashamed before my teeth,' as mentioned in Chagigah 22. Some say he responded to them that, on the contrary, it is better that they do not see him happy but rather sad, so that the Satan does not accuse him. Furthermore, he quoted the words of Job, 'If I say, "I will forget my complaint, I will change my expression and smile,"' meaning that he would forget entirely from his heart or, at least, even if he does not forget from his heart, he would change his face to present himself before people as if he has no sorrow. 'All my suffering I know that You will not acquit me,' meaning that he feared that the Satan would not cease accusing him.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:34:1

ימים רבים, “for many days.” According to Rashi the reason why Yaakov suffered this grief was as punishment for the many years that he had not observed the commandment of honouring father and mother. If you were to ask how this is possible, seeing that he had been sent away by his father to get himself a wife, the answer is that he was not willing to return home after his mother had sent Rivkah’s nursemaid to tell him that it was safe to come back, as we explained earlier on 35,8 where we have been told about Devorah’s death.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:34:1-2

ימים רבים, “for many days.” The word “many” means the seven days which are prescribed for mourning next of kin who have died. The fact that the Torah refers to seven days as “many” is no cause for surprise as we find that the Torah calls even three days רבים, “many,” from the halachic interpretation of that word by Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 15,25. Bereshit Rabbah 84,20 quoted by Rashi writes that the words “many days” mean “many years,” i.e. for the full twenty-two years that Yaakov and Joseph were apart. Rashi explains how these twenty-two years are arrived at. Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold and he was 39 years old when Yaakov and family moved to Egypt. He was described as 30 years of age when he stood before Pharaoh and interpreted the dreams. This was followed by 7 years of plenty. The brothers traveled to Egypt in the first as well as in the second year of the famine before returning with their families during that same year. These twenty-two years of separation between Yaakov and Joseph corresponded to the twenty-two years Yaakov had been absent from his home when he had to flee from Esau. [The 14 years he spent at the academy of Shem and Ever studying Torah are not counted as that was not the result of his having cheated Esau. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 37:34:1

ויקרע יעקב, he mourned him excessively because he had loved him so inordinately. Besides, he blamed himself partially for his fate for having sent him on what turned out to have been a dangerous mission.

Rashi on Genesis 37:34:1

ימים רבים MANY DAYS — twenty-two years (Genesis Rabbah 84:20) — from the time he left him until Jacob went down to Egypt. For it is said, (v. 2) “Joseph was seventeen years old” (when all these events happened), and he was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh; seven years of plenty and two years of famine had passed by the time Jacob came to Egypt — making in all 22 years. These correspond to the 22 years during which Jacob had not practised the duty of honouring his parents (that is, the period during which he did not reside with them and attend to their needs) (Megillah 17a): viz., the twenty years he stayed in Laban’s house and the two years on the journey when he was returning from Laban’s house — one and a half year at Succoth and six months at Bethel. This is what he meant when he said to Laban (31:41) “These twenty years that I have been in thy house are לי” — they are for me — the responsibility for them lies upon me (לי being taken as עלי) and at sometimes I shall be punished for a period equal to them.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:34:1

ויקרע שמלתיו. Nur bei sehr seltenen Vorgängen, — wie noch bei Josua in Ai (Kap. 7, 6) und den Brüdern (Bereschit 44, 13) — findet sich .בקרע שמלות In der Regel sonst בגד .קרע בגד ist das Kleid, welches den Menschen in seinem äußeren Erscheinen darstellt (daher כגור: vollständig zu einer Scheinhülle werden, ein בֺגֵֺד ist nichts als ein בגד von einem Menschen, wir meinen den Menschen zu haben und haben nur ein Kleid!) Schmerz, Trauer, Scham drücken durch einen Riss ins Gewand aus: daß in die äußeren Beziehungen des Menschen ein Riss gekommen; seine Ehre, sein Glück hat einen Riss erlitten. Daher auch Ausdruck für אבל — .אבלות und seine verwandten Wurzeln drücken alle eine Dunkelheit, Unklarheit aus. (אפל die Dunkelheit der Nacht. אול, die Wurzel von אֱוִיל, ein Narr, und אולי vielleicht. Es gibt zweierlei Narren auf Erden. Den einen, der jeden Augenblick seine Meinung wechselt, dem alles unklar ist, der daher Ja und Nein sagt, je nachdem es ihm einfällt. Es ist dies der unklare, buntscheckig phantastische Narr: אויל. Den zweiten, sein Gegenpart: der beschränkte Mensch, der steif in einer einmal gefassten Meinung verharrt, der sich durch nichts überzeugen lässt, sich fest auf seine zwei Füße stemmt, der Lendennarr: כסיל). Die Partikel אְבָל tritt immer, dem noch eben für wahr und entschieden Gehaltenen, es beschränkend entgegen. Wenn nun etwas geschehen ist, wodurch allem Glück, jedem hellen Strahl, jeder Heiterkeit und jedem festen Schritt auf Erden ein "aber": ein אְַבָל! entgegengesetzt wird, da ist אבלות: Trauer. Der Ausdruck dieser Trauer: קריעה, Gegensatz von שלום, dem Zustand ungestörten Wohles, eigentlich ja des Ganzseins. שמלה ist nun vorzugsweise das Gewand, das den nackten Leib berührt, שמלתו לעורו, ( — daher wohl auch Waschen zur Sauberkeit mehr כבס שמלות, während טבילה von :טומאה כבום בגדים —) Jakob zerriss seine Gewänder bis auf den nackten Leib und legt, statt eines sich sanft anschmiegenden Gewandes, ein härenes (שק bezeichnet den Stoff, Ziegenhaare, aus welchem Säcke gemacht wurden), also etwas an, was den Menschen bei jeder Bewegung unangenehm berührt und ihn, wenn er einmal fröhlich sein will, unaufhörlich daran erinnert, er habe kein Recht dazu, fröhlich zu sein. Deshalb auch ויתאבל, er hielt sich in der Trauer, hielt sich stets das "אֲכָל!" "Aber — Josef ist nicht da!“ entgegen.

Sforno on Genesis 37:34:1

וישם שק במתניו, a section of fabric which sacks are made of. He draped his loins in enough of this material to demonstrate his being in mourning.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:34:1

Twenty-two years... Maharik writes (ch. 37) that Rashi cited this, although it is not the verse’s simple meaning, in order to explain why Hashem agreed to the ban and did not reveal to Yaakov [that Yoseif was alive]. It was because He had decreed that Yaakov be anguished for twenty-two years. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:34:2

Yaakov did not fulfill honoring one’s father and mother. You might ask: Why was he punished for this? Yitzchak and Rivkah commanded him to go there and take a wife! Rabbeinu Bechaye answers in Parshas Toldos (28:1): They intended for him to marry Leah and return immediately. But he desired Rochel because of her beauty and said, “I will work for you seven years for Rochel” (29:18). Thus, all the time he spent there was his own choice. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:34

Jacob rent his garments in mourning, placed sackcloth on his loins, and mourned his son many days.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 55

“He observed mourning for his son many days” [37:34]. Jacob mourned for many days for Joseph, for twenty-two years. Jacob has sinned that he did not honor his father Isaac. Jacob was with Laban for twenty-two years, since Jacob served fourteen years for Rachel and Leah. Afterwards, he served for six years for the sheep and Jacob was on the road for two years. All together, this is twenty-two years. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:34.)

Halakhah

Tearing clothes is a traditional expression of pain and sorrow in Jewish mourning customs, with biblical examples including Jacob and the Israelites. The obligation to tear clothes comes from the command given to Aaron and his sons after the death of Aaron's sons, with the act symbolizing the separation between body and soul.

From Sinai to Ethiopia, Shulhan haOrit; The Halakhah of Ethiopian Jewry, Then and Now, 9 Laws of Mourning 3:5

Tearing the clothes is an expression of pain and sorrow. The Torah relates the stories of several individuals who tore their clothes after hearing bad news – for example, Jacob tore his clothes when he heard that Joseph was killed (Genesis 37:34), and the Israelites tore their clothes when they were vanquished by the Ai (Joshua 7:6). The source for this obligation is derived from the death of the sons of Aaron. Aaron and his remaining sons were commanded not to act as mourners, and they were told: “Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes” (Leviticus 10:6). The Sages learned from this that the mourner should uncover his head and tear his clothing. Tearing represents the rent caused between body and soul. (Ibid.)

Midrash

The Midrash Tanchuma draws parallels between the experiences of Joseph and Zion, noting similarities in love, hatred, envy, stripping, imprisonment, and redemption. It also highlights the retribution faced by Judah for the actions taken against Joseph. Additionally, the text explores the significance of sackcloth and mourning practices across different biblical figures, emphasizing the enduring nature of these customs among descendants. The narrative of Mordekhai in Esther is linked to the actions of Benjamin, with both causing rending of garments. The text also discusses the consequences faced by Zedekiah for breaking an oath and the subsequent punishment inflicted on the elders of Zion. The Aggadat Bereshit further explores the parallels between Joseph and Zion, noting similarities in beauty, greatness, divine favor, redemption, and clothing changes. Finally, the Bereshit Rabbah discusses the incident of the goblet found in Benjamin's sack, highlighting the accusations made against him and the subsequent actions of the brothers.

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:20

“Jacob rent his garments, placed sackcloth on his loins, and mourned his son many days” (Genesis 37:34). “Jacob rent his garments” – Rabbi Pinḥas said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: The tribes caused their father to rend. Where did they receive retribution? In Egypt, as it was stated: “They rent their garments…” (Genesis 44:13). Joseph caused the tribes to rend; his descendant arose, and retribution was exacted against him, as it is stated: “Joshua rent his garments” (Joshua 7:6). Benjamin caused the tribes to rend. (When Joseph’s goblet was found in Benjamin’s sack, his brothers rent their garments. Although this was not Benjamin’s fault, since it occurred through him, he was also punished. Alternatively, knowing that his brothers’ money was returned on their first trip, he should have checked his sack before setting out (Yefe To’ar). ) Where was retribution exacted against him? In Shushan the citadel, as it is stated: “Mordekhai rent his garments” (Esther 4:1). Manasseh caused the tribes to rend; (Manasseh was the messenger Joseph sent to search his brothers’ sacks (Matnot Kehuna). ) that is why his inheritance was split, half of it in the land of the Jordan and half of it in the land of Canaan. “Placed sackcloth on his loins” – Rabbi Aivu said: Because Jacob our patriarch adopted sackcloth, it does not depart from him, from his children, and from his descendants until the end of all the generations. But it is practiced only among his prominent descendants, [such as] David, as it is stated: “David and the elders, covered in sackcloth, fell on their faces” (I Chronicles 21:16). Ahab – “and placed sackcloth upon his flesh” (I Kings 21:27). Yoram – “the people looked, and behold, the sackcloth was upon his flesh” (II Kings 6:30). Mordekhai – “he donned sackcloth and ashes” (Esther 4:1). “And mourned his son many days” – these were twenty-two years. (Joseph was sold at age seventeen and stood before Pharaoh at age thirty. His father descended to Egypt in the second year of the famine that followed the seven years of plenty. Joseph was then thirty-nine years old. Thus, he was separated from Jacob for twenty-two years, corresponding to the twenty-two years that Jacob was away from his father.)

Bereshit Rabbah 92:8

“He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words; the one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me, and you shall be exonerated” (Genesis 44:10). “He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words” – ten people, one of whom is implicated in theft, are they not all incarcerated? But I will not do so. “The one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me.” “He searched, he began with the eldest, and with the youngest he concluded; the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” (Genesis 44:12). “He searched, he began with the eldest and with the youngest he concluded” – why did he do so? It was so they would not say that he knew where it had been placed. “The goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” – once the goblet was found, they said to him: ‘What [have you done,] thief who is son of a thief?’ (The other brothers accused Benjamin of stealing the goblet and endangering them all, and criticized him as a thief son of a thief, as his mother, Rachel, stole her father’s household idols (Genesis 31:19).) He said to them: ‘Is the man [who sold] Joseph here? Are there goats here? (A reference to the goat the brothers had slaughtered in order to dip Joseph’s tunic in its blood so that Jacob would assume that Joseph had been mauled to death (Genesis 37:31). ) Can brothers who sold their brother [accuse me in this manner]? Astounding!’ “They rent their garments, and each man loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city” (Genesis 44:13). “They rent their garments…” – Rabbi Pinḥas in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: The tribes caused their father to rend, (Jacob rent his garments upon learning of Joseph’s disappearance (Genesis 37:34). ) that is why, they, too, were afflicted. “Each man loaded his donkey…” – each of them would take his burden with one hand and place it on his donkey. (This was an expression of their great strength.) “They returned to the city…” – Rabbi Abahu said: It was a metropolis, and it says: “To the city”? (The verse could have stated “to Egypt.” The phrase “to the city” implies that it was like any other city, not the seat of power of the Egyptian empire (Maharzu).) Rather, it teaches that it was no more significant in their eyes than a city of ten people. (The brothers were not afraid of having to wage war and conquer the city (Etz Yosef). )

Eikhah Rabbah 2:14

“The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground, are silent. They have placed dust on their heads, have girded themselves with sackcloth. The virgins of Jerusalem have lowered their heads to the ground” (Lamentations 2:10). “The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground, are silent.” Rabbi Elazar said: Let the portion of vows not be insignificant in your eyes, as it is on account of the portion of vows that the Great Sanhedrin of Zedekiah were killed. When Yekhonya was exiled, King Nebuchadnezzar appointed him (Zedekiah.) over five kings. That is what is written: “Send to the king of Edom, to the king of Moav, to the king of the children of Ammon, to the king of Tyre and to the king of Sidon, in the hand of the messengers who come to Jerusalem to Zedekiah, king of Judah” (Jeremiah 27:3). He would enter and exit before him without permission. (Zedekiah had unfettered access to Nebuchadnezzar.) One day, he entered before him and saw that he was ripping the flesh of a hare and eating it raw. [Nebuchadnezzar] said to him: ‘Take an oath to me that you will not publicize this about me,’ and he took an oath to him. On what did he administer the oath to [Zedekiah]? Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: On the inner altar. The five kings were sitting and maligning Nebuchadnezzar before Zedekiah and saying to him: ‘The kingdom is not suitable for Nebuchadnezzar, but rather it is suitable for you, as you are from the offspring of David.’ He, too, maligned Nebuchadnezzar and said: ‘I saw that he was ripping the flesh of a hare and eating it.’ Immediately, they sent [a message] to the king, saying: ‘This Jew who enters and exits before you without permission said about you: I saw that Nebuchadnezzar was ripping the flesh of a hare and eating it.’ That is what is written: “Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon” (II Kings 24:20). Immediately, he (Nebuchadnezzar.) came and settled in Daphne of Antioch and the Great Sanhedrin went to greet him. When he saw that they were all men of noble form, he issued a command and had seats of honor brought for them, and he seated them. He said to them: ‘Teach me the Torah.’ Immediately they began reading each and every portion and translating it before him. When they reached the portion of vows: “A man who takes a vow” (Numbers 30:3), he said to them: ‘If he wishes to renege on it, can he or can he not do so?’ They said to him: ‘He can go to a Sage and [the Sage] can nullify his vow for him.’ He said to them: ‘It seems to me that you nullified for Zedekiah the oath that he took to me.’ Immediately, he decreed and had them placed down on the ground. That is what is written: “The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground, are silent.” “They have placed dust [on their heads],” they began mentioning the merit of Abraham, as it is written: “I am dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). “Have girded themselves with sackcloth,” they began mentioning the merit of Jacob, as it is written: “He placed sackcloth on his loins” (Genesis 37:34). (The Sages began to pray to God for mercy in the merit of Abraham and Jacob, both of whom took oaths and were careful to fulfill them (Etz Yosef; see Genesis 14:22, 28:20).) What did they do to them? They tied their hair to horses’ tails and had them run from Jerusalem to Lod. That is what is written: “The virgins of Jerusalem have lowered their heads to the ground.” (They did so in mourning for the Sages. Alternatively, the Sages are alluded to with the term virgins because of their purity.)

Esther Rabbah 8:1

“Mordekhai knew everything that had been done, and Mordekhai rent his garments and donned sackcloth and ashes. He went out in the midst of the city and cried a loud and bitter cry” (Esther 4:1). “Mordekhai knew everything that had been done, and Mordekhai rent his garments.” Benjamin caused the tribes [his brothers] to rend; that is what is written: “They rent their garments” (Genesis 44:13). Where was he caused to rend? It was in Shushan the citadel; that is what is written: “Mordekhai rent his garments,” and he was from the tribe of Benjamin. (The midrash is stating that the fact that Mordekhai had to rend his garments is in some respects a punishment for Binyamin having caused his brothers to have to rend their garments. This is because he was not careful enough and did not notice that the silver goblet had been placed in his sack (Etz Yosef).) “He donned sackcloth and ashes.” Rabbi Aivu said: Once Jacob our patriarch adopted sackcloth, as it is written: “He placed sackcloth on his loins” (Genesis 37:34), it never again left his descendants. It is written about Ahab: “He placed sackcloth on his flesh” (I Kings 21:27); his son Yoram: “The people saw, and behold, the sackcloth was on his flesh” (II Kings 6:30); Mordekhai, “He donned sackcloth and ashes.” “He [Esau] cried a loud and bitter cry” (Genesis 27:34). Where was he repaid? In Shushan, as it is stated: “[Mordekhai] cried a loud and bitter cry.” Rabbi Ḥanin said: Anyone who says that the All-Merciful is One who forgoes, his innards will be forgone. He is forbearing, but then collects His due. Know that Jacob caused Esau to cry one cry, as it is written: “He cried a loud and bitter cry” [and as a result, Jacob’s descendant, Mordekhai, cried a loud and bitter cry].

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Miketz 13:5

(Gen. 44:5, 13:) IS NOT THIS THE ONE FROM WHICH MY LORD DRINKS … ? SO THEY RENT THEIR CLOTHES…. The Holy One said to them: You caused your father's clothes to be rent for nothing (in Gen. 37:34); so you are rending < your clothes > for nothing. (Gen. R. 84:20; 92:8.) (Gen. 44:5, cont.:) THEN EACH ONE LOADED HIS ASS. Not one of them was required for his ass. (Tanh., Gen. 10:10, probably has the correct reading: “Not one of them was required to assist his companion.”) So they arose and, striking Benjamin on his shoulder, said to him: Oh you thief, you son of a thief, you have shamed me! You are your mother's son. Thus did she {your mother} shame our father (according to Gen. 31:19): AND RACHEL STOLE THE HOUSEHOLD GODS < OF HER FATHER >. By virtue of these blows with which they smote him on his shoulders, he was worthy of having the Divine Presence rest on his shoulders. It is so stated (of Benjamin in Deut. 33:12): AND HE (the Lord) DWELLS BETWEEN HIS SHOULDERS.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 5:2

Another interpretation: Just as Jacob hid from his father for twenty-two years, so did Joseph hide from his father for twenty-two years. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. (So Rashi with considerable explanation on Gen. 37:34.) R. Levi said: Rabbi Johanan said: Wherever it says, HE WAS, the HE saw three worlds. (Cf. Gen. R. 30:8; Esth. R. 6:3.) It is written of Noah (in Gen. 6:9): HE WAS PERFECT. He saw the world when it was inhabited before the flood came, he saw it destroyed, and he saw it afterwards in its restoration. It is therefore said of him: HE WAS. In the case of Moses, it is written (in Exod. 3:1): HE WAS TENDING < THE FLOCK OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW JETHRO, THE PRIEST OF MIDIAN >…. He saw Israel before the bondage tightened its grip, he saw the bondage, and {they} [he] saw them when they had been redeemed. [Of Mordecai it is written] (in Esth. 2:5): THERE WAS (literally: HE WAS) A CERTAIN JEW IN THE CITADEL OF SHUSHAN. He saw them (Israel) before they were enslaved at the hand of Haman, he saw them under the edicts which had been decreed against them, and he saw them in their redemption. Of Job it is written (in Job 1:1): THERE WAS (literally: HE WAS) A MAN IN THE LAND OF < UZ >, and he saw three worlds. He was whole, he suffered afflictions, and he was healed. So also in the case of Joseph, HE WAS is written of him (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH AT THE AGE OF SEVENTEEN WAS (literally: HE WAS) TENDING < THE FLOCK WITH HIS BROTHERS >….

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 10:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Is. 11:13): THEN EPHRAIM'S JEALOUSY SHALL DEPART. (Tanh., Gen. 11:9; Gen. R. 95:2.) < He was sent > because our father Jacob thought that Judah had killed Joseph because he had brought him the tunic, about which it is stated (in Gen. 37:33): HE RECOGNIZED IT AND SAID: MY SON'S TUNIC! AN EVIL BEAST HAS EATEN HIM. Now AN EVIL BEAST is nothing but a lion. (According to Gen. 49:9, JUDAH IS A LION’S WHELP.) So Jacob said to him: You have torn him to pieces, and you are going to tear his brother to pieces. You would not have torn him to pieces except out of jealousy. Immediately (there follows in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS….

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Musar

Jacob's punishment for not honoring his father and mother during his time with Laban was hinted at by G-d when he mourned for his mother. This punishment lasted twenty-two years, the same amount of time that Joseph was separated from his father. Rashi explains that Jacob's statement to Laban indicates that he would be punished for staying with him for so long. This punishment was seen as Jacob's sin.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayishlach, Torah Ohr 80

We can now understand these verses on two levels. 1) Part of Jacob would die first, and only the Israel part of Jacob would survive. This condition would exist until the news that Joseph was still alive. This is why G–d hinted to Jacob at the time when he mourned the death of his mother that he would experience a punishment for not observing the commandment of honoring father and mother during the twenty-two years he had remained at Laban's. As a matter of fact, Joseph's separation from his father, during which time his father continued mourning for him, lasted twenty-two years (as explained by Rashi on Genesis 37,34, where he refers to Jacob's statement to Laban in 31,41: זה לי עשרים שנה בביתך, "these twenty years I have spent in your house, etc."). Jacob explained to Laban that in the end he would be punished for not having left Laban's house much sooner. According to Rashi the words זה לי, mean that "this is my sin."

Quoting Commentary

Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov explains that Levi was thirteen years old when they arrived at Shechem, based on calculations of time spent with Lavan and on the road, and Rashi's commentary is not precise in relation to the mourning period. Rabbeinu Bahya discusses the significance of the goblet being found in Binyamin's bag, connecting it to the Holy Temple being on his tribal territory, and Siftei Chakhamim explores the interpretation of "many days" in the Torah, contrasting it with the minimum amount required for certain matters. Tosafot Yom Tov further explains that Levi being thirteen years old is significant in relation to the commandments.

Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot 5:21:1

When you calculate the thirteen years that Yaakov [spent] with Lavan after he married Leah, and she gave birth to [Levi] after about two years - as the pregnancies of the three brothers, Reuven, Shimon and Levi, add up to seven months for each one - it comes out that Levi was eleven years old when they left from there. Add upon them six months that he [spent] on the way and eighteen months that he [spent] in Sukkot, summer, winter and summer - which are two years - behold, Levi is thirteen years of age in their going to Shekhem, and he is [still] called a man - Rashi. And he was not precise in his commentary on the Torah, Parshat Vayeshev, on the verse (Genesis 37:34), "and he mourned for his son many days," as [there] he explained that it was six months in Beit El, which is after the story of Shekhem.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 44:12:2

וימצא הגביע באמתחת בנימין, “the goblet was discovered in the feeding bag of Binyamin.” His other brothers began to shame him by calling him “thief,” and other disparaging names, referring to his mother who had stolen the teraphim of her father Lavan (Genesis 31,19). They also struck him on his shoulders. Seeing that Binyamin had been unjustly suspected by his brothers of being a thief he was compensated by G’d in that the Holy Temple was erected on his tribal territory. This is what Moses meant in his blessing of Binyamin (Deut. 33,12) when he said ובין כתיפיו ישכון that G’d’s Presence would reside between “the shoulders of Binyamin.” He also became the ancestor of Mordechai, who had torn his garments in lament for the fate that threatened the Jewish people at the hands of Haman (Esther 4,1). The brothers deserved to have to rend their garments (verse 13) seeing they had caused their father to rend his garments (Genesis 37,34) when he mourned the presumed death of Joseph. Everything that befell the brothers was in the nature of the punishment fitting the crime. Menashe, Joseph’s firstborn, acted as his father’s emissary in all these matters as the Torah describes him as “in charge of Joseph’s palace” (verse 1) and Targum Yonatan writes that Menashe was the individual the Torah referred to. Seeing that Menashe allowed himself to become part of this deception and caused the brothers to rend their clothing in frustration, his tribal territory was rent, i.e. was divided, part of it being on the East Bank of the river Jordan.

Siftei Chakhamim, Leviticus 15:25:1

Three. And so we learn in Toras Kohanim: Many days, three; or perhaps it means ten? It says “days” and it says “many.” The minimum number for [the plural] “days” is two; so too, the minimum number for [the adjective] “many” is three. Perhaps two and three equals five? But does it say “days and many”? etc. We need not ask from the phrase “many days” regarding Yaakov where Scripture writes (Bereishis 37:34): “He mourned for his son for many days,” and Rashi explains it means twenty-two years. This is because regarding Yaakov, we cannot explain it means three days, for what would Scripture be informing us [by saying] that he wept for three days? Any man would mourn three days! Furthermore, regarding the laws of the Torah where it is written, “her [blood-]flow, many days,” and one must give a minimum amount for the matter. Otherwise, we would not know how many [days] constitutes a zovoh, thus, one must explain there a minimum amount. And that is: If you hold onto the minimum amount you will take hold, but if you take hold of too much, you will lose everything, and that is the Torah’s measure. However, the verse, “He mourned for his son for many days,” only comes to tell us an excessive amount, and we do not need to know any minimum measurement — how many days, no more or no less. Scripture does not depart from its plain meaning (Gur Aryeh).

Tosafot Yom Tov on Pirkei Avot 5:21:3

AT THIRTEEN, THE COMMANDMENTS. Rav: for the verse says, “should a man or woman commit one of the sins of man” (Numbers 5:6), and in the story of Shechem the verse says “and the two sons of Jacob, Simon and Levi, the brothers of Dina, each [Heb. ish] took their swords” (Genesis 34:25), and Levi was thirteen at the time, and is called ish, a man. Rashi: consider that Jacob spent another thirteen yars with Laban after marrying Leah. If one allows seven months for each of her pregnancies, then since Levi was the third pregnancy, he was born about two years in. He would then have been eleven years old when they left. Add to that the six months they spent on the road and the eighteen months—a summer, a winter, and another summer—that they spent in Sukkot, which makes two years altogether, and it turns out that Levi was thirteen years old when they arrived at Shechem, and was called ish, a man. In his commentary on the Torah, in parashat Vayeshev, on the verse “and he mourned his son many days” (Genesis 37:34), Rashi is not being precise when he writes that six months of that two-year period were spent in Beit El, as that happened after the incident in Shechem. [*See Zavim, 2:1.]

Targum

Yaakov tore his robes, put sackcloth on his loins, and mourned for his son for many days.

Onkelos Genesis 37:34

Yaakov tore his robes, and placed sackcloth on his loins. He mourned for his son for many days.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:34

And Jakob rent his clothes, and wrapped sackcloth on his loins, and mourned for his son many days.

וַיָּקֻ֩מוּ֩ כׇל־בָּנָ֨יו וְכׇל־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּֽי־אֵרֵ֧ד אֶל־בְּנִ֛י אָבֵ֖ל שְׁאֹ֑לָה וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽיו׃ 35 J All his sons and daughters sought to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, saying, “No, I will go down mourning to my son in Sheol.” Thus his father bewailed him.
Joseph instructed his brothers not to engage in halachic discussions while on their journey to Egypt, contradicting the Talmudic recommendation to study halachah daily, as he knew they were all alive and well. Yaakov's refusal to be consoled after Joseph's disappearance stemmed from his belief that as long as none of his children died during his lifetime, he would not face gehinom. Jacob mourned Joseph's assumed death for many years until realizing he was alive, showing events can serve a greater purpose in God's plan. Joseph's compassion towards Benjamin was due to their shared parentage, and the tradition of the deceased's soul "commuting" between Heaven and earth for the first twelve months after death led Jacob to realize Joseph was alive.

Chasidut

Joseph instructed his brothers not to engage in halachic discussions while on their journey to Egypt, contradicting the Talmudic recommendation to study halachah daily. This was possible because Joseph knew all his brothers were alive and well, allowing them to make up for missed study time later. Yaakov's refusal to be consoled after Joseph's disappearance was due to his belief that as long as none of his children died during his lifetime, he would not face gehinom, leading to his prolonged mourning.

Be'er Mayim Chaim, Genesis 37:35:2

And its saying, all of his sons and all of his daughters, hints to it being in the way of that which [the sages], may their memory be blessed, said (Moed Katan 27b), "Anyone who cries too much for his deceased, will, God forbid, cry for another death." And that is why until the end of three days, his sons and his daughters did not arise to comfort him. Just the opposite, they cried with him. But after three days of mourning passed, then all of his sons and all of his daughters arose, etc. That is to say that it is appropriate for him to be concerned about his children and to be consoled by their words of comfort and to stop crying. Yet he refused to be consoled and said, "I will rather go down to the grave as a mourner". Meaning, I am not like others who cry for their dead, who will, as a result of this, be visited by something not good, God forbid. Rather, I am crying about myself, since the Holy One, blessed be He, told me, "This is a sign given over to you, that if none of your sons dies in your lifetime, you can be certain never to see Geihinnom," like the sages' statement, may their memory be blessed. (Rashi on this verse, and see Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9.) And that is [the meaning of why] I am crying: Since, I will, God forbid, go down, etc. And that is why his father cried over him, and did not stop crying even after the three days.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayigash 5

Genesis 45,24. “do not quarrel on the way.” ‎‎Rashi does not follow the traditional translation, but says ‎that Joseph told the brothers not to engage in halachic ‎discussions, and the subsequent differences of opinions resulting ‎while you are on the journey. If Rashi is correct, we must ‎try and understand why the brothers’ father, Yaakov, did not give ‎the brothers similar instructions governing their conduct during ‎their journey to Egypt?‎ Besides, how could Joseph arrogate to himself the right to ‎give such instructions, when we have it on the authority of ‎‎Kidushin 30 that a person should strive to divide the ‎activities he performs (equally) into the three parts of his life, ‎devoting one third to the study of the written part of the Torah, ‎another to the study of the oral part of the Torah, ‎‎(Mishnah) and the third part to the discussions on the oral ‎part of the Torah in the Talmud. One difficulty of that statement ‎is that we do not know how long we are going to live, so how can ‎we make the correct division? The Talmud therefore corrects ‎itself, saying that what is meant is the way we divide each day of ‎our lives. It follows that each one of us is duty bound to study ‎some halachah on a daily basis. So how could Joseph forbid ‎this to his brothers?‎ The statement in the Talmud can be seen as plausible if we ‎first consider two premises upon which it is built. 1) Yaakov had a ‎tradition that he need not fear ever being consigned to ‎‎gehinom provided that none of his children died during his ‎lifetime. (Rashi 37,35 based on a Tanchuma Vayigash ‎‎9. 2). A statement by our sages that the combined lifetimes of the ‎patriarchs would be 500 years, corresponding to ‎כימי השמים על ‏הארץ‎, (Deut.11,21). [According to a number of ‎commentators this verse describes the “distance” between earth ‎and the celestial regions through the intervening ‎רקיע‎, outer ‎space, being equivalent to 502 “years.” The combined lifetimes of ‎the patriarchs, were 502 years, though more than half of these ‎overlapped, and we do not know the criteria applied here, i.e. ‎‎“light years,” i.e. the time it takes light to traverse this distance, ‎or whatever other criteria are referred to. Ed.]‎ If a human being were to know how long he was going to live ‎on this earth, he would be able to apportion one third of his life ‎to the respective study of Torah, Mishnah, and ‎‎Gemara. Based on the above calculation, when Yaakov saw ‎that Joseph had disappeared, he concluded that he must be dead, ‎so that one of the premises, i.e. that he would not have to worry ‎about spending time in gehinom had already lost its ‎comforting meaning. From that moment on he became afraid ‎that the second premise we have mentioned could also be ‎compromised, as he had no idea how long he would live. He was ‎therefore unable to instruct his sons to leave out the study of ‎‎halachah, i.e. gemara, for a single day. Joseph, who was ‎aware that his father had no reason to worry, as all his sons were ‎alive and well, was able to issue such a command without ‎endangering the spiritual future of his father. The brothers would ‎have lots of time to make up for the halachot they had not ‎studied while on the journey to bring good news to their father.‎

Commentary

Ramban suggests that "his daughters" refers to Dinah and Serach, his granddaughter. Ibn Ezra explains that Isaac wept for Jacob's trouble, as he knew Joseph was alive. Chizkuni notes that Jacob refused to accept consolation as he felt guilty for sending Joseph on a dangerous errand. Radak points out that the Torah emphasizes that Jacob's father wept for him to highlight the seriousness of losing a son who had been constantly by his side. Ibn Shuaib explains that Jacob mourned because he thought Joseph had died before reaching the age of twenty. Rav Hirsch explains that Isaac cried for Jacob's anguish but did not mourn as he knew Joseph was alive. Tze'enah Ure'enah notes that Jacob thought he would go to Gehenna for mourning Joseph until he died. Steinsaltz highlights that Jacob refused to be consoled despite efforts from others.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:35:1

וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to accept consolations;” he felt that he had been guilty for having sent Joseph on this errand in the first place.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:35:2

כי ארד אל בני שאולה, the word: אל, usually translated as “to,” in this case means the same as על, “on account of,” Yaakov foresees that he will wind up in his grave, still in mourning over having been the cause of his beloved son’s tragic and premature death.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:35:3

ויבן אותו אביו, his father wept over him;” according to Bereshit Rabbah 84,21, this does not refer to Yaakov, about whose mourning we have already read, but refers to Yaakov’s father Yitzchok, who was still alive; [according to different opinions quoted there while Yitzchok ostentatiously shared Yaakov’s grief, this was only when he was in the presence of his son. He was aware that Joseph was alive, but did not reveal this to Yaakov, as he felt it was inappropriate to reveal something to Yaakov that G-d apparently had deliberately kept secret from him.] As Rav said to his son Hiyya, when the latter’s wife was in mourning: In her presence practice mourning, but out of her presence do not practice mourning. The source for this is the Talmud in Moed Katan folio 20.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:35:1

וכל בנותיו, “and all of his daughters;” according to Rabbi Yehudah, twin sisters had been born for Yaakov with the birth of all of his sons. These had been married by their respective half-brothers, sons of different mothers. According to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah, all the sons married wives of Canaanite origin. If he were correct, why does the Torah in our verse not speak of “all his daughter-in-law?“ Rabbi Nechemyah, aware of this, would reply, that in the whole world daughters-in-law are referred to as daughters. (B‘reshit Rabbah 84,21) [Naomi, in the Book of Ruth, certainly is not described as calling her daughters-in-law, “daughters.” Ed.] It is difficult to understand Rabbi Nechemyah, as we all know to what length Avraham had gone to prevent Yitzchok from marrying a wife of Canaanite descent. Yitzchok too had commanded Yaakov not to marry a woman of Canaanite descent and had sent him all the way to Charan to avoid such a union. (Genesis 28,1) Nonetheless, Yehudah married a woman of Canaanite descent. (Genesis 38,2 ברת גבר תגרא, (daughter of a business man, according to Onkelos איש כנעני means business man, traveling salesman) Onkelos therefore accepts the view of Rabbi Yehudah, who said that twin daughters were born with all of Yaakov’s sons.) This is also how we have to understand Genesis 46,10: ושאול בן הכנענית, “and Sha-ul, son of a female merchant.” According to Rabbi Nechemyah’s approach to the subject, there is no need for what sound like far fetched solutions to our problem. The word כנעני or כנענית in either of the verses that bothered us, are simply understood as elsewhere in the Bible, as people of Canaanite descent. We do have a problem if we accept Rabbi Yehudah’s interpretation, an interpretation lacking specific sources in the written text. The Talmud, tractate Yumah folio 28, states that Avaraham had voluntarily observed all the commandments in the written and oral Torah, even including the rabbinic commandment known as eyruv tavshilin, a method of how to prepare food when the day after a festival is a Sabbath, and preparation of food on the festival for the Sabbath is not admissible. He is also supposed to have observed the law of yibbum, marrying the widow of a brother who died without having ever had any children. (Compare Genesis 38,8) where Yehudah, Er’s father, gave Er’s widow Tamar to Onan, his brother, as a wife, in order for him to become posthumously and vicariously a father. If these laws were operative prior to the Torah having been revealed at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people, how could Yaakov have married two sisters while the first sister had still been alive? Also, how could any of the sons of Yaakov have married their sisters? We could answer that although these laws were already known by tradition since Avraham’s time, they had not become obligatory until after revealed at Mount Sinai. Our forefathers were free to choose the parts of the commandments they wished to observe voluntarily even they had been privy to them through the Holy Spirit. When the Talmud in Pessachim, folio 119, tells us that in the future (afterlife) at the meal prepared by G–d for the righteous, that when Yaakov was being honoured presiding over the grace after the meal, he declined the honour, saying that seeing he had wed two sisters while both were alive, he was not worthy of that honour. Clearly he considered what he had done as having been improper. It is possible to argue that having been aware that what he had done would qualify for a penalty if he would do so after the revelation at Mount Sinai, he felt that he deserved at least a minor penalty. If he decided in favour of committing an act deserving of a minor penalty, he did so because he wished to marry only wives who were personally righteous, and these were hard to find, especially considering the age at which he had a chance to get married. As it turned out, even one of these two sisters who was a righteous woman did not by herself bore for him all the twelve tribes.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:35:2

ויבך אותו אביו, “his father wept for him (losing him).” According to Rashi, the word: “his father,” in this verse refers to Yitzchok, Yaakov’s father. He was however, not mourning him as he knew that Joseph was still alive. He did not want to reveal this to Yaakov out of respect for G–d, who had not seen fit to reveal this to his son. (B‘reshit Rabbah 84,21) Rashi had already explained that the brothers had sworn a solemn oath one to another not to reveal what they had done Joseph to anyone, and they had included G–d in that oath of theirs. When, after 22 years they came to Egypt and found Joseph alive, they cancelled this oath. This released G–d also, and that is why the Torah wrote that upon hearing that Joseph was alive and well, the bothers’ father Yaakov “revived,” i.e. again was blessed with Holy Spirit. (Genesis 45,27). From this verse it is clear that ever since Joseph’s disappearance he had not enjoyed the presence of the Holy Spirit. From this entire chapter we learn and can prove that when an entire congregation unanimously declares something or someone as “banished,” and a single member of that congregation demurs by not accepting that decision, he is bound by the decision of the congregation, nonetheless. After all, Joseph had not been a party to the brothers’ oath, and it had remained in force nonetheless. If Joseph had been part of that oath, the other brothers would not have had to include in their oath. They had been lacking Reuven and Binyamin to make up the necessary quorum by themselves. Although Joseph was aware of this, he did not wish to interfere with that oath by revealing his whereabouts to his father. The author promises to also provide an alternate reason why Joseph did not let his father know during all these years that he had been alive and well. If you were to argue that the ban into which the brothers had put the subject of the sale of Joseph was more stringent than an ordinary such ban where G–d had not been co-opted as a partner, this is not a valid argument, as even nowadays whenever we make such a ban, we add the words: “with the consent of the Lord.” We also find this approach to oaths in the Book of Samuel 14,24, where King Sha-ul had sworn that any man eating food before evening (the day of the battle) and the army had defeated their enemy, would be cursed, i.e. executed, that his own son Jonathan, who had tasted some honey, not having been aware that his father had pronounced such an oath, had become aware of someone having violated that oath, as one of the jewels in the breastplate of the High priest had suddenly lost part of its luster. Whenever a tribe performed a commandment, the jewel representing that tribe would shine more forcefully. When a tribe, or member of it, committed a trespass, its jewel would lose its luster. When King Sha-ul found out that the jewel representing his own tribe, that of Binyamin, suddenly did not shine anymore, he realised that the fault must lie with someone of his own tribe and family. He determined who that member of his tribe was by casting lots, as had done Joshua in Joshua 7, when he found out that the jewel representing the tribe of Yehudah had lost its luster. He had cast lots to determine which member of the tribe of Yehudah had been the guilty party. Achan, son of Karmi, was the one who had illegally pocketed some of the loot from the city of Jericho, and he was duly executed after having confessed.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:35:1

AND HIS FATHER WEPT FOR HIM. Our sages interpreted this as referring to Isaac. (Bereshit Rabbah 84:19. According to the Midrash his father refers to Jacob’s father. Isaac was overcome with grief over Jacob’s trouble.) The truth is that Isaac did not die until Joseph reached the age of twenty-nine. (Thus from this point of view the Midrashic interpretation is possible. I.E.’s accounting is as follows: Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26). Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born (see note 7). Thus Isaac was 151 when Joseph was born. Isaac died at the age of 180 (Gen. 35:28), at which time Joseph was 29 years old as Isaac was 151 years older than Joseph. Joseph was 17 when he was sold. Thus Isaac lived 12 years past the year in which Joseph was sold (Weiser).) Some say that the prophetic spirit was removed from both Jacob and Isaac because of their mourning. (The question arises, why didn’t Jacob and Isaac, two prophets, know that Joseph was alive?) They offer proof from Elisha. (That a prophet cannot prophesy when in a state of depression. Cf. II Kings 3:15. Before Elisha, who was then depressed (see Kimchi, ad hoc), prophesied he said, But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played that the hand of the Lord came upon him.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:35:2

AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS. His daughter and granddaughter. (Dinah his daughter and Sarah the daughter of Asher, as grandchildren are considered children. I.E. comments so because Jacob had only one daughter.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:35:3

[TO THE GRAVE.] She’olah means down below, i.e., to the grave. Here the one who translated the Bible for those who err (Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin for the Christians.) erred in translating she’olah as to hell. (Jerome renders she’ol as inferno. However, see Rashi who writes, “The Midrashic interpretation of she’ol is gehenna.”) Proof of his mistranslation is, For the nether-world (she’ol) cannot praise Thee…They that go down into the pit cannot hope for Thy truth (Is. 38:18). (In this verse pit is parallel to she’ol. She’ol thus must mean pit.) Also in Ps. 139:8, heaven is the antithesis of she’ol, (Thus she’ol is the opposite of heaven (sky); it refers to a place on the earth, i.e., the grave.) viz., If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in the nether-world (she’ol) behold Thou art there. Similarly Job states, The nether-world (she’ol) is naked before Him (Job 26:6). (The verse concludes, And destruction (the grave) hath no covering. Now she’ol is parallel to destruction (grave). Hence it, too, must mean grave.) There are many other verses which prove that she’ol does not refer to hell.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:35:1

ויקומו כל בניו…לנחמו, "All his sons arose in order to comfort him, etc." The Torah is silent about the nature of these words of comfort that were offered to Jacob.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:35:2

Perhaps the Torah wishes to stress that the comfort was not expressed in words but in the demonstration of how many sons and daughters Jacob had left. They had first observed their father rend his garments, wear sackcloth and carry on mourning for an inordinately long period. This would have been appropriate if Jacob had lost an only son, or even one of relatively few children. Since Jacob had many children, he should have remembered what he had left instead of only harping on what he had lost. His children brought this to Jacob's attention without uttering a word by surrounding him with their combined presence. This was supposed to provide some comfort. Jacob, however, refused to accept comfort, saying that the reason he would mourn Joseph until his own death was that Joseph was one of a kind and there was no substitute for him. The Zohar (volume 1, page 180) goes into greater detail about the mutual affinity of the souls of Jacob and Joseph, etc.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:35:3

The Torah also hints that Jacob did not view his inability to console himself as a sign that Joseph was not dead though we have a rule that one is unable to console oneself when the person mourned is not actually dead. The reason Jacob could not accept comfort was that he viewed himself as condemned to descend to שאול, to purgatory, because of a tradition (compare Rashi quoting a Tanchuma on ויגש) he had that as long as none of his children would die during his lifetime he could rest assured that he himself would not descend to purgatory.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 37:35:4

ויבך אותו, He wept for him. When Jacob explained why he could not respond to manifestations of condolences he had to start weeping again. The Torah stresses the word אביו, his father, in order to make a distinction between himself and all his children. The only person who broke out weeping when Joseph's name was mentioned was his father. Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 considers the word אביו, his father, as a reference to Isaac, Jacob's father.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:35:1-2

כל בניו, “all his sons, etc.” These are his actual sons. וכל בנותיו refers to Dinah and Serach, the daughter of Asher. וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to be comforted.” This was because it is impossible to accept such comfort when the person being mourned is still alive. It is a decree by G’d which enables the survivor to gradually “forget” someone who has died and thus be comforted over his loss (compare Rashi). כי ארד אל בני אבל שאולה, “but I will join my son in She-ol still mourning for him.” He meant that he would be buried while still in mourning for his son as he would never get over this loss. According to Tanchuma Vayigash 9, the word שאולה is a reference to Gehinom, purgatory. Yaakov thought so as he had been certain that not one his children would die during his lifetime. Now that Joseph had died, he felt that this could only have occurred if he himself was destined for purgatory.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:35:3

ויבך אותו אביו, “his father wept for him.” This is a reference to Yitzchak, Yaakov’s father. Yitzchak wept when he observed the anguish of his son Yaakov and was unable to tell him that actually Joseph was alive. The expression “Yitzchak wept for him,” is to tell us that whereas he “wept,” he did not mourn Joseph as you do not mourn the living.

Radak on Genesis 37:35:1

ויקומו...וכל בנותיו, his daughter and daughters-in-law who were like daughters to him. In Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 Rabbi Yehudah is quoted as saying that a female twin had been born with each of Yaakov’s sons and they married their respective half-brothers. Rabbi Nechemyah, in commenting on the words וכל בנותיו, says that actually Yaakov had only one daughter, i.e. Dinah, but that he wished he had already buried her (as the fact that she had been raped was something he found it hard to live with) [Rashi on that Midrash. Ed] At any rate, we need not take the text so literally, as most people describe their sons-in-law as sons, and their daughters-in-law as daughters.

Radak on Genesis 37:35:2

שאלה, until the grave, i.e. “I will mourn him for the rest of my life.” The meaning of the words

Radak on Genesis 37:35:3

על בנו, instead of the pronoun ending ויתאבלו, is to describe Yaakov’s attitude henceforth, i.e. “I will go join him in his grave.” Compare Samuel II 12,23 where David uses such language explaining that in order to be reunited with the baby son he had just lost he would have to join him in his grave, as the baby would not come back to him and be resurrected. Or, compare the standard expression used by the Torah when people die and they join their ancestors in the grave or hereafter, i.e. ויאסף אל עמיו “he was gathered in to his people” (Genesis 25,17 et al).

Radak on Genesis 37:35:4

ויבך אותו אביו, the reason why the Torah adds the unnecessary word אביו, “his father,” is to demonstrate the serious nature of losing a son who had been constantly the one at his father’s side. The remarkable thing about Joseph had been that although the Torah had described him as occupied tending sheep with his brothers, most of the time he had spent in attending to the needs of his widowed father, whose beloved wife Rachel, Joseph’s mother, had died when Joseph had only been about 6 years old. Whenever an occasion would arise which would have required the services normally rendered by his son Joseph, his absence would rekindle Yaakov’s grief over his fate. According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 the superfluous word אביו refers to Yaakov’s father Yitzchok, who was still alive at the time Joseph was sold, seeing that Yaakov had been born when Yitzchok was 60 years old, in other words Yitzchok only died when Yaakov was 120 years of age. At the time of Joseph’s sale Yitzchok was 168 years old seeing that the separation between Yaakov and Joseph lasted for 22 years, the same length of time as Yaakov had been separated from his father Yitzchok.

Ramban on Genesis 37:35:1

AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS. This refers to his daughter and his son’s daughter. (Since Jacob had. only one daughter, Dinah, the expression “and his daughters” in the plural must include some other person. Ramban first suggests that the term includes his granddaughter, Serach the daughter of Asher. See also my Hebrew commentary, pp. 211-2.) Now it is possible that his daughters-in-law are also included in this category, for in Scripture they too are called “daughters,” or as the saying of the Sages has it: (Bereshith Rabbah 84:19.) “A person does not refrain from calling his daughters-in-law ‘daughters.’” So did Naomi say to her daughters-in-law: Go, turn back, my daughters; (Ruth 1:8 and 12.) Nay, my daughters; (Ibid., Verse 13.) Go, my daughter. (Ibid., 2:2.) It is nothing but an expression of love, just as, Hearest thou not, my daughter? (Ibid., Verse 8. This was said by Boaz to Ruth and can certainly not indicate the relationship of daughter or daughter-in-law.)

Rashbam on Genesis 37:35:1

כי ארד, I will not be consoled but will descend to my grave joining my son while still mourning his death.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:35:2

ויבך אותו אביו, for a long period of time. Seeing that the line is superfluous, our sages, as quoted by Rashi, added that Yitzchok (his father) wept for the anguish of his son Yaakov although he knew that Joseph had not been killed.

Rashi on Genesis 37:35:1

וכל בנתיו AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS — R Judah said: a twin-sister was born with each of Jacob’s sons and they each took a step-sister to wife (It was these daughters who comforted Jacob) R. Nehemiah said: their wives were Canaanite women and not their step-sisters; what is meant then “by all his daughters”? His daughters-in-law, for a person does not hesitate to call his son-in-law his son and his daughter-in-law his daughter (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

Rashi on Genesis 37:35:2

וימאן להתנחם BUT HE REFUSED TO COMFORT HIMSELF — A person does not accept consolation for one living whom he believes to be dead, for with regard to the dead it is decreed that he be forgotten from the heart, but it is not so decreed with regard to the living (Genesis Rabbah 84:20).

Rashi on Genesis 37:35:3

ארד אל בני I WILL GO DOWN TO MY SON — This has the same meaning as על בני, on account of my son. There are many examples where אל is used in the sense of על: (2 Samuel 4:21) “(אל) because of Saul (ואל) and because of his bloody house”; (1 Samuel 4:21) “(אל) because the ark of God was taken (ואל) and because of the death of her father-in-law and her husband”.

Rashi on Genesis 37:35:4

אבל שאלה MOURNING INTO THE GRAVE — According to the literal meaning שאל means “the grave” — whilst I am still in a state of mourning I shall be interred (i.e. even to the day of my burial I shall mourn) and I shall not be comforted all my life. The Midrash explains it to refer to Gehinnom. “This omen has been given me by God: if none of my sons die during my lifetime I may be assured that I shall not see Gehinnom” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9).

Rashi on Genesis 37:35:5

ויגש). ויבך אתו אביו THUS HIS FATHER WEPT FOR HIM — His father refers to Isaac: he wept for Jacob’s trouble, but he did not mourn for he knew that he (Joseph) was alive (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:35:1

Alle seine Söhne und alle seine Töchter: wohl die Schwiegertöchter "standen auf׳ nicht gingen, kamen, sondern "standen auf, ihn zu trösten. Aufstehen zu einer Tat setzt überall einen vorangehenden Entschluss, eine Ermannung voraus. Sie waren also bis dahin selbst in Schmerz versunken gewesen; hatte doch niemand so viel Schmerz zu empfinden, als eben sie, die Tröstenden. Einen alten Vater untröstlich vor sich zu sehen, jeden heiteren Gedanken sich als Sünde anrechnend, da müsste selbst der hartgesottenste Bösewicht das Gefühl der quälendsten Reue empfinden, selbst so trostlos werden, daß er selbst des Trostes bedürfte, nicht aber Trost zu bringen vermöchte. Warum hat aber keiner den Balsam in die Wunde geträufelt und gesprochen: er lebt? Antwort: Weil dies die größte Grausamkeit gewesen wäre. Ein zerrissenes Kind ist für das Bewusstsein der Eltern nicht verloren, ein ungeratenes mehr als verloren. Wer nicht den Schmerz tausendfach erhöhen wollte, der musste schweigen, bis einmal Josef wiederkehren würde und dann die Freude über den Wiedergefundenen und die Tatsache der Wiederkehr selbst den Gedanken des geübten Verbrechens mildern würden. So hätte er zu dem einen noch zehn Söhne in einem Augenblick verloren.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:35:2

Er weigerte sich נחם .להתנחם siehe (Bereschit 6, 6): Trösten kann man niemanden, man kann ihm nur Trostgründe geben, die er sich selbst zu Gemüte nehmen und damit eine Umstimmung seiner Stimmung bewirken muss; er aber weigerte sich, es auch nur zu versuchen, diese Umwandlung an sich zu vollbringen. כי ארד אל בני אבל שאלה, nicht als ob der Gram ihn töten sollte, sondern er glaubte, bis an sein Grab trauern zu müssen: sein Sohn darf ihn nicht heiter wiedersehen. Jakob mochte sich auch nach seiner Auffassung Vorwürfe machen. Nach einem so schrecklichen Vorgange hält das Gemüt sehr scharfe Abrechnung und verzeiht sich auch das Leiseste nicht. — ויבך אתו אביו, nicht עליו, sondern בכה .אתו verwandt mit פקה ,פקע ,בקע, alles ein Ausbrechen, ein Frei-werden aus einem Innern. בכה: die Wirkung eines hervorbrechenden Gefühls. בכה על: über eine äußere Veranlassung. בכה את, den Gegenstand gleichsam hinausweinen, ihn fortwährend im Herzen tragen, und die Wirkung dieses im Herzen Tragens durch eine von Zeit zu Zeit sich ins Auge stehlende Träne äußern. Er trägt ihn im Herzen, auch wenn er nicht weint. (יצא] יוע=[בקע]בכה], Träne ist der Schweiß der arbeitenden Seele, Schweiß ist die Träne des arbeitenden Leibes). Bezeichnend steht hier die Träne zuletzt. Jakob jammerte nicht und schrie nicht. Das ויבך bezieht sich auf die spätere Zeit. Wenn die andern heiter waren, stahl sich verstohlen eine Träne in das Auge des Vaters.

Sforno on Genesis 37:35:1

וימאן להתנחם, he refused to listen to words of comfort in order not to become guilty of forgetting to mourn.

Sforno on Genesis 37:35:2

ויאמר כי ארד אל בני אבל שאולה, he vowed to remain in mourning for the balance of his life. His reason was that he blamed himself for what happened because he had sent his beloved son on such a dangerous errand.

Sforno on Genesis 37:35:3

ויבך אותו אביו. Yitzchok wept over Yaakov’s decision to remain in mourning for the rest of his life. As a result of being in mourning he would forfeit Divine inspiration also.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:35:1

A twin sister was born with each brother... It means that each brother married his brother’s twin, i.e., his paternal but not maternal sister — since a paternal sister is not considered incest for the sons of Noach.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:35:2

A person cannot accept consolation for one who is alive but is thought to be dead... The question is asked: Did Yaakov not know that consolation cannot be accepted for a live person thought to be dead? If so, why did he mourn over Yoseif? He would know he was alive! The answer is: Yaakov in fact did not know this because “consolation cannot be accepted for one who is alive but thought to be dead,” is learned from the case of Yaakov himself. Heaven decreed that the dead be forgotten, allowing consolation to be accepted. Yet, Yaakov did not accept consolation. Therefore, we derive that consolation cannot be accepted in such a case, and Yaakov was therefore unaware of this. Maharshal answers: When a person agitates himself, he is unaware that his anguish is excessive because he considers all the anguish as nothing.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:35:3

The same as על בני... It means, “because of my son.” This is because [in this verse,] אל cannot mean “next to” or “to,” as in, “Avimelech came to him (אליו) from Gerar” (26:26), and as in, “He said to him (אליו): ‘I am Adonoy’” (15:7).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:35:4

While still in mourning will I be buried and not be consoled all of my life... I.e., this mourning will stay with me until I am buried. But not that I will mourn in the grave, for there is neither mourning nor joy there.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:35:5

If none of my children die in my lifetime then I am assured not to see Gehinom. She’ol is one of Gehinom’s seven names. The rationale [of the sign] is that a person can be judged to twelve months [at most] in Gehinom. If Yaakov’s twelve sons are all alive, corresponding to the twelve months, Gehinom cannot affect him. (Gur Aryeh)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:35:6

But he did not mourn, for he knew that he was alive. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written simply, “He wept for him,” as it had written before: “All his sons and daughters rose to console him.” [Why does it say, “His father wept for him”?] A further question: Why does it say, “He wept,” rather than, “He mourned,” as it said before: “He mourned for his son”? Thus Rashi explains that it refers to Yitzchok, about whom it cannot be said, “He mourned,” for he knew Yoseif was alive. And we need not ask how Yitzchok knew, as Hashem might have revealed it to him to save him anguish; for the ban was only against revealing it to Yaakov.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:35

All his sons and all his daughters arose to console him; but he refused to be consoled despite the efforts of those around him. He said: Nothing will change the present reality; for I will descend mourning to the grave, to my son. His father wept for him. Although Jacob did not have absolute proof that Joseph died as his body was not recovered, there was significant circumstantial evidence that Joseph was mauled.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:35:1

וכל בנותיו, “and all his daughters.” His daughter and his granddaughter. Some commentators say that his daughters–in-law are included in the term “his daughters.”

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:35:2

וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to be comforted.” According to the plain meaning, Yaakov could not accept words of comfort as he considered himself partially responsible for what happened, seeing that he had sent Joseph alone on a dangerous mission.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 56

“All his sons and daughters sought to comfort him” [37:35]. All of his sons and daughters got up to console and comfort Jacob. Bahya writes. The daughters, means Dinah and Serach, the daughter of Asher. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:35.) However, Rashi writes. The daughters, means that a daughter was born with each son, and Reuben took her as his wife. So too, a daughter was born with each of Jacob’s sons and that son took her as a wife. So says Rabbi Judah. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:35.) Ramban writes here. The six children of Leah took the daughters that were born to the other six children. The other six children took the daughters that were born with the children of Leah. Rabbi Nehemiah said that the children of Jacob took wives from the Canaanites. The verse calls them daughters of Jacob; because the custom is that the son’s wife is called a daughter. (Ramban, Genesis, 38:2.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 58-61

“I will go down mourning to my son in Sheol” [37:35]. Jacob said: I will mourn until I will come to Gehenna, because Joseph has been taken away from me. I know well prophetically that none of my children should die while I am alive. (Ibid.) Ibn Shuaib writes. Why did Jacob engage in so much anguish? The explanation is that Joseph was not yet twenty years old and Jacob thought that the Holy One does not punish a person for his sins until he is twenty years old. (Ibn Shuaib, Derashot, I: 78.) One asks a question. Even if the Holy One causes that one forgets the deceased and one cannot forget someone who is still alive, Jacob was wise, why did he not think that he must be alive because I cannot forget him? The explanation is that Jacob tore his garments at first. He thought that he had died and later when he could not forget him, he thought that he might still be alive, but he might be in a prison or in trouble. That is why he mourned all his days. Devek Tov asks a question. Why was Jacob not punished that he did not honor his father Isaac for fourteen years? The explanation is that Isaac was very happy that Jacob was studying Torah and did not insist on the honor due him. Why then was Jacob punished that he was in the house of Laban? Rebecca and Isaac told him to go there. The explanation is that Rebecca sent Deborah immediately after him that Jacob should return home. However, Jacob tarried because of Laban’s daughters, to marry them, and he did not honor his mother and father. (Devek Tov, Genesis, 37:35 and note, samech.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 62-63

“His father bewailed him” [37:35]. Rashi asks a question here. Why did Isaac also not cry over the anguish of his son? The explanation is that “His father bewailed him” means that Isaac his grandfather cried and therefore this must be Isaac because Isaac knew well that Joseph was alive, but he cried for the anguish of his son Jacob. It is not written that Isaac mourned and engaged in mourning practices, since the Holy One had let him know that Joseph was still alive, but Isaac was not supposed to tell, because he was under a ban not to tell. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:35.) Similarly, The Holy One informed Benjamin that Joseph was still alive and he was silent. Therefore, the precious stone of Benjamin was in the garment of the High Priest. This precious stone is called Yeshpeh [Jasper], which means yesh peh. That is, he had a mouth to speak and he knew about Joseph, but said nothing. If there was a ban, how did the Holy One tell it to Isaac and Benjamin? The explanation is that the ban was only not to tell Jacob. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:33.)

Midrash

been thrown into a pit" (Lamentations 3:53). "The pit was empty" (Genesis 37:24), "and there was no water in the pit" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "We must buy food to eat and survive" (Lamentations 5:6). "They drew near and lifted up Joseph" (Genesis 37:28), "Eved-Melech the Cushite drew him up" (Jeremiah 38:13). "Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "And the Lord, the God of hosts, called in that day to weeping and mourning" (Isaiah 22:12). "All his sons and all his daughters arose to console him" (Genesis 37:35), "Do not seek to console me" (Isaiah 22:4). "The Midianites sold him into Egypt" (Genesis 37:36), "You have sold the people of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks" (Joel 4:6).

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 84:21

“All his sons and all his daughters arose to console him, but he refused to be consoled; he said: For I will descend mourning to the grave, to my son. His father wept for him” (Genesis 37:35). “All his sons and all his daughters arose” – how many daughters did he have? He had one, and if only he had buried her. It is, rather, that a person does not refrain from calling his son-in-law his son and his daughter-in-law his daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: The tribes married their sisters. That is what is written: “All his sons and all his daughters arose to console him.” (This view accords with the statement that each of Jacob’s sons was born with a twin daughter (see Bereshit Rabba 82:8). Each son then married one of the daughters of Jacob from a different mother, as according to the Noahide laws one is permitted to marry a half-sister from a different mother (Etz Yosef). ) “But he refused to be consoled” – a certain noblewoman asked Rabbi Yosei, she said to him: It is written: “For Judah prevailed over his brothers” (I Chronicles 5:2), and it is written: “Judah was consoled, and he went up to his sheepshearers” (Genesis 38:12), (His two sons and his wife died, and he was able to be consoled. And from the fact that the verse states that Judah prevailed over his brothers, it is implied that he was the most elevated and that his conduct is worthy of emulation (Etz Yosef). ) and this one, the father of them all, “refused to be consoled”? He said to her: One is consoled for the dead, but one is not consoled for the living. “His father wept for him” – this is Isaac. Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Simon said: When [Jacob] was with him he would weep, but when he would leave him, he would go, bathe, and anoint himself with oil. (Isaac was a prophet and knew the truth about Joseph. ) Why did he not reveal it to him? He said: The Holy One blessed be He did not reveal it to him and I will reveal it to him? Rabbi Simon said: This was based on: Anyone for whom one mourns, one mourns with him. (If one’s close relative is in mourning, one mourns together with him (Moed Katan 20b). )

Bereshit Rabbah 94:8

“And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Bekher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Eḥi, and Rosh, Mupim, and Ḥupim, and Ard” (Genesis 46:21). “And the sons of Benjamin: Bela…” – when Joseph stood with Benjamin, he asked him: ‘Do you have sons?’ He said to him: ‘Yes.’ He said to him: ‘How many?’ He said to him: ‘Ten.’ He said: ‘What are their names?’ He said to him: ‘I had one brother. His actions were fine and pleasant, and he was taken captive from me, and I gave them names based on his experience. “Bela” – as he was swallowed [nivla] up from me; “Bekher” – as he was my firstborn [bekhor] [brother]; “Ashbel” – as he was taken captive [nishba] from me; “Gera” – as he resides [gar] in another land; “Naaman” – as his actions were fine [na’im] and pleasant [ne’imim]; “Eḥi” – as he was my full-fledged brother [aḥi]; “and Rosh” – as he was a leader [rosh] for me, and he was the head [roshan] of his brothers, as it is stated: “May his blessing rest on the head of [lerosh] Joseph” (Deuteronomy 33:16); “Mupim” – as he was very fine [yafeh] in all respects, and all the halakhot that Shem and Ever transmitted to Jacob, he transmitted to him. (Mupim – mo pihem – directly from their mouths.) “And Ḥupim” – as he did not see my wedding canopy [beḥupati] and I did not see his wedding canopy [beḥupato], and they concealed [veḥipu] matters in his regard and said: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:33). “And Ard” – as he was like a rose [vered]. “And Ard” – after: [Jacob said:] “For I will descend [ered] mourning to my son to the grave” (Genesis 37:35).’ “And the sons of Naphtali: Yaḥtze'el, and Guni, and Yetzer, and Shilem” (Genesis 46:24). “And the sons of Naphtali” – their [creations] were twisted [muftalin] on seventy-two heddles; (A heddle is an integral part of a loom.) as they twisted [potelin] the work of heddles. (They were expert weavers. ) “Yaḥtze'el” – they broke [sheḥitzu] the gods in their hand and they cut [metzaḥtzeḥin] with their teeth and would sneer with their lips. (They would break idols, and make cutting remarks and disdainful facial expressions about idolatry (see Yefeh To’ar; Etz Yosef). However, see Matnot Kehuna, where these statements are interpreted to mean that they fashioned idols and made disparaging comments toward God. ) “And Guni” – they spoke in derogatory [megunim] language. “And Yetzer” – their [evil] inclination was stronger than that of all [other] people. “And Shilem” – they were devoted [mushlamim] to their inclination (Alternatively, they were devoted to God despite their strong evil inclination (Yefeh To’ar). ) and would repay [umshalmin] goodness with evil.

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 5; Engaging the Reader in Dialogue; The Servant in the Graveyard 17

(5) And it is written, “If they dig down into the grave (she’ol), (The term she’ol is difficult to translate. I have opted for the word “grave,” in keeping with Rashi’s translation of the term in Genesis 37:35. Note, however, that in his midrashic reading of the term, Rashi translates she’ol as gehinnom (Hell). The word is also sometimes rendered as “the Underworld” in translation, and various concordances translate it as “the world of the dead.”) from there My hand will take them…” (Amos 9:2).

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 10:1

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE >.] This text is related (to Micah 1:15): I WILL YET BRING TO YOU ONE WHO SHALL DISPOSSESS YOU, < O INHABITANT OF MARESHAH; TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE GLORY OF ISRAEL >. (Rashi on Gen. 37:35; see Gen. R. 85:1.) R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differed. The one said: The tribal patriarchs married their sisters, since it is stated (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS (According to R. Judah, the plural here shows that Jacob had more than one daughter.) AROSE TO COMFORT HIM. And how many daughters were there? They were simply their < brothers' twelve > twin sisters. < A given brother's mother > bore twins at his < birth >, and he would marry her. Moreover, it says so about Benjamin (in Gen. 35:17): BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU. (Gen. R. 82:8.) "Because this is a son for you" is not stated, but BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU, since his mother had < already > given birth to < his > twin sister. Ergo (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROSE…. Hence you learn that they married their sisters. But R. Nehemiah maintains: His daughters were his daughters-in-law. Since one's son-in-law is like his son, and his daughter-in-law, like a daughter, one does not refrain from calling his daughter-in-law his daughter. (Gen. R. 84:21.) Our masters have said: Judah, who was the eldest in his father's house, married a Canaanite. Thus it is written (in Gen. 38:2): AND JUDAH SAW THERE < THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE >. And the prophet proclaims (in Micah 1:15): TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE (HOLY ONE) [GLORY] OF ISRAEL. Ergo (according to Gen. 38:1-2): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS > AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE < WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH. AND JUDAH SAW THERE THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE WHOSE NAME WAS SHUA. SO HE TOOK HER AND WENT IN UNTO HER >.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 8:1

(Gen. 38:1:) NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH. Let our master instruct us: If a ruin falls on the Sabbath, and it is not known whether Israelites are there or not, is it legitimate to clear away < the rubble > over them on the Sabbath? Thus have our masters taught (in Yoma 8:7): IF A FALLING STRUCTURE FALLS ON SOMEONE [ON THE SABBATH], AND THERE IS DOUBT WHETHER HE IS THERE OR NOT THERE, DOUBT WHETHER HE IS ALIVE OR DEAD, DOUBT WHETHER HE IS A FOREIGNER OR AN ISRAELITE, THEY SHALL CLEAR AWAY [THE RUBBLE] FOR HIS SAKE. IF THEY FIND HIM ALIVE, THEY SHALL CLEAR AWAY < THE REST OF THE RUBBLE > FOR HIS SAKE; BUT, IF HE IS DEAD, THEY SHALL LEAVE HIM. (The Mishnah text here (without Buber’s bracketed emendations) is that found in the Yerushalmi.) It is written concerning the Sabbath (in Exod. 31:14): WHOEVER PROFANES IT (the Sabbath) SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH; yet our masters have taught: they shall clear away [the rubble] over one who is alive on the Sabbath. R. Eleazar ben Azariah said: If circumcision, which < affects > only one of two hundred and forty-eight < human > organs, overrides the Sabbath, how much the more would two hundred and forty-eight organs under stone override the Sabbath for someone? (Shab. 132a; Yoma 85b; Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Shabbata 1.) R. Simeon ben Menasya says: Defile one Sabbath for him so that he may keep a lot of Sabbaths. So, if you clear away < the rubble > over someone to restore a single soul to life, I will also do for you what is written (in Ezek. 37:12): < THUS SAYS THE LORD GOD > BEHOLD, I WILL OPEN YOUR GRAVES < AND RAISE YOU UP OUT FROM YOUR GRAVES, O MY PEOPLE, AND BRING YOU UNTO THE LAND OF ISRAEL >. A certain heretic (min) asked our Rabbi: Is it possible for the dead to live again? Your ancestors do not acknowledge < the belief >, yet you do acknowledge < it >! What is written about Jacob (in Gen. 37:35)? THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROSE TO COMFORT HIM [BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED]. If he had known that the dead would live < again >, would he have refused to be comforted and said (ibid., cont.): NO I WILL GO DOWN MOURNING UNTO MY SON IN SHEOL? Our Rabbi said to him: You are the biggest fool in the world. < It was > because our father Jacob knew through the Holy Spirit that Joseph was alive. For that reason he did not accept consolation over him. After all, one does not accept consolation over one who is alive. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:6; see Soferim 21 (43b).)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 8:2

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED. It is simply that our father Jacob said: See, the tribal covenant has been broken! How I have toiled to raise up twelve tribes. Now I see that, since Joseph has gone, behold the very covenant has ceased. All the works of the Holy One correspond to twelve tribes: twelve constellations, twelve months, twelve hours in the day, twelve hours in the night, twelve stones which Aaron wore < on his breastplate >. But now Joseph has gone! Behold, the tribal covenant has been broken. But did Jacob not know how to take a wife and sire a son so that there would be twelve tribes? < He did not do so > simply because he had kept a vow to Laban, as stated (in Gen. 31:50): IF YOU MISTREAT MY DAUGHTERS OR TAKE WIVES BESIDES MY DAUGHTERS, even after their death < …. > What did Laban do? He brought him outside. He said to him (ibid., cont.): THOUGH NO ONE IS WITH US, SEE, GOD IS A WITNESS…. Because of that vow, he was unable to take a wife. When his sons saw that he was complaining so and that he would not accept consolation, they went to Judah and said to him: You have made all this great misfortune for us! He said to them: I said to you (in Gen. 37:26): WHAT PROFIT < IS THERE IF WE KILL OUR BROTHER AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD >? Now are you saying: What have you done? They said to him: But did we not hearken to you < when > you said (Gen. 37:27): COME, AND LET US SELL HIM TO THE ISHMAELITES? So we hearkened to you. If you had said: Come, and let us return him to his father, should we not have hearkened to you? In that hour, therefore, they arose and expelled him. How is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Gen. 38:1): JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 10:2

(Gen. 37:35:) NO, I WILL GO DOWN MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. What is the meaning of MOURNING TO … SHEOL? Perhaps I shall die the death of the wicked in this world and in the world to come. Why? Because the Holy One had promised to give me twelve tribes, and here one of them is dead. Perhaps I was not worthy of them, and I am to die in both worlds. (The midrash regards Jacob’s mourning as the equivalent of dying in the present world and his descent to Sheol as a second death.) For this reason he said (in vs. 35): NO, I WILL GO DOWN MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. Do you want to know what he said when he saw that he was alive? (Gen. 46:30:) THEN ISRAEL SAID UNTO JOSEPH: NOW LET ME DIE. What was the reason for him to say: NOW LET ME DIE? He simply said: When they came and told me Joseph was dead, I said: I was to die in both worlds. Now that I have seen that you are alive, I am receiving the good news that I am only dying one time. NOW LET ME DIE.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 10:3

(Gen. 37:35, cont.:) SO HIS FATHER WEPT FOR HIM. What is written next (in vs. 36)? BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT. The Holy One said to Judah: You have no children; therefore you do not know what the pain of children is. Now you have deceived your father and told him: Your son is dead. By your life, when you take a wife you shall bury your sons in order that you may know the pain of children. What is written next (in Gen. 38:1-10): NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME THAT < JUDAH >…. (The verses continue with the story of Judah's marriage to Shua, the birth of three sons, and the death of two of them.) It is also written (in Gen. 46:12): < AND THE SONS OF JUDAH: ER, ONAN, SHELAH, PEREZ, AND ZERAH >; BUT ER AND ONAN HAD DIED < IN THE LAND OF CANAAN >. Now all those years that Joseph had been away from his father, Jacob's mind had been against Judah. (Tanh., Gen. 11:9, specifically states in the parallel account, “It was in Jacob’s heart that Judah had killed him.” See also above.) From where do you learn that? From Benjamin, about whom Judah said to Joseph (in Gen. 44:32): FOR YOUR SERVANT HAS BECOME SURETY FOR THE LAD. Then, as soon as he had set his mind on Benjamin and Joseph had made himself known, Judah was found to be innocent, as stated (in Is. 11:13): THEN EPHRAIM'S JEALOUSY SHALL DEPART, < AND THOSE WHO HARASS JUDAH SHALL BE CUT OFF >…. Therefore (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM UNTO JOSEPH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 7:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 44:18): When Judah saw that Joseph was not appeased, he began saying to his brothers: [Why] are we standing around? We will begin with this one and wind up with Pharaoh! Now they did not know that Joseph understood their language, as stated (in Gen. 42:23): NOW THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT JOSEPH UNDERSTOOD. When Joseph saw that, he began to talk to them with supplications and with gentle language. He said to them: About this Benjamin, I want only to know who < it was that > advised him to steal the goblet. Did you perhaps advise him to steal the goblet? When Benjamin heard that, he said: They did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. He said to them: Swear to me. He began to swear to him. By what did he swear to him? By the separation of my brother Joseph from me, (This clause may also be translated as follows: “By the scriptural section on the separation of my brother Joseph from me (in Gen. 37:18-36).”) I did not touch it. Now < I swear > neither by the launching of arrows which were sent against him, as stated (in Gen. 49:23): ARCHERS HAVE HATED HIM (Joseph); nor by the stripping with which they stripped him, as stated (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH OF HIS TUNIC; nor by the throwing with which they threw him into the cistern, as stated (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; nor by the selling with which they sold him to the Ishmaelites (in vs. 28); nor by the dipping with which they dipped his tunic in the blood (in vs. 31). < By none of these do I swear > that they did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. Joseph said: Who will make known to me that you are swearing truthfully about your brothers? He said to him: You can know how much I love him from the names of my sons, since I set names for them on the basis of what I feared for < each one >. (Sot. 36b (bar); Gen. R. 93:7; Tanh., Gen. 11:40.) He said to him: And what were the names of your sons? He said to him (in agreement with Gen. 46:21): BELA, BECHER, ASHBEL, GERA, NAAMAN, EHI, ROSH, MUPPIM, HUPPIM, AND ARD. He said to him: Why Bela (BL')? He said to him: Because my brother was swallowed up (rt.: BL') from me. Becher (BKR)? Because he was my mother's first-born (rt.: BKR). Ashbel ('ShBL)? Because my brother was captured (NShBH). Gera? Because my brother was a sojourner (ger) with < merely > the privileges of a transient. (Gk.: xenia, i.e., “rights of a foreigner” or “guest privileges.”) Naaman (N'M)? Because his words were pleasing (N'M). Ehi ('HY)? Because he was my brother ('HY) from < the same > mother, and I had none but him. Rosh (which means "head")? Because he was older than I. Muppim (MPYM)? Because he learned Torah from our father's mouth (MPY) and taught it to me. When all his brothers would return to shepherding, he would sit with my father and learn the traditions which he had received from Shem and Eber. Huppim (rt.: HPP)? Because he has been covered over (rt.: HPP) until this day. Another interpretation of Huppim: Because I did not see his wedding canopy (huppah) nor did he see my wedding canopy. Another interpretation of Huppim (rt.: HPP): Because until now I have been mourning over him and going barefoot (rt.: YHP). And Ard ('RD)? Because he brought (rt.: YRD) all of us down here. Another interpretation of ARD (from Gen. 37:35): NO, I WILL GO DOWN ('RD) MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. Will you please not bring down ('RD) Daddy to Sheol through grief! And so Judah said (in Gen. 44:34): FOR HOW SHALL I GO UP UNTO MY FATHER < IF THE LAD IS NOT WITH ME >? When Joseph heard that, he was not able to suppress his compassion, as stated (in Gen. 45:1-3): JOSEPH COULD NOT RESTRAIN HIMSELF…. AND HE WEPT ALOUD…. THEN JOSEPH SAID UNTO HIS BROTHERS: I AM JOSEPH. When he said to them: I AM {YOUR BROTHER JOSEPH} … (in vs. 3, cont.): HIS BROTHERS COULD NOT ANSWER HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE DISMAYED BECAUSE OF HIM. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said in the name of R. Eleazar ben Azariah: (Gen. R. 93:11.) Now, if in the case of Joseph, when he said to his brothers: I am Joseph, they knew what they had done with him and were unable to answer him; how much the less will a creature be able to stand when the Holy One comes to dispute with each and every one of < his > creatures and to tell him his deeds, just as it is written (in Amos 4:13): FOR BEHOLD, THE ONE WHO FORMS THE MOUNTAINS, < CREATES THE WIND, AND TELLS ONE WHAT HIS THOUGHT IS > … !

Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 22:1

Go, get thee down (Exod. 32:7). The sages said: Moses was actually excommunicated by the heavenly court at that time. Here it is said: Get thee down (red) as a rebuke, for the people had dealt corruptly, and elsewhere it is said: And Judah went down (vayered) from his brethren (Gen. 38:1). What is written preceding that? And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him (ibid. 37:35). But when he remained uncomforted they arose and excommunicated Judah. They said: “When you told us: ‘Come and let us sell him,’ we listened to you, but if you had told us: ‘Come, let us take him back,’ we would have listened to you. You are responsible for our father’s grief.” That is why they excommunicated him. Hence the word red (“get thee down”) implies excommunication.

Midrash Tanchuma, Miketz 4:3

Observe that though the law permits a mourner to return to his work and be comforted after three days, our patriarch Jacob refused to be comforted over the loss of Joseph, as is written: And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted (Gen. 37:35). Why was that? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, concealed the fact of Joseph’s survival in order to fulfill the decree Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger (Gen. 15:13). If that had not been so, would not Isaac his father, a prophet, who was still alive and aware that Joseph still lived have disclosed it to him? He had said to himself: If the Holy One, blessed be He, concealed it from him, shall I tell him? When the prophetic spirit bubbled up in Jacob, the tribes were wandering about the marketplace, neither understanding nor hearing what was transpiring there, while Jacob our patriarch, sitting at home, knew what was happening in Egypt, as it is said: And now Jacob saw that there was grain in Egypt.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Midrash Tehillim 116:8

Precious in the eyes of God are ten things called precious: wealth, as it is said, "A man's wealth is his strong city" (Proverbs 10:15); the Torah, as it is said, "For she is more precious than rubies" (Proverbs 3:15); Israel, as it is said, "Ephraim is a precious son to Me" (Jeremiah 31:20); knowledge, as it is said, "Precious treasure and oil are in a wise man's dwelling" (Proverbs 21:20); prophecy, as it is said, "And the word of the Lord was precious in those days" (1 Samuel 3:1); understanding, as it is said, "The spirit of a man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all his innermost parts" (Proverbs 20:27); foolishness, as it is said, "Folly is set in great dignity, while the rich sit in a lowly place" (Ecclesiastes 10:6); the righteous, as it is said, "How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them!" (Psalm 139:17); kindness, as it is said, "How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God!" (Psalm 36:8); and the death of the righteous, as it is said, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints" (Psalm 116:15). It is like a parable of a king who sent one of his officials to collect his taxes. The official stayed with a homeowner for eleven days, and each day he entrusted the homeowner with a hundred coins, totaling ten thousand coins. When the official came to collect the taxes, the homeowner claimed that he only owed fifty coins. The official wondered how he could collect the remaining amount from the homeowner. Similarly, God found it difficult to ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, whom He had blessed with Heaven and Earth, and who sanctified God's name in the world. God also found it difficult to ask Isaac to be sacrificed, who willingly offered himself on the altar and sanctified God's name in the world. God found it difficult to ask Jacob to die, who toiled in Torah his whole life. God found it difficult to ask Moses to die, who risked his life to face Pharaoh and fulfill God's commandments. Similarly, God found it difficult to ask David to die, who completed his soul and descended to his eternal rest. The same goes for Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who cast themselves into the fiery furnace, and for all righteous people. If not for the fact that the righteous ask for death with their mouths, they would not die. As for Abraham it is written (Genesis 15:2) "And I am going alone, childless." In Isaac it is written (Genesis 27:7) "And I will bless you before I die." In Jacob it is written (Genesis 37:35) "I will go down to the grave in mourning." In Moses it is written (Deuteronomy 4:22) "But I must die." In David it is written (1 Kings 2:2) "I am about to go the way of all the earth." In Jonah it is written (Jonah 4:3) "Please, take my life." And since the righteous ask with their mouths, God said: "Let these go because of those." If Abraham had lived, how would he have led Isaac's reign? And similarly, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, and Solomon. Rather, God said: "Let these go because of those."

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 11

And Naphtali came unto his father, and he gave unto him the coat, and spoke unto him ‎according to the instruction of his brothers. And when Jacob saw the coat he recognized it, and ‎he fell to the ground silent like a rock. And afterwards he rose up and cried out, in a weeping ‎voice: That is the coat of my son Joseph! And Jacob sent hastily one of his servants to his sons, ‎and he met them coming along the road with the sheep. And the sons of Jacob came unto ‎their father towards evening, with their garments torn and dust upon their heads, and they ‎met their father weeping and lamenting with a loud voice. And Jacob said unto his sons: Will ‎you not tell me all about the misfortune that hath befallen me so suddenly to-day? And they ‎answered unto Jacob their father saying: After having gathered in the sheep, we went on our ‎road towards the city of Shechem in the wilderness, and we found this coat full of blood and ‎dust, and we recognized the coat, and we forwarded it unto thee that thou mightst recognize ‎it likewise. And when Jacob heard the words of his sons, he cried out with a powerful voice, ‎and he said: It is my son’s coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent ‎in pieces. For I have sent him to-day unto you to inquire after your peace and the welfare of ‎the sheep, and to bring me back word from you. And he went according to my orders, and this ‎evil hath come over him, while I thought my son is with you. And the sons of Jacob answered, ‎saying: He hath never reached us, and we have not seen him from the day we have left thee ‎even until now. And Jacob rent his clothes and put sackcloth upon his loins, and he wept ‎bitterly and he mourned for his son, lamenting in these words: Oh Joseph, Joseph my son, ‎behold I have sent thee to in quire for the peace of thy brothers and thou hast been torn into ‎pieces, and through me this hath befallen thee. It grieveth me for thy sake, my son Joseph, oh ‎it grieveth me! How sweet hast thou been unto me while living, and how bitter is thy death ‎unto me! Would that I had died in thy stead to-day, oh my son, for it grieveth me exceedingly ‎for thee, oh my son. Oh my son, my son, Joseph, my son, where art thou and where is thy ‎soul? Awake oh awake from thy place and come and see my affliction concerning thee, oh my ‎son! Come and count the tears of my eyes flowing down my cheeks, and bring them before ‎the Lord that his anger may turn away from me. Oh my son how hast thou fallen, in a manner ‎as no man hath ever perished from the beginning of the world, even unto this day. For thou ‎hast fallen by the hand of a cruel enemy, but I know that this hath happened unto thee on ‎account of my many sins. Arise, oh my son, awake and see the bitterness of my agony ‎concerning thee! But verily I have not caused thee to grow and I have not formed thee, and I ‎have not given unto thee a spirit and a soul, for it was God who hath created thee, and he hath ‎built up thy bones, and invested them with flesh and breathed into thy nostrils a breath of life, ‎and he gave thee unto me. And the same God that hath given thee unto me hath taken thee ‎away from me now, and this hath befallen thee to-day, and all the works of God are good.‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 12

And Jacob kept on lamenting in this manner and he wept bitterly, and he fell to the ground ‎and was silent. And all the sons of Jacob saw their father's agony, and they repented of what ‎they had done, and they also wept bitterly. And Judah arose and lifted up the head of his ‎father, and he placed it upon his knees, and he removed his father's tears from his cheeks. ‎And Judah wept a fearful weeping, with his father's head upon his lap silent like a rock. And all ‎the sons of Jacob and all his servants and all his daughters rose up and surrounded him to ‎comfort him; but he refused to be comforted. And the news reached Isaac, the son of ‎Abraham, Jacob's father, and he and his household wept bitterly for Joseph. And Isaac left his ‎home in Hebron and his men with him, and they came to comfort Jacob; but he refused to be ‎comforted. And afterwards Jacob rose up from the ground with the tears streaming down his ‎face, and he said unto his sons: Arise and take your swords and your bows and go into the field ‎to search for the body of my son, and bring it unto me and I will bury it. And, I pray ye, to ‎search likewise among the beasts and hunt them down, and the one you meet first seize it ‎and bring it unto me, peradventure the Lord will see my misery this day and grant you to find ‎the one that hath torn my son, and bring it unto me that I may avenge on it the death of my ‎son. And the sons of Jacob did according to the command of their father, and they rose early in ‎the morning and they took each his sword and his bow, and they went unto the field to hunt ‎the beasts. And when they came unto the wilderness, and behold a wolf came towards them, ‎and they seized him and they brought him unto their father saying: This is the first beast we ‎met, and we have brought him unto thee according to thy commandment, but the body of thy ‎son we could not find. And Jacob took the beast from the hands of his sons, and he cried out ‎once more with a terrible voice, and he seized the beast with one hand and he spoke unto the ‎beast in the bitterness of his heart, saying: Why hast thou devoured my son Joseph, and how ‎didst thou not fear the Lord of the earth to bring over me such grief concerning my son ‎Joseph'? And thou hast devoured my son without any cause, for he hath not wronged thee, ‎and thou hast brought guiltiness over me on his account, and now therefore the Lord will ‎always find him that deserveth punishment.‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 13

And the Lord opened the mouth of the beast in order to comfort Jacob with its words, and it ‎answered unto Jacob and it spake these words: As God liveth who hath created me in the ‎earth, and as thy soul liveth, oh my master, I have not seen thy son nor have I torn him to ‎pieces. . But I am coming from a distant land likewise seeking my son, and as it hath happened ‎unto thee and thy son, even so it hath happened unto me and my son. And it is now ten days ‎since I have come unto this land in search of my son, who hath left me and I know not where ‎he is, and whether he be dead or alive. And when I came to-day unto the field to seek my son, ‎thy sons found me and they seized me, adding grief to my grief, and they brought me to thee ‎this day; and I have spoken unto thee all concerning my affairs. And now, oh son of man, ‎behold I am in thy hands and thou canst do unto me as it seem eth best in thine eyes, this day, ‎but as the Lord liveth who hath created me in the earth, I have not seen thy son, neither have ‎I torn him to pieces, nor has ever human flesh entered my mouth all the days of my life. And ‎when Jacob heard the words of the beast he was greatly astonished, and he released the ‎animal and it went away. And Jacob continued weeping and lamenting for Joseph, and he ‎mourned over his son many days. And the Ishmaelites who bought Joseph from the ‎Midianites who had bought him from his brothers went with Joseph unto Egypt. And when ‎they reached the boundaries of Egypt they met with four men of the sons of Elam, the son of ‎Abraham, who came on their way from Egypt. And the Ishmaelites said unto them: Would you ‎not like to buy this slave from us? And they said: Give him unto us. And they delivered Joseph ‎unto them and they examined him and they saw that he was a lad of very fine appearance and ‎they bought him for nine shekels. And the Ishmaelites went on their journey into Egypt, and ‎the Midianites returned like wise to Egypt on the same day. And they said to each other: ‎Behold we have heard that Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, captain of the guards, is seeking a ‎good servant to stand before him and to minister unto him and to take charge of his house and ‎all belonging unto him. And now let us go and sell him unto him as this is precisely the servant ‎he wants, and he will pay us for him whatsoever we desire. And those Midianites came unto ‎the house of Potiphar, saying unto him: We have heard that thou desirest to procure a good ‎servant to attend thee. Behold we have with us a servant according to thy desire, and if thou ‎canst give unto us what we ask for him, we will sell him unto thee. And Potiphar said unto ‎them : Bring him into my presence, and if he pleaseth me then I will pay for him whatsoever ‎you ask for him. And the Midianites brought Joseph before Potiphar, and Potiphar saw him ‎and he pleased him exceedingly,‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 5

And while they were eating they held counsel together concerning what was to be done with ‎him, whether to kill him or to bring him back unto his father. And whilst they were holding ‎their council they lifted up their eyes and behold, a company of Ishmaelites was coming from ‎the distance on their road from Gilead, and going down to Egypt. And Judah said unto them: ‎What profit is it to us if we slay our brother, perhaps the Lord may once require him from us, ‎this is the advice I propose concerning him, according to which you may do unto him: Behold ‎this company of Ishmaelites is going down to Egypt, come then and let us sell him unto them ‎and let our hands be free from him. And they will take him along on their way and he will be ‎lost amongst the people of the land, and we need not slay him with our hands. And this ‎pleased them well and they decided to act according to Judah’s advice. And while they were ‎dis cussing this matter, behold, before the Ishmaelites had yet reached them, seven ‎merchants of Midian passed them by, and passing by they were thirsty and lifting up their ‎eyes, they saw the pit wherein Joseph was, and behold all kinds of birds were around him. ‎And these Midianites ran unto the pit to drink water, for they thought there was water in the ‎pit, and when they arrived before the pit they heard the voice of Joseph weeping and ‎lamenting in the pit and looking into the pit they saw a lad of fine figure and comely ‎appearance. And they called unto him: Who art thou, and who hath brought thee hither and ‎who hath cast thee into this pit in the wilderness? And they all assisted Joseph to raise him, ‎and they brought Joseph out from the pit and took him along continuing their journey. And ‎when they passed by his brothers, they saw Joseph in the hands of the Midianites and they ‎said unto them: Why are ye doing this thing to take our servant and go away with him? Verily, ‎we have placed this lad into the pit, for he hath rebelled against us, and you came and brought ‎him up to take him away. And now return ye our servant unto us.

Musar

Jacob mourned Joseph's assumed death for many years, unable to be consoled, as he believed Joseph was dead. However, the tradition of the soul of the deceased "commuting" between Heaven and earth for the first twelve months after death led Jacob to eventually realize that Joseph was still alive. This highlights the idea that even events that seem destructive can ultimately serve a greater purpose in God's plan, as seen in the positive historic developments that resulted from Joseph's supposed demise.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 16

We can now better understand Jacob mourning for his son Joseph, and his refusal to be comforted (37, 35). Tractate Sofrim 21 teaches that one does not accept תנחומים, condolences, for the living. It is a Heavenly decree that twelve months after his death, a person is apt to recede in one's memory to the point where one forgets him. In view of this people ask how could Jacob fail to have remained aware that Joseph was alive, since he, Jacob could not be reconciled to his loss? [In a gloss the author mentions something he has heard about this problem in the name of the famous פוסק Rabbi Moses Isserlis. He explained the matter על פי הפשט, according to the plain meaning of the text. During the first year of Joseph's absence, Jacob mourned him in the manner one mourns a deceased person for he was convinced that Joseph was dead. When the year had passed and he found himself unable to be consoled, he realized in retrospect that the news of Joseph's disappearance had never meant that Joseph was dead. Since Joseph had failed to return after all this time, Jacob had to assume that he had died in the interval. He kept thinking along that line for many years. The whole matter of "forgetting" the deceased has to do with the tradition that the soul of the deceased "commutes" between Heaven and earth during the first twelve months after the body's death. After that, seeing that the soul has severed contact with earth, the deceased recedes into the remoter regions of the memory of his next-of-kin. To sum up: Jacob had accepted comfort regarding the terrestrial dimension of Joseph's death. He had not, however, accepted condolences regarding the demise of the spiritual dimension of Joseph.]

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 42

The message of the Midrash is clear. While our activities may appear as hurling the world towards destruction, G–d may utilise these very activities to further His plans. Even Jacob, who mourned Joseph and was inconsolable, and who prophesied that he would descend to the grave still mourning for his son (37, 35), did not realise that Joseph's fate was the catalyst that triggered positive historic developments. The same was true for Reuben who mourned Joseph's disappearance from the pit and his share of the responsibility. Jeremiah teaches us in the above quoted passage that we cannot evaluate the true significance of step by step historical developments until the whole cycle has been completed.

Quoting Commentary

Rabbeinu Bahya explains that Joseph's compassion towards Benjamin was due to them being full brothers, sharing the same father and mother, as indicated by their conversation about Benjamin's sons' names expressing grief over a missing brother. The Jonathan Sacks Haggadah highlights the Jewish tradition of ending the seder with a children's song, emphasizing the importance of inspiring future generations with hope and resilience. Chizkuni clarifies the use of the word "אל" in Genesis 30:39:2 and 41:57, showing it does not imply physical approach. In Genesis 50:13:1, Chizkuni explains why only Joseph's sons, not grandsons, carried his coffin, linking it to the lineage of the sons and the status of Ephraim and Menashe as princes.

Chizkuni, Genesis 30:39:2

אל המקלות, “in response to the sticks;” the word אל does not mean to approach physically;” similar to Genesis 41,57: לשבור אל יוסף, “to buy grain from Joseph,” where it also has not been used in a physical sense. Another interpretation: “on account of the sticks.” This would be similar to Yaakov saying in Genesis 37,35: כי ארד אל בני שאולה, “for I will join my son on the way down to hades” (a grave in the nether regions of the earth).

Chizkuni, Genesis 50:13:1

וישאו אותו בניו, “His sons carried him, etc;” only his sons, not any of his grandsons as they had Canaanite mothers. We have read in the Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 50, “are we to assume that Yehudah’s wife (Genesis 38,2) was really a Canaanite, in spite of the fact that Avraham had gone to great length to insure that Eliezer would not select a Canaanite wife for his son Yitzchok? (Genesis 24,3 Yitzchok) Yitzchok had similarly instructed his son Yaakov. The answer given by the Talmud is that the word Canaanite also means: “trader,” and that the Torah told us in Genesis 38,2 that Yehudah’s wife was the daughter of a well known trader, named Shua. If you were to counter how this can be squared with the opinion expressed on Genesis 37,35 where we read about Yaakov’s “sons and daughters all trying to comfort Yaakov over the disappearance and presumed death of Joseph,” that all of Yaakov’s sons had twin girls born with them, so why did Yehudah not marry one of them or a granddaughter of Yaakov? We must assume that all of these twin daughters died prematurely so that the sons of Yaakov had no other option but to marry Canaanite girls. To the additional question why they could not at least have married the children of Shimon of whom we know that he had a son by a Canaanite woman (Genesis 46,10)? B‘reshit Rabbah 80,10 suggests that Shaul borne to Shimon was actually a son of Sh’chem who had raped Dinah; one opinion offered is that Shimon buried that offspring in the land of Canaan before the brothers descended to Egypt and that this is why he is referred to as son of a Canaanite. Getting back to the question why the grandsons of Yaakov were not part of the pall bearers, of the grandfather; Joseph did not wish to do anything that could arouse jealousies among them, some being biologically qualified others not; seeing that no one would be jealous of Ephrayim and Menashe who were princes, he did not object to their being pall bearers. (They would also be founding fathers of tribes in the future) Moreover, Rashi says that Levi was not among the pall bearers, as he would be carrying the Holy Ark. More questions are raised as to how Moses could carry the coffin of Joseph at the Exodus, seeing that he too was a Levite. A suggestion is offered that Joseph’s coffin, similar to the Holy Ark, did not actually need pall bearers as it carried itself, similar to the Holy Ark which is described as carrying its bearers. (based on a verse in Psalms 80,2: כצאן יוסף יושב הכרובים, (Compare more about this in Moshav z’keynim)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 43:30:1

כי נכמרו רחמיו, “for his compassion had been stirred.” This is a common feeling between people who share the same father and mother. [Seeing Binyamin was the only one of the brothers who was a full brother to Joseph, his feelings were more tender towards him. Ed.] According to Bereshit Rabbah 94,5 the words כי נכמרו רחמיו אל אחיו allude to the following conversation between Joseph and Binyamin. Joseph asked: “do you have a full brother, one that has both the same father and mother as you?” Binyamin answered that he used to have such a brother but that he did not know what had become of him. When Joseph probed further, asking him if he had any children, Binyamin replied that indeed he had ten sons. To Joseph’s inquiry after the names of his sons, Binyamin told him the names. Joseph wanted to know the meaning of these names. Binyamin explained that they all represented his grief over his missing brother. The name Bela, for instance, represented the fact that apparently his missing brother had been “swallowed” up amongst the other nations so that his identity no longer could be determined. (The Midrash continues to elaborate on similar meanings of all of Binyamin’s sons.) Having heard all this, Joseph was so close to weeping that he had to leave the room in order not to give himself away.

The Jonathan Sacks Haggadah, Nirtzah, Chad Gadya 1:1

ONE LITTLE GOAT That we end one of Judaism’s most sacred rituals with a children’s song tells us much about what sustained Judaism as a faith for longer, under more arduous circumstances, than any other heritage in the West. The Jewish love of children means that Jews look forward to the future even more than we look back to the past. Just as we began the seder with the questions of a child, so we conclude it with a nursery rhyme, reminding ourselves that what sustains a faith is not strength or power, but its ability to inspire successive generations of children to add their voices to their people’s song. The song itself, disarming in its simplicity, teaches the great truth of Jewish hope: that though many nations (symbolized by the cat, the dog, and so on) attacked Israel (the “goat”), each in turn has vanished into oblivion. At the end of days God will vanquish the angel of death and inaugurate a world of life and peace, the two great Jewish loves. Perhaps, too, there is deeper symbolism. The kid eaten by the cat reminds us of the story of Joseph, sold into slavery. His brothers then slaughtered a kid, dipped Joseph’s coat in its blood, and showed it to their father to persuade him that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal. Outwardly, Jacob accepted their story. However, the Torah says that “he refused to be comforted” (Gen. 37:35). Jewish law states that there is a limit to the period of mourning. Why, then, did Jacob say he would never be comforted? A profound rabbinic commentary explains that there is a time limit to mourning only when one is sure someone has died. Jacob, however, never gave up believing there was a chance, however slim, that Joseph was still alive. His refusal to be comforted was a refusal to give up hope, and in the end it was justified. Joseph was still alive, and he and his father were eventually reunited. Ḥad Gadya expresses the Jewish refusal to give up hope. Though history is full of man’s inhumanity to man – dog bites cat, stick hits dog – that is not the final verse. The Haggada ends with the death of death in eternal life, a fitting end for the story of a people dedicated to Moses’ great command, “Choose life” (Deut. 30:19).

Talmud

Abraham built a walled city for his sons from Keturah, using precious stones to create luminaries for the future. Og, identified as Eliezer, was so huge he could hide Abraham's feet in his hand and built sixty massive cities. Jacob tested his sons with stones, revealing Joseph was alive, and all tribes were written on Joseph's stone. Rebekah was three years old when she left her father's house, and Dinah was six when she bore Asenath from Shechem, taken away by the Archangel Michael to Potiphar's house.

Tractate Soferim 21:9

(From this point to the end of the tractate is an aggadic addendum.) The greatest man among the Anakim (Josh. 14, 15.) —among the Anakim refers to our father Abraham whose height was equal to that of seventy-four men; his eating and drinking were of a similar proportion, equal to those of seventy-four men; so too his strength. What did he do? (This is probably a reference to Gen. 25, 6, But unto the sons of the concubines … Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away … eastward, unto the east country.) He removed the sixteen (So GRA in accordance with Gen. 25, 2-4. V, M and H incorrectly ‘seventeen’.) sons of Keturah, built for them a walled city of iron and settled them in it. The sun never penetrated into it because it was exceedingly high, so Abraham handed to them disks of precious stones and pearls of which use will be made (So GRA. V, M and H read, ‘and they will be used’.) in the hereafter when the Holy One, blessed be He, will cause the sun and moon to be confounded, as it is written, When the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, (Is. 24, 23.) because use will be made of these [disks as luminaries]. Og (King of Bashan; Deut. 3, 11.) is identical with Eliezer, (Abraham’s servant; cf. Gen. 15, 2, XXIV, 2ff.) and [he was so huge that] he could hide Abraham’s feet in the palm of his hand. Once he was rebuked [by Abraham] and from fright his tooth fell out. Abraham picked it up and made ivory beds of it in which he slept. Others say that he made of it a chair which he used (lit. ‘and sat in it’.) all his life. Who gave him to Abraham? Nimrod. (Mentioned in Gen. 10, 8ff.) Og went and built sixty cities, the smallest of which was sixty miles high, as it is stated, Threescore cities, all the region of Argob. (Deut. 3, 4.) And what did he eat? A thousand oxen and the same [number of] other animals, and his drink consisted of a thousand measures. A (So GRA. V, M and H read ‘and what was the’.) drop of his semen weighed thirty-six pounds. (V and H add ‘and so for all generations’, which makes no sense.) It was taught: What did our father Jacob do when his sons brought him the coat [stained] with blood? (Cf. Gen. 37, 31ff.) He did not believe them at all. Whence do we infer this? For it is written, But he refused to be comforted, (ibid. 35.) because no consolations are acceptable for a living person. One, however, who is dead passes naturally from the mind, (lit. ‘he is forgotten from the heart of his own accord’.) as it is stated, I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind. (Ps. 31, 13.) What then did he do? He proceeded to make a test with sheaves, (GRA transposes the order of V, M and H by putting the test of the sheaves before that of the stones, and omits ‘according to the first opinion’.) writing upon them the respective names of the tribes, their constellations and the months, and said to them, ‘I order you to prostrate yourselves before Levi because he wears the Urim and Thummim’, (Cf. Ex. 28, 30.) but they did not stand up. ‘Before Judah who is king’, but they did not stand up; but when he mentioned Joseph to them, they all stood up and bowed before Joseph. But it was not yet quite clear that he was alive. So Jacob went to the mountains, hewed twelve stones, arranged them in a row, and wrote on each the name of its tribe, the name of its constellation and the name of its month. On one stone he wrote ‘Reuben, lamb, Nisan’ (The name of the tribe, constellation and month.) and similarly on every stone. He began from Simeon and said to them, ‘I order you to stand up for Reuben’, but they did not stand up. ‘For Simeon’, but they did not stand up. ‘For every tribe’, but the stones did not stand up. As soon, however, as he mentioned the name of Joseph to them, they stood up at once and bowed before Joseph’s stone. (The translation follows the text of GRA.) For this reason, all the tribes were written on Joseph’s stone. Similarly, all Israel are called by Joseph’s name, as it is stated, Thou that leadest Joseph like a flock. (Ps. 80, 2 where Joseph is a synonym of all Israel.) So also all the heads of the families of the priests and Levites, [e.g.] Eliashib, (Neh. 3, 1.) because of the phrase lahashibo ’el ’abiw; (In the story of Joseph (Gen. 37, 22), E.V. to restore him to his father. The name Eliashib is broken up in three parts corresponding in sound and meaning to these three Heb. words. From ‘For this reason’ to ’abiw is the reading of GRA. V and H have instead: ‘but from the mishmaroth, Eliashib the priest’.) Elḳanah, (Connected with ḳanah, ‘he bought’.) because Potiphar had bought him [as it is stated,] And Joseph ms brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar … bought him. (Gen. 39, 1. V inserts in parentheses, And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Ẓaphenath, paneah, etc. (ibid. XLI, 45), which has no relevance to the subject.) When Rebekah left her father’s house (Cf. ibid. XXIV, 59ff.) she was three years old, (V, M and H add ‘and three days’.) because it is customary among kings, when a daughter is born to them, to hear of it after three days; (H reads ‘after three years and three days’.) but as her father did not hear [of her birth] he did not defile her up to that time; and now a miracle happened to her in that her father died so that he should not defile her, as it is written, Neither had any man known her, (Gen. 24, 16.) and by man only her father could be meant, (From ‘he did not’ to ‘meant’ is GRA’s reading. V, M and H read: ‘therefore a miracle happened to her that she should not be defiled’.) for such was the practice of the Arameans to lie with their virgin daughters after they were three years of age, (‘After … age’ is inserted by GRA; omitted in V, M and H.) and then to give them away in marriage. (V, M and H add: ‘on account of that which is written, Neither had any man known her, and by man only her father could be meant’.) Dinah was six years old when she bore Asenath from [her association with] Shechem, (Cf. Gen. 34.) corresponding to (lit. ‘the number of’.) the six years which Jacob served Laban in payment for the flock, (ibid. XXXI, 41.) thus completing (lit. ‘until’.) the twenty years of his service. [The Archangel] Michael then descended and took her away to the house of Potiphar. From here onward let the man of understanding increase knowledge. (From ‘completing the twenty years’ to ‘knowledge’ is GRA’s text. V and M have instead: ‘and he added twenty years, because he died. From this point onwards let the man of understanding increase knowledge. And Michael descended and led her to Potiphar’s house’.)

Tanakh

Yaakov mourned his son Joseph for a long time, refusing to be comforted by his family, stating that he will go down to the grave mourning for him.

Covenant and Conversation Family Edition, Vayeshev, II; Refusing Comfort, Keeping Hope 2

Yaakov tore his clothes, put on sackcloth, and mourned his son for a long time. His sons and daughters tried to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. He said, “I will go down to the grave mourning for my son” (Bereshit 37:34–35).

Targum

Jacob's sons and daughters tried to console him after Joseph's supposed death, but he refused to be comforted, declaring he would mourn for his son until his own death. Both Jacob and Isaac wept for Joseph.

Onkelos Genesis 37:35

All his sons and all his daughters rose to console him, but he refused to be consoled [accept consolation]. He said, I will go down to the grave [while I am still] mourning for my son. His father wept for him.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:35

And all his sons and all the men of his house arose and went to console him; but he refused to receive consolation, and said, For I will go down to my son mourning to the house of the grave. And Izhak his father also wept for him.

וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים׃ 36 E The Midianites, (Midianites Heb. “Medanites.”) meanwhile, sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, a courtier of Pharaoh and his prefect. (prefect Precise force of Heb. sar haṭṭabaḥim uncertain; cf. Jer. 52.12; 2 Kings 25.8ff. and Jer. 39–40; Gen. 39.20; 40.3. Apparently the office was obscure even to the text’s original audience (cf. 39.1). NJPS “chief steward,” trad. “captain of the guard.”)
The term "hatabachim" in Genesis 37:36 refers to the slaughterers or executioners of the king, with Potiphar identified as the chief executioner by various commentators. Joseph's brothers sold him to the Midianites, who then sold him to the Ishmaelites, leading to his mistreatment along the way. Yosef's downfall is attributed to his behavior in bearing tales about his brothers and insisting on telling them his dreams, which leads to his eventual sale into slavery. Pinehas went to war with Midian to exact judgment on behalf of his grandfather Joseph, and Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, leading to its destruction and the exile of the people. Joseph was sold by the Midianites in Egypt to Potiphar, who was an officer and captain of the guards for Pharaoh.

Commentary

The text discusses the meaning of the term "hatabachim" in Genesis 37:36, with Rashi and Onkelos interpreting it as referring to the slaughterers or executioners of the king, while Ibn Ezra and Tur HaArokh agree with Onkelos. Potiphar is identified as the chief executioner by various commentators, including Steinsaltz and Siftei Chakhamim, with Ramban and Radak discussing the identity of the Midianites who sold Joseph into slavery. The verse is seen as foreshadowing the Israelites' enslavement in Egypt by Chizkuni.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:36:1

והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים, “the Midianites had sold him into Egypt;” the Torah chooses this wording [instead of mentioning at this point to whom specifically he had been sold, Ed.] as foreshadowing the brothers’ and their descendants having to remain in Egypt for many years in the future. The enslavement and forceful detention of the Israelites inside Egypt commencing after the last of the brothers had died, was an example of G-d meting out punishment fitting the crime that had been committed, in this instance to the children of those who had committed the crime. [Although Joseph had not committed the same crime, he had been the cause of all] the crimes that were committed. This still leaves open the question of how Binjamin’s descendants had to be punished. Ed.] All of the brothers, however learned from the corrupt ways of the Egyptians so that they had to suffer before being found worthy of redemption.

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:36:2

אל מצרים, “in Egypt;” another example of the word אל being used as meaning: “in,” is Exodus 25,21, ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and you are to place the testimony (Tablets) inside the ark,” as well as Numbers 19,17 as well as Numbers 19,6:.אל תוך

Chizkuni, Genesis 37:36:3

שר הטבחים, “chief of the king’s slaughterers.” He was in fact the chief of the executioners, the death penalty in Egypt being quite common. We find the expression “slaughter” applied to executioners in Psalms 37,14.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:36:1

THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD. The term tabbach (guard) is used both with reference to killing (Cf. Dan. 2:14, The captain of the king’s guard (rav tabbachyya) who was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon.) and with reference to cooking. (Cf. I Sam. 9:24 where the term tabbach means cook, viz., And the cook (ha-tabbach) took up the thigh.) Onkelos’ rendition is correct. (Onkelos renders sar ha-tabbachim as the chief executioner.)

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 37:2

Heb. “Medanites.”

Radak on Genesis 37:36:1

והמדנים, we already explained who they were and what they did on verse 28.

Radak on Genesis 37:36:2

שר הטבחים, as per Onkelos, Pharaoh’s chief executioner.

Ramban on Genesis 37:36:1

OFFICER OF ‘HATABACHIM.’ This means the slaughterers of the king’s animals. This is the language of Rashi. Similarly, it says, And the ‘tabach’ (cook) took up the thigh; (I Samuel 9:24.) For perfumers and for cooks ‘tabachoth’. (Ibid., 8:13.) Closer to the meaning of the word hatabachim is the opinion of Onkelos who says that since the prison house was under his charge, [he was called the officer of the tabachim, since] we find the word t’vichah in connection with the killing of people. Prepare ye the slaughter (‘matbiach’) for his children; (Isaiah 14:21.) Thou hast slaughtered (‘tavachta’) unsparingly. (Lamentations 2:21.) The verse in the book of Daniel is proof of the validity of Onkelos’ interpretation: To Arioch the captain of ‘tabachaya’ of the king, who was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon. (Daniel 2:14. The word tabachaya or tabachim is thus clearly associated with the slaying of people. See my Hebrew commentary, Note 77, pp. 211-212.)

Rashbam on Genesis 37:36:1

והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים. The Midianites, Medanites, and the Ishmaelites are brotherly tribes. (compare 25,20) According to the plain meaning of the text, they are the same people, sometimes called by one name, other times by the other name. This is why the Torah wrote here that the Midianites had sold him, whereas the Ishmaelites had transported him there.

Rashi on Genesis 37:36:1

הטבחים— means the slaughterers of the kings animals.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 37:36:1

סריס bezeichnet einerseits unzweifelhaft eine Verstümmelung des Körpers, die der Fähigkeit beraubt, Nachkommen zu erhalten, andererseits ebenso unzweifelhaft bloß Diener. Eben dieser Potiphar war ja verheiratet und war ja, wahrscheinlich, אסנת seine Tochter. סרם verwandt mit זרו .שרש ,זרז: behend, rüstig in Bewegung sein, etwas rasch fördern. זרזיר מתנים: ein Tier, das rasch, gelenk in den Lenden ist, rasch läuft. Ähnlich wie זרזיר von זרז ebenso סרסור rabbinisch von סרס: ein Agent, der etwas für den andern betreibt und fördert. שרש ist auch im Grunde nichts anderes; denn die Wurzel ist der "Agent" der Bäume. Von שרש ist auch שרשרות, Kette, das ist: Vermittlerin zwischen zwei verschiedenen Teilen desselben Objekts. Demgemäß heißt סרים im allgemeinen: Agent, speziell: Hofagent, Hofdiener, irgend ein Angestellter in nächster Umgebung des Fürsten, der für die prompte Herbeischaffung der fürstlichen Bedürfnisse zu sorgen hat. Die andere Bedeutung: entmannt, ergibt sich analog, wie שרש auch das Entgegengesetzte: entwurzeln bedeutet, עֵקֶר, Wurzel, und עקר sprosslos, kinderlos, ohne Wurzelkraft für ein künftiges Menschendasein, so auch סריס: einer, der in Fortförderung, Fortsetzung des Menschengeschlechts gehemmt ist. Potiphar war also Pharaos Hofbeamter und zwar שר הטבחים: Oberhofkochmeister der ägyptischen Majestät. Indem wir hier in den bedeutendsten alten Staat eingeführt werden, der für die Bildung der alten Völker so bedeutsam geworden, ist es charakteristisch, sogleich am Eingange einen "Fürsten" der Köche, Bäcker, Schenke zu finden. Sagen dürfen wir uns, daß selbst in den entartetsten Zeiten der jüdischen Geschichte wir solche Chargen nicht finden. Wer dem Fürsten den Becher, den Teller etc. kredenzte, war und blieb ein ganz gewöhnlicher Mensch. Nur in Staaten in welchen, wie im alten Ägypten, den Fürsten ein göttlicher Nimbus umfließt — sehen wir doch noch auf ägyptischen Bildern den König vor dem Göttlichen seiner eigenen Majestas knien — werden auch eines Abglanzes dieses Nimbus teilhaftig, die in nächste Berührung mit der geweihten Person kommen. Ist der König ein Gott, so wird sein "Truchseß" (Trogsetzer] ein Ministrant des Göttlichen, und der Koch: ein "Fürst der Köche". Ist dies eine heitere Seite des Amtes, so hat es zugleich eine entsetzliche Zusammenstellung: der Viehschlächter war zugleich der Menschenschlächter. So der Oberhofmenschenschlächter Nebusaradon (Kön. II. 25, 9).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 37:36:1

The slaughterers of the king’s animals. [Rashi knows this] because if Hashem brought balsam and lotus carriers for Yoseif, to spare him the odor of naphta [see Rashi on v. 25], He surely would not bring him to an executioner, who is even more repulsive. Onkelos holds that Potiphar was merely appointed over the executioners, but he himself did not kill. (Gur Aryeh)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 37:36

The verse turns its focus back to Joseph: The Midyanites, [ medanim ] , 15 sold him, Joseph, to Egypt as a slave to Potifar, who was a courtier [ seris ] of Pharaoh. Although seris literally refers to a eunuch, this is not necessarily its meaning in the verse. Rather, the verse uses it to refer to an officer with a position in the royal palace. 16 Potifar was the chief executioner . 17 It is likely that Joseph was considered quality merchandise. He was of fine form, only seventeen years old, and his health had never been strained by hard work. He would have been sold only to a wealthy individual who could afford Joseph’s worth.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:36:1

שר הטבחים, “the minister in charge of the butchers.” Rashi claims that Potiphar was in charge of all the King’s livestock. According to Onkelos, Potiphar was the King’s chief executioner. We do indeed find the expression טביחה used in the Bible in connection with the slaughter of human beings, for instance in Lamentations

Midrash

Joseph's brothers sold him to the Midianites, who then sold him to the Ishmaelites. Joseph wept and lamented bitterly as he was taken to Egypt. On the way, he stopped at his mother's grave and cried out to her, asking for help and justice against his brothers. The Ishmaelites mistreated Joseph, but when they struck him, their hands withered due to the affliction caused by the Lord.

Bereshit Rabbah 84:22

“The Medanites sold him to Egypt, to Potifar, an official of Pharaoh, the chief executioner” (Genesis 37:36). “The Medanites sold him” – how many bills of sale were written for him? Rabbi Yudan said: Four – his brothers to the Ishmaelites, the Ishmaelites to the merchants, the merchants to the Midianites, and the Midianites sold him to Egypt. Rav Huna said: Five – the Midianites sold him to the country’s treasury. Potifar came and purchased him from the country’s treasury.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:1

“It was at that time; Judah descended from his brothers and turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” (Genesis 38:1). “It was at that time; Judah descended from his brothers” – “Judah has betrayed, and an abomination has been performed…” (Malachi 2:11). [God] said to him: ‘You have denied, Judah; you have lied, Judah’ – “and an abomination has been performed in Israel” (Malachi 2:11). (Judah is portrayed as having denied and lied in that he betrayed his status as a member of Jacob’s household by marrying a Canaanite woman (Matnot Kehuna). This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya (see Bereshit Rabba 84:21). ) ‘Judah has become profane’ – “for Judah has profaned the holy of the Lord that He loves” (Malachi 2:11). “It was at that time.” “I will yet bring to you a dispossessor, inhabitant of Maresha; [the glory of Israel] will come as far as Adulam” (Micah 1:15) – the King and Holy One of Israel. (God will come to Adulam to punish Israel (Yefe To’ar). ) [Alternatively,] should the glory of Israel have “come as far as Adulam”? (In this clause the midrash interprets “the glory of Israel” to refer to Judah himself. This sentence is to be read rhetorically; was it really fitting for Judah to come to Adulam and to marry a Canaanite woman? (see Yefe To’ar). ) “Come as far as Adulam” – as it is written: “And turned to an Adulamite man.” “It was at that time” – Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman began: “For I have known the thoughts” (Jeremiah 29:11) – the tribes were engaged in the sale of Joseph, Joseph was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Reuben was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Jacob was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Judah was engaged in taking a wife for himself, and the Holy One blessed be He was engaged in creating the light of the messianic king: “It was at that time, Judah descended from his brothers.” (Judah married the daughter of Shua, thereby establishing the family that would produce the Messiah. ) “Before she begins labor, she will give birth” (Isaiah 66:7) – before the first one who would enslave [Israel] was born, the ultimate redeemer was born. “It was at that time” – what is written prior to the matter? “The Medanites sold him to Egypt” (Genesis 37:36). (As the events that would lead to Israel’s enslavement in Egypt were just beginning to unfold, God was already planting the seeds of the ultimate redemption. )

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 8:6

"But ye, ye are not so, whereas (Deut. 20, 4) For the Lord your God, It is who goeth with you, etc. This refers to the camp containing the Holy Ark." And why so much? Because the Holy Scroll with all its accompanied things was placed in the ark. (Fol. 43) Similar to this says the passage (Num. 31, 6) And Moses sent them a thousand of each tribe to the army. This refers to the Sanhedrian; and Phinehas, this refers to the anointed priest as the chaplain of the army! with the Holy vessels, this refers to the ark and the tables; and the trumpets for blowing the alarm, these are the hornets. We are taught in a Baraitha: Phinehas did not go in rain into that war, but to pay off the judgment of his mother's father, concerning whom it is said (Gen. 37, 36) And the Medionites sold him into Egypt. Do you mean to say that Phinehas is a descendant of Joseph? Behold, there is a passage (Ex. 6, 26) And Elazar, the son of Aaron took himself one of the daughters of Putiel, for a wife. Does not the word Putiel refer to a descend of Jethro, who fattened calves for sacrificing unto idols. [Hence he was a descendant of Jethro and not of Joseph?] Nay the word Putiel refers to Joseph who [is surnamed Putiel because he] conquered his evil inclination. But were not tribes disgracing Phinehas saying to him: "Look at the son of Putti whose mother's father fattened calves to the sacrifice of the idols, should he execute a prince of the tribe of Israel," [hence he is a descendant of Jethro? We must therefore say that if his mother's father was a descendant of Joseph then his mother's mother was of the lineage of Jethro, and if his mother's mother was a descendant of Joseph then his mother's father was of the lineage of Jethro, [hence he was thus a descendant of both.] This may also be inferred from the above passage which is written, one of the daughters (plural) of Putiel, which refers to two names. The inference is finally sustained.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vaera 17:1

(Exod. 9:13:) GO EARLY IN THE MORNING. This text is related (to Prov. 22:29): DO YOU SEE SOMEONE DILIGENT AT HIS WORK?… (Exod. R. 11:1; PR 6:2.) Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah disagree. R. Judah says: It is speaking about Joseph. When he was sold into Egypt, he was diligent in his work (according to Gen. 39:11): AND HE CAME INTO THE HOUSE (of Potiphar) TO DO HIS WORK. (Prov. 22:29, cont.:) HE SHALL STAND BEFORE KINGS. This is Joseph. What is written about him (in Gen. 41:46)? Now Joseph was thirty years old [when he stood before Pharaoh, the king of Egypt]. (Prov. 22:29, cont.:) HE SHALL NOT STAND BEFORE THE OBSCURE. This refers to Potiphar's wife. (Cf. Cant. R. 1:1:1, according to which the obscure (literally: darkened) one is Potiphar, whose eyes the Holy One darkened by making him a eunuch. See Gen. 37:36, part of which can be translated, POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 15:2

Another interpretation (of Eccl. 10:7): I HAVE SEEN SLAVES ON HORSEBACK. < The text > speaks about Midianites (in Gen. 37:36): THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT. R. Abbin bar Hama the Levite said: The children of a female slave were selling, and the children of a male slave were buying. (Eccl. R. 10:7:1. Although the Buber text has the singular “child” in both parts of this sentence, the plural verbs require a collective sense. “The child of the female slave” refers to the descendants of Ishmael, whose mother was Abraham’s female slave, Hagar (Gen. 16:1, 15). “The child of the male slave” denotes the descendants of Egypt (Mizraim), whose father was Ham (Gen. 10:6). According to Yalqut Shim‘oni, Exod., 168 (citing Divre haYamim, edited by A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch [Leipzig: Vollrath, 1853—1877], vol. II, pp. 1 — 11), all Ham’s children were slaves (see Gen. 9:22-25).) Between the former and the latter Joseph was sold.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9:3

And his father wept for him. After that Scripture states: The Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah: Until now you had no sons, and did not experience the grief caused by sons, but since you tormented your father, and deceived him with the words Joseph is without doubts torn to pieces (ibid., v. 33), by your life, you shall wed, bury your children, (His sons Er and Onan sinned grievously and were slain (see Gen. 38:7–10).) and suffer the grief that comes with children.” What is written after this verse? Judah went down from his brethren … and he took her … and bore a son (ibid. 38:1–2). This teaches us that Judah became separated from his brothers. If at the time he had said to them: Come, let us sell him (ibid. 37:27), he had said instead: “Come, let us return him (to father),” they would have listened to him. Therefore, Judah went down. That is, he was deposed from his role as leader.

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 10

And Reuben went down into the pit to search for Joseph, but he could not find him in the pit, ‎and he came out again. And Reuben rent his garments and he said: The child is not here and ‎how can I comfort my father concerning him, if he be dead? And Reuben went to his brothers ‎and he found them grieving for Joseph and consulting in what manner they were to comfort ‎their father concerning him. And Reuben said unto them: Behold I have come to the pit, but ‎Joseph was not in it, and now what shall we say to our father, for my father will hold me alone ‎accountable for the youth. And his brothers answered unto him: Thus have we done, and our ‎hearts ached afterwards by reason of our action, and now we are seeking for a pretext how to ‎comfort our father concerning our brother. And Reuben said unto them: What is it that you ‎have done, to bring down the gray head of our father with sorrow into the grave? Verily the ‎thing that you have done is not good. And Reuben took his seat in their midst, and all of them ‎arose and swore to each other not to disclose a word unto Jacob and they said: He who will ‎impart this to our father and his household or who will say a word concerning it to any of the ‎people of the land, we will all unite against him and kill him. And the sons of Jacob were afraid ‎of each other from the smallest to the greatest, and they never spoke a word concerning the ‎matter; but they kept it concealed in their hearts. And they sat down together to counsel, to ‎come to a conclusion as to what they would tell unto their father. And Issachar said unto them: ‎Here is an advice for you if it pleaseth you to act accordingly: Take ye Joseph’s coat and tear it ‎up, and slaughter a kid of the goats and dip the coat in its blood, and send it to our father. And ‎he will see it and say, an evil beast hath devoured him, and therefore the coat is torn and ‎bloody, and by doing this thing we will free ourselves from our father's reproaches. And the ‎words of Issachar pleased them well, and they agreed to act upon his advice. And they took ‎quickly Joseph’s coat and they tore it, and they killed a kid from the goats, and they dipped the ‎coat in its blood, and they trampled the coat in the dust. And they forwarded the coat to their ‎father through Naphtali, and they instructed him to speak according to these words: We had ‎gathered in the cattle, and when we reached a little ways beyond Shechem, we found this ‎coat on the road in the wilderness dipped in blood and covered with dust; and now recognize ‎the coat whether it be the coat of thy son or not.‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 13

And the Lord opened the mouth of the beast in order to comfort Jacob with its words, and it ‎answered unto Jacob and it spake these words: As God liveth who hath created me in the ‎earth, and as thy soul liveth, oh my master, I have not seen thy son nor have I torn him to ‎pieces. . But I am coming from a distant land likewise seeking my son, and as it hath happened ‎unto thee and thy son, even so it hath happened unto me and my son. And it is now ten days ‎since I have come unto this land in search of my son, who hath left me and I know not where ‎he is, and whether he be dead or alive. And when I came to-day unto the field to seek my son, ‎thy sons found me and they seized me, adding grief to my grief, and they brought me to thee ‎this day; and I have spoken unto thee all concerning my affairs. And now, oh son of man, ‎behold I am in thy hands and thou canst do unto me as it seem eth best in thine eyes, this day, ‎but as the Lord liveth who hath created me in the earth, I have not seen thy son, neither have ‎I torn him to pieces, nor has ever human flesh entered my mouth all the days of my life. And ‎when Jacob heard the words of the beast he was greatly astonished, and he released the ‎animal and it went away. And Jacob continued weeping and lamenting for Joseph, and he ‎mourned over his son many days. And the Ishmaelites who bought Joseph from the ‎Midianites who had bought him from his brothers went with Joseph unto Egypt. And when ‎they reached the boundaries of Egypt they met with four men of the sons of Elam, the son of ‎Abraham, who came on their way from Egypt. And the Ishmaelites said unto them: Would you ‎not like to buy this slave from us? And they said: Give him unto us. And they delivered Joseph ‎unto them and they examined him and they saw that he was a lad of very fine appearance and ‎they bought him for nine shekels. And the Ishmaelites went on their journey into Egypt, and ‎the Midianites returned like wise to Egypt on the same day. And they said to each other: ‎Behold we have heard that Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, captain of the guards, is seeking a ‎good servant to stand before him and to minister unto him and to take charge of his house and ‎all belonging unto him. And now let us go and sell him unto him as this is precisely the servant ‎he wants, and he will pay us for him whatsoever we desire. And those Midianites came unto ‎the house of Potiphar, saying unto him: We have heard that thou desirest to procure a good ‎servant to attend thee. Behold we have with us a servant according to thy desire, and if thou ‎canst give unto us what we ask for him, we will sell him unto thee. And Potiphar said unto ‎them : Bring him into my presence, and if he pleaseth me then I will pay for him whatsoever ‎you ask for him. And the Midianites brought Joseph before Potiphar, and Potiphar saw him ‎and he pleased him exceedingly,‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 6

‎And the Midianites answered and said unto the sons of Jacob: Is this really your servant and ‎was he ministering to you? It is more likely that you all are his servants, for surely he is of a ‎very fine figure and of comely appearance, and the best looking of all of you and wherefore do ‎ye tell unto us these lies? And now we will not listen unto you nor give ear unto your words; ‎for we have found this lad in a pit in the wilderness and we took him, and we will go away with ‎him. And all the sons of Jacob advanced and stood up against them, saying: Give unto us our ‎servant, and why do ye seek to die by the edge of the sword ' And the Midianites shouted at ‎them and drew their swords, and they fought with the sons of Jacob. And Simeon rose up ‎from his feet jumping to the ground, and drawing his sword he approached the Midianites, ‎and he gave a fearful shriek before them. And his shouting was heard at a great distance, and ‎the earth shook at Simeon’s voice. And the Midianites were greatly afraid of Simeon and his ‎terrible shouting, and they fell upon their faces in terror. And Simeon said unto them: Verily I ‎am Simeon the son of Jacob, who destroyed single handed the city of Shechem, and the other ‎cities of the Amorites with the help of my brothers. And so may the Lord do unto me now and ‎in all future, that if all your brethren the people of Midian together with all the people of ‎Canaan were to come, they could not fight against me. And now give back unto us the lad you ‎have taken, or I will give your flesh to the birds of the heavens and to the beasts of the ‎field.And the Midianites approached the sons of Jacob in fear and trembling with soft words, ‎saying: And have ye not said that this lad is your servant who rebelled against you, wherefore ‎you have cast him into the pit? And now what will you do with a servant that hath rebelled ‎against his master? Sell him then unto us and we will give you for him whatsoever you ‎demand. And the Lord was pleased to do this, that the sons of Jacob should not slay their ‎brother.‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 7

And the sons of Jacob hearkened unto the Midianites, and they sold unto them their brother ‎Joseph for twenty pieces of silver; and their brother Reuben was not with them at that time. ‎And the Midianites took Joseph and continued on their way toward Gilead. And as they ‎passed on along the road, the Midianites were sorry for what they had done in buying the ‎youth, and they said one to the other: What is it that we have done to buy from the Hebrews ‎this young man of such comely appearance and fine figure? For he may have been stolen from ‎the land of the Hebrews, and if he be found in our hands all of us will be put to death on his ‎account. And verily they are strong and powerful men, like the one of those that sold him unto ‎us, and whose strength we have seen. They have certainly carried him away forcibly from his ‎land, and therefore they sold him unto us for such a small price as we have paid for him. And ‎while they were talking over this matter, behold the company of Ish maelites, which was first ‎seen by the sons of Jacob, came towards the Midianites. And the Midianites said to each ‎other: Come and let us sell this lad to the company of Ishmaelites that come towards us, and ‎even if we should receive for him only the little we have paid, let us get out of trouble. And ‎the Midianites did so, and they sold Joseph unto the Ishmaelites, for the twenty pieces of ‎silver which they had paid unto his brothers, and the Midianites continued their journey ‎towards Gilead, and the Ishmaelites took Joseph and seated him upon a camel and they led ‎him down into Egypt. And when Joseph heard that he was to be brought down to Egypt he ‎wept and lamented bitterly, to be removed so far away from the land of Canaan from his ‎father. And he wept greatly while riding upon the camel, and one of the men noticing his ‎weeping made Joseph alight from the camel and go on foot, but Joseph still kept on crying, oh ‎my father, my father! And one of the Ishmaelites arose and struck Joseph on his cheek, but he ‎still continued weeping. And Joseph became very fatigued from walking and from the ‎bitterness of his soul, and all of the Ishmaelites beat him and abused him and they terrified ‎him that he should cease crying. And the Lord saw Joseph’s affliction and the Lord brought ‎over these men darkness and dismay, and every hand withered that struck Joseph. And they ‎said to one another: What is it that hath happened to us on this journey? And they knew not ‎that it was done on account of Joseph.‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 8

And the men continued their journey and on their road they passed Ephrath the place where ‎Rachel was buried. And when Joseph came near his mother's grave, he ran to the grave and he ‎fell upon it and wept. And Joseph cried out loudly upon his mother's grave, saying: Oh my ‎mother, my mother, thou who gavest me birth, awake and arise now to see thy son sold unto ‎slavery with no one to have compassion upon him. Oh arise to look at thy son, and weep with ‎me in my affliction, and see the hearts of my brothers. Oh my mother arouse and awake and ‎direct thy warfare against my brothers, who have stripped me of my coat and sold me into ‎slavery now for the second time, and have torn me away from my father where there is no ‎one to have pity upon me. Arouse and bring thy complaints against them before the Lord and ‎see who is to be justified in the judgment and who is to be condemned. Arise oh my mother, ‎awake from thy sleep, and see my father whose soul is with me this day, and comfort him and ‎console his heart. And Joseph spoke continually to his mother; and he cried aloud and wept ‎bitterly upon his mother's grave; and he ceased speaking and from the bitterness of his heart ‎he became silent like a stone upon the grave. And Joseph heard a voice speaking unto him ‎from under the ground, answering him in bitterness of heart in a voice of weeping and prayer, ‎in these words: My son Joseph, oh my son, I have heard the voice of thy weeping and crying, ‎and I have seen thy tears and I know thy affliction, oh my son It grieveth me for thy sake, oh ‎my son. And new sorrow hath been added to my sorrow. And now my son Joseph, hope thou ‎in the Lord and wait for his help and do not fear, for the Lord is with thee to deliver thee from ‎all trouble. Arise my son and go down with thy masters unto Egypt, and do not fear for the ‎Lord is with thee my son And she continued to speak unto Joseph according to these words ‎and then she was silent. And when Joseph heard this he was greatly astonished, and he kept ‎on weeping. And one of the Ishmaelites saw him weeping and lamenting over the grave, and ‎his wrath was kindled against Joseph, and he drove him away from the grave, and he beat him ‎and cursed him. And Joseph said unto the men: Let me find grace in your eyes and carry me ‎back unto my father's house, and he will reward you with great riches. And they answered ‎unto him, saying: Verily thou art a slave and where is thy father? For hadst thou a father thou ‎shouldst not have been sold into slavery, this the second time, and for such a small price. And ‎their anger was excited against him, and they beat him and Joseph wept bitterly. And the Lord ‎saw Joseph's affliction, and he smote these men once more.

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 9

And the Lord brought darkness over the earth, and the lightning was flashing, and the thunder ‎was roaring, and the earth shook at the noise of the thunder and the great storm, and the ‎men were greatly alarmed and they knew not whither they should go. And the beasts and the ‎camels stood still, and when they were led they refused to go on, and when they were ‎smitten they lay down upon the ground. And the men said to each other: What is that God ‎hath done unto us, what are our sins and our transgressions that this had to come over us? ‎And one of them answered and said unto them: Peradventure on account of our sins in ‎afflicting this slave hath this evil befallen us this day. And now entreat him and urge him on to ‎forgive us, that we know on whose account this affliction hath come over us. And if the Lord ‎have mercy upon us, then we will know that all this hath happened unto us for the sin of ‎afflicting this slave. And they did so. And they entreated Joseph and begged him to forgive ‎them, saying: We have sinned against heaven and before thee, and therefore we implore ‎thee pray unto thy God to remove from us this death, for we have sinned against him. And ‎Joseph did according to their words, and he prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord hearkened ‎unto Joseph, and he removed from them the plague wherewith the Lord had visited the ‎Ishmaelites, on account of Joseph. And the beasts rose up from the ground and became ‎manageable and walked on, and the great storm subsided, and the earth became quiet, and ‎the men continued their journey towards Egypt. And the men knew that this affliction had ‎come over them on account of Joseph, and they said to each other: Behold, now we know ‎that for the sin of afflicting this slave, all that evil hath come over us. Come then and let us ‎consult what we shall do concerning him, for why should we expose ourselves further to such ‎a terrible plague. And one of them said: Verily he hath told unto us to bring him back unto his ‎father, and now let us carry him back to the place he will designate, and we will take from his ‎family the price that we paid for him and go our way. And one answered, saying: Thy counsel is ‎very wise but we cannot do accordingly; for we have gone a great distance from his place and ‎we cannot turn away from our road. And still another said unto them: This is the counsel we ‎will now follow without further delay. We are going down unto Egypt this day, and there we ‎will sell him for a high price, and thus we will be delivered from his evil. And they were all ‎pleased with these words, and they continued their journey unto Egypt, taking Joseph along ‎with them. And after the sons of Jacob had sold Joseph unto the Midianites, their hearts beat ‎within them for their brother and they repented of what they had done, and they searched ‎for him to bring him back but they could not find him. And Reuben returned unto the pit ‎wherein Joseph had been in order to take him out and return him unto his father, and he ‎stood by the pit crying: Joseph, Joseph, but he heard not a word in answer. And Reuben ‎exclaimed: Poor Joseph he must have died for fright, or he hath been killed by one of the ‎serpents.‎

Sifrei Bamidbar 157:4

(Bamidbar 31:6) "And Moses sent them, a thousand to a tribe to the host, them and Pinchas": We are hereby apprised that they were as "weighty" as Pinchas, and Pinchas was over and against all of them. Why did Pinchas go and not Elazar? Because Pinchas went to take revenge (of the Midianites) for his mother's father (Yithro, viz. Shemot 2:16), it being written (Bereshit 37:36) "And the Midianites sold him (Joseph) to Egypt." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and the holy articles … in his hand": This refers to the ark, viz. (Ibid. 4:20) "And they shall not see when the 'holy' is being covered, lest they die." (Ibid. 31:6) "in his hand": "his hand" is his domain, as in (Ibid. 21:26) "and he took all his land from his hand," and (Bereshit 24:10) "and all the good of his master in his hand."

Quoting Commentary

The text discusses the story of Yosef, highlighting his own behavior as a key factor in his downfall, as he bears tales about his brothers and insists on telling them his dreams, which leads to their hatred towards him. Despite the brothers' initial blame for what happens, Yosef's actions play a significant role in his eventual sale into slavery and probable death, with Yehuda's ironic words emphasizing their familial bond. The Midianites are also implicated in Yosef's fate, as they are said to have heard him screaming in the pit and ultimately sold him to the Yishmaelites, leading to his journey to Egypt.

Bekhor Shor, Genesis 37:28:1

And Midianite men passed There are commentaries that the Midianites heard him screaming in the pit, and brought him up, and kidnapped him, and sold him to Yishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, and made a great profit from this since they hadn't spent anything on him. The Yishmaelites then brought him down to Egypt, and what it says at the end of the parsha, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt..." (Bereishit 37:36), is that they sold him in order to bring him down to Egypt, and this is not just lies! For behild, it's written there "to Potifar", and further, that in that place it's difficult why he didn't reveal himself. And also, there is one who says Madanim [מדנים] and Midaynim [מדיינים], [called this] for the name of the cargo that they carry, such as in Iyov 38:31 "Can you bind the cords [ma'adnot; מַעֲדַנּוֹת] of the Pleiades?", or I Samuel 15:32 "And Agag came to him in chains [ma'adnot; מַעֲדַנּוֹת]". And sometimes the ayin is omitted, for it's usual to omit the letters alef, chet, hey and ayin. For example, "and laid in wait [vayarev, וַיָּרֶב] in a valley" (I Samuel 15:5), which is like vaye'arev ויארב. And so too is explained "sitters on couches [midin, מִדִּין]" (Shoftim 5:10), that it's like on the cargo which is bound. And all of this isn't worth anything to me, but it was one people, as I have explained, just as they call us sometimes Yehudim and sometimes Yisra'elim and sometimes Yeshurun. And the truth is that his brothers sold him, as he said to them "that have sold me here" (Bereishit 45:4), and [the merchants?] caused them to swear, as I have explained, and made from them great profit, like a man who sells his field because of its poor quality, for they would give of their own that someone would distance it from them, for in they end they hated him with a hatred.

Gur Aryeh on Bamidbar 31:6:2

And Pinchas. He went to take revenge for Yoseif. He saw that the Midianites were opposed to Yoseif, and that was the reason the sale of Yoseif took place through them, because harm comes to a person through those that oppose him. Yoseif was the opposite of Midian because he restrained himself from illicit relations and, in contrast, they sent their daughters to harlotry. Thus, they received harm from the descendent of Yoseif.

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 29:2:2

תאניה ואניה Heaviness and sorrow. Comp. ואנו and they shall mourn (19:8). According to others, A waste place, the two words being derived from אנה where; the meaning of the phrase is, that only her place will be left. (Concerning the use of two different forms of the same word consecutively, see I. E. on 3:1, and note 1.)

Kli Yakar on Numbers 31:6:1

Them and Pinchas. Rashi explained that he sought to avenge Yoseif, his maternal forefather. The explanation of this is that Moshe trusted him not to have pity on the Midianites and that he would completely eliminate them, because in any case Pinchas hated them due to their involvement in the sale of Yoseif to Egypt. Egypt was a place heavily steeped in licentiousness, and now the Midianites followed their forefathers’ footsteps and attempted to cause the downfall of Bnei Yisroel through harlotry. Moreover, Pinchas began the mitzvah, which would assist him in bringing the matter to completion. This is because since it is so that “a mitzvah brings about another mitzvah” (Avos 4:5), then certainly a part of a mitzvah will bring about the completion of it. Moshe did not want to go, because he was raised in Midian. He was afraid that if the warriors would be lax in any matter, the people would blame it on Moshe, and say that he had pity on the place in which he was raised.

Rashi on Numbers 31:6:1

אתם ואת פינחס [MOSES SENT THEM … TO THE WAR], THEM AND PHINEAS — The repetition of the word אתם, “them”, in association with Phineas’ name tells us that Phineas was regarded as equal to all of them together. — But why did Phineas go and Eleazar did not go? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “He who made a beginning with this meritorious work, in that he slew Kozbi the daughter of Zur (who was a Midianitess), let him complete it”. — Another explanation why Phineas and not Eleazar went is that he went to take vengeance for Joseph, his mother’s ancestor, as it is said, (Genesis 37:36) “And the Midianites sold him [unto Egypt]”. And from where do we know that Phineas’ mother was of the family of Joseph? Because it is said, (Exodus 6:25) that she was “one of the daughters of Putiel” (see Rashi on that verse) — which is explained to mean that she was of the seed of Jethro who used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous worship, and of the seed of Joseph who overcame (שפטפט, who talked or argued with) his passions (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 157:4; Sotah 43a). — Another explanation: Phineas went because he was the high priest anointed for war purposes (cf. Deuteronomy 20:2 and Rashi thereon) (Sotah 43a).

The Five Books of Moses, by Everett Fox, Genesis, Part IV; Yosef, Young Yosef; Love and Hate 1

Genesis 37:1-36

The Five Books of Moses, by Everett Fox, Genesis, Part IV; Yosef, Young Yosef; Love and Hate 2-4

As has been the pattern with the Avraham and Yaakov cycles, the opening chapter here introduces the key themes of the entire story. These include the father’s love, the power of words, dreams, “ill” as a key word (here denoting evil intent but eventually encompassing misfortune, among other concepts), and of course, the brothers’ hatred, which at first glance is the motivating force behind the action. But the initial blame for what happens clearly lies with the father (vv.3–4), and is made unbearable by Yosef’s own behavior. In point of fact he is largely responsible for his own downfall, bearing tales about his brothers (v.2) even before Yaakov’s preference for him is noted. His insistence on telling his dreams to his brothers must be galling, particularly the second time (v.9), coming as it does after the report that “they hated him still more for his dreams” (v.8). The key word of the chapter, not surprisingly, is “brother,” culminating in Yehuda’s ironic words (v.27): “let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother….” Shortly afterward Yosef, their “(own) flesh,” is sold into slavery and probable death.

Second Temple

The weak-willed incontinent soul is influenced by three servants: the chief baker, the chief butler, and the chief cook, all mentioned in the Bible. The chief cook is also a eunuch, as seen in the story of Joseph being sold to Pharaoh's chief cook in Genesis.

On Drunkenness 51:1

[210] The weak-willed incontinent soul has three servants who provide its feasts, the chief baker, the chief butler and the chief cook, whom our most admirable Moses mentions in these words, “And Pharaoh was wroth with his two eunuchs, with the chief butler and the chief baker, and he put them in prison under the chief gaoler” (Gen. 40:2, 3). But the chief cook is also a eunuch, for we have in another place, “and Joseph was brought down into Egypt and became the property of the eunuch of Pharaoh, the chief cook” (Gen. 39:1), and again “they sold Joseph to the eunuch of Pharaoh, the chief cook” (Gen. 37:36).

Talmud

Pinehas went to war with Midian to exact judgment on behalf of his grandfather Joseph, as Pinehas was descended from Joseph through his mother's side, despite the fact that his father was from the family of Yitro. This connection is made through the wordplay between "Putiel" and "pittem" or "pitpet."

Sotah 43a:2

A tanna taught: It was not for nothing that specifically Pinehas went to war with Midian; rather, it was to exact the rightful judgment of his mother’s father, Joseph, as it is stated: “And the Midianites sold him into Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s” (Genesis 37:36). The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Pinehas came, on his mother’s side, from the family of Joseph? But it is written: “And Elazar, Aaron’s son, took himself a wife from the daughters of Putiel; and she bore him Pinehas” (Exodus 6:25). What, is it not that Pinehas came from the family of Yitro, who was also called Putiel because he fattened [pittem] calves for idol worship? They answer: No; he was descended from Joseph, who mocked [pitpet] his desire by resisting the advances of Potiphar’s wife.

Tanakh

Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, leading to the destruction of the city, the burning of the House of GOD, and the exile of the people. Zedekiah's sons were killed, he was blinded and taken to Babylon. Gedaliah was appointed to govern the remnant left in Judah, but was later killed. Jeremiah was spared and given the choice to go to Babylon or stay in Judah, choosing to stay. Many Judeans returned to Judah and gathered supplies, but Gedaliah was warned of a plot against him by Ishmael.

II Kings 25

And in the ninth year of his (his I.e., Zedekiah’s.) reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar moved against Jerusalem with his whole army. He besieged it; and they built towers against it all around. The city continued in a state of siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. By the ninth day [of the fourth month] ([of the fourth month] Cf. Jer. 52.6.) the famine had become acute in the city; there was no food left for the common people. Then [the wall of] the city was breached. All the soldiers [left the city] by night through the gate between the double walls, which is near the king’s garden—the Chaldeans were all around the city; and [the king] set out for the Arabah. (Arabah Hoping to escape across the Jordan.) But the Chaldean troops pursued the king, and they overtook him in the steppes of Jericho as his entire force left him and scattered. They captured the king and brought him before the king of Babylon at Riblah; and they put him on trial. They slaughtered Zedekiah’s sons before his eyes; then Zedekiah’s eyes were put out. He was chained in bronze fetters and he was brought to Babylon. On the seventh day of the fifth month—that was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon—Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, an officer of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned the House of GOD, the king’s palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he burned down the house of every notable person. (the house of every notable person Meaning of Heb. uncertain.) The entire Chaldean force that was with the chief of the guard tore down the walls of Jerusalem on every side. The remnant of the people that was left in the city, the defectors who had gone over to the king of Babylon—and the remnant of the population—were taken into exile by Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards. But some of the poorest in the land were left by the chief of the guards, to be vinedressers and field hands. The Chaldeans broke up the bronze columns of the House of GOD, the stands, and the bronze tank that was in the House of GOD; and they carried the bronze away to Babylon. They also took all the pails, scrapers, snuffers, ladles, and all the other bronze vessels used in the service. The chief of the guards took whatever was of gold and whatever was of silver: firepans and sprinkling bowls. The two columns, the one tank, and the stands that Solomon provided for the House of GOD—all these objects contained bronze beyond weighing. The one column was eighteen cubits high. It had a bronze capital above it; the height of the capital was three cubits, and there was a meshwork [decorated] with pomegranates about the capital, all made of bronze. And the like was true of the other column with its meshwork. The chief of the guards also took Seraiah, the chief priest, Zephaniah, the deputy priest, and the three guardians of the threshold. And from the city he took a eunuch who was in command of the soldiers; five of the royal privy councillors who were present in the city; the scribe of the army commander, who was in charge of mustering the people of the land; and sixty of the common people who were inside the city. Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, took them and brought them to the king of Babylon at Riblah. The king of Babylon had them struck down and put to death at Riblah, in the region of Hamath. Thus Judah was exiled from its land. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon put Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan in charge of the people whom he left in the land of Judah. When the officers of the troops and their men heard that the king of Babylon had put Gedaliah in charge, they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah with Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Johanan son of Kareah, Seraiah son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah son of the Maachite, together with their men. Gedaliah reassured them (reassured them Lit. “took an oath to them.”) and their men, saying, “Do not be afraid of the servants of the Chaldeans. (of the servants of the Chaldeans Cf. Jer. 40.9 “to serve the Chaldeans.”) Stay in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it will go well with you.” In the seventh month, Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishama, who was of royal descent, came with ten men, and they struck down Gedaliah and he died; [they also killed] the Judeans and the Chaldeans who were present with him at Mizpah. And all the people, young and old, and the officers of the troops set out and went to Egypt because they were afraid of the Chaldeans. In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month, King Evil-merodach of Babylon, in the year he became king, took note of (took note of Lit. “raised the head of.”) King Jehoiachin of Judah and released him from prison. He spoke kindly to him, and gave him a throne above those of other kings who were with him in Babylon. His prison garments were removed, and [Jehoiachin] received regular rations by his favor for the rest of his life. A regular allotment of food was given him at the king’s behest—an allotment for each day—all the days of his life.

Jeremiah 39-40

In the ninth year of King Zedekiah of Judah, in the tenth month, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon moved against Jerusalem with his whole army, and they laid siege to it. And in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, on the ninth day of the fourth month, the [walls of] the city were breached. All the officers of the king of Babylon entered, and took up quarters at the middle gate—Nergal-sarezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim the Rab-saris, Nergal-sarezer the Rab-mag, (Rab-saris…Rab-mag Titles of officers.) and all the rest of the officers of the king of Babylon. When King Zedekiah of Judah saw them, he and all the soldiers fled. They left the city at night, by way of the king’s garden, through the gate between the double walls; and he set out toward the Arabah. (he set out toward the Arabah Hoping to escape across the Jordan.) But the Chaldean troops pursued them, and they overtook Zedekiah in the steppes of Jericho. They captured him and brought him before King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon at Riblah in the region of Hamath; and he put him on trial. The king of Babylon had Zedekiah’s sons slaughtered at Riblah before his eyes; the king of Babylon had all the nobles of Judah slaughtered. Then the eyes of Zedekiah were put out and he was chained in bronze fetters, that he might be brought to Babylon. The Chaldeans burned down the king’s palace and the houses (houses Taking Heb. singular as collective, with Kimhi.) of the people by fire, and they tore down the walls of Jerusalem. The remnant of the people that was left in the city, and the defectors who had gone over to him—the remnant of the people that was left—were exiled by Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, to Babylon. But some of the poorest people who owned nothing were left in the land of Judah by Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, and he gave them vineyards and fields at that time. King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon had given orders to Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, concerning Jeremiah: “Take him and look after him; do him no harm, but grant whatever he asks of you.” So Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, and Nebushazban the Rab-saris, and Nergal-sarezer the Rab-mag, and all the commanders of the king of Babylon sent and had Jeremiah brought from the prison compound. They committed him to the care of Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan, that he might be left at liberty in a house. (that he might be left at liberty in a house Meaning of Heb. uncertain.) So he dwelt among the people. The word of GOD had come to Jeremiah while he was still confined in the prison compound: Go and say to Ebed-melech the Cushite: “Thus said GOD of Hosts, the God of Israel: I am going to fulfill My words concerning this city—for disaster, not for good—and they shall come true on that day in your presence. But I will save you on that day—declares GOD; you shall not be delivered into the hands of those you dread. I will rescue you, and you shall not fall by the sword. You shall escape with your life, (You shall escape with your life See note at 38.2.) because you trusted Me—declares GOD.” The word that came to Jeremiah from GOD, after Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, set him free at Ramah, to which he had taken him, chained in fetters, among those from Jerusalem and Judah who were being exiled to Babylon. The chief of the guards took charge of Jeremiah, and he said to him, “The ETERNAL your God threatened this place with this disaster; and now GOD has brought it about, by acting on the threat—because you sinned against GOD and did not pay heed. That is why this has happened to you. Now, I release you this day from the fetters that were on your hands. If you would like to go with me to Babylon, come, and I will look after you. And if you don’t want to come with me to Babylon, you need not. See, the whole land is before you: go wherever seems good and right to you.”— But [Jeremiah] still did not turn back. (But [Jeremiah] still did not turn back Meaning of Heb. uncertain.) —“Or go to Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon has put in charge of the towns of Judah, and stay with him among the people, or go wherever you want to go.” The chief of the guards gave him an allowance of food, and dismissed him. So Jeremiah came to Gedaliah son of Ahikam at Mizpah, and stayed with him among the people who were left in the land. The army officers in the open country, and their men with them, heard that the king of Babylon had put Gedaliah son of Ahikam in charge of the region, and that he had put in his charge the men, women, and children—of the poorest in the land—those who had not been exiled to Babylon. So they with their men came to Gedaliah at Mizpah—Ishmael son of Nethaniah; Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah; Seraiah son of Tanhumeth; the sons of Ephai the Netophathite; and Jezaniah son of the Maacathite. Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan reassured (reassured Lit. “swore to.”) them and their men, saying, “Do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans. Stay in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it will go well with you. I am going to stay in Mizpah to attend upon the Chaldeans who will come to us. But you may gather wine and figs (figs Lit. “summer fruit.”) and oil and put them in your own vessels, and settle in the towns you have occupied.” Likewise, all the Judeans who were in Moab, Ammon, and Edom, or who were in other lands, heard that the king of Babylon had let a remnant stay in Judah, and that he had put Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan in charge of them. All these Judeans returned from all the places to which they had scattered. They came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah at Mizpah, and they gathered large quantities of wine and figs. (figs See note at v. 10.) Johanan son of Kareah, and all the army officers in the open country, came to Gedaliah at Mizpah and said to him, “Do you know that King Baalis of Ammon has sent Ishmael son of Nethaniah to kill you?” But Gedaliah son of Ahikam would not believe them. Johanan son of Kareah also said secretly to Gedaliah at Mizpah, “Let me go and strike down Ishmael son of Nethaniah—and nobody else will know about it; otherwise he will kill you, and all the Judeans who have gathered about you will be dispersed, and the remnant of Judah will perish!” But Gedaliah son of Ahikam answered Johanan son of Kareah, “Do not do such a thing: what you are saying about Ishmael is not true!”

Jeremiah 52:12

On the tenth day of the fifth month—that was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon—Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, came to represent (to represent Lit. “he stood before.”) the king of Babylon in Jerusalem.

Targum

Joseph was sold by the Midianites in Egypt to Potiphar, who was an officer and captain of the guards for Pharaoh [Onkelos Genesis 37:36; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:36; Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 37:36].

Onkelos Genesis 37:36

The Midianites sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the chief of the slaughterers.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 37:36

To Potiphar an officer of Pharoh, a captain of the guards.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 37:36

But the Midianites sold him in Mizraim to Potiphar a captain of Pharoh, a captain of the guards.

Genesis:38:1

וַֽיְהִי֙ בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֥רֶד יְהוּדָ֖ה מֵאֵ֣ת אֶחָ֑יו וַיֵּ֛ט עַד־אִ֥ישׁ עֲדֻלָּמִ֖י וּשְׁמ֥וֹ חִירָֽה׃ 1 J About that time Judah left his brothers and camped near a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah.
Chasidut: Yehuda married in despair, seeking hope for the future but later realizing his mistake in seeking temporary solutions. His son Shela's name reflected this error, leading to the deaths of his first two sons [Chasidut]. Commentary: Genesis 38 contrasts Judah's behavior with Joseph's, showing Judah's lineage leading to Perez. The early generations may have had children at a younger age, allowing events to unfold within 22 years. Judah's actions are significant in family dynamics and divine providence [Commentary]. Midrash: Judah's descent is seen as punishment for selling Joseph, with the narrative highlighting themes of punishment, divine justice, and the importance of completing righteous deeds. The coat of many colors in Joseph's story and Israel's actions leading to exile in Egypt are also explored [Midrash]. Musar: G-d's intentions are always for the good of the Jewish people, as seen in the sale of Joseph. Despite apparent chaos, G-d was working to pave the way for the arrival of the Messiah [Musar]. Quoting Commentary: Judah's esteem was lowered by his brothers after Joseph's sale. Joseph was the first Israelite enslaved in Egypt, but Peretz, ancestor of the Messiah, was born before this event. Different interpretations of "תולדות" are critiqued [Quoting Commentary]. Talmud: Starting a mitzva but not finishing it leads to demotion from greatness, as seen in Judah's case. Certain phrases indicate ordained times for calamity or good [Talmud]. Tanakh: David fled to the cave of Adullam, where his brothers and father's household joined him [Tanakh]. Targum: Judah separated from his brothers and went to a man named Chirah, an Adullamite [Targum].

Chasidut

Yehuda married a wife at a particular time because he felt hopeless after seeing Yaakov's grief over Yosef. He hoped to have children who would bring hope for the future, but later realized that his own despair would affect his descendants. His son Shela's name reflected his mistake in seeking temporary solutions, leading to the deaths of his first two sons.

Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Genesis, Vayeshev 6

“… and Yehuda went down from his brothers ….” (Bereshit, 38:1) Why did Yehuda go and wed a wife at this particular time? When he saw how Yaakov refused to be consoled, and as he was the one who had to bring Yosef’s coat to his father, he became depressed, and felt as if, God forbid, there was no more hope. So he went to marry a wife, saying, “perhaps I will have good children from whom will grow an everlasting structure.” (This is why his son’s name was Er, which means awake, as if to say that it would awaken the spirit to descend on us from God. Tashlum.) Then afterwards, the Holy One, blessed be He, caused him to understand the following. If, God forbid, it is as you think, and there is no hope for you, and you have no life at your root, if so, then even if you give birth to a hundred, they will not have any more life than you. For with God, the channel through which He sends life must itself be of life. Then, if it is as you think, that you will only have temporary life, then it will be so also with your descendants. Therefore, when the matter became clear to him, he fathered Shela, his name Shela meaning misled, the mistake he made in this matter. This is why his first two sons died, and Shela remained alive.

Commentary

The text discusses the placement of the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38, suggesting it was inserted to contrast Judah's behavior with Joseph's, as well as to show the lineage of Judah leading to Perez. The commentary addresses the issue of the timeline of events, suggesting that the early generations may have had children at a younger age, allowing for the events to unfold within 22 years. The text also explores the significance of Judah's actions in relation to the family dynamics and the unfolding of divine providence.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 38:1

At that time. This episode is inserted here to compare the founding of Yehudah’s dynasty with that of Yoseif’s dynasty, and to show how Providence saw to it that none of Yaakov’s offspring would be lost, so that even the sinful Er and Onan were replaced by the righteous Peretz and Zorach. Yehudah descended. He wanted to distance himself from his brothers’ cruelty as well as from his father’s sorrow. Nevertheless, from the fact that he went with his brothers to Egypt it is clear that he did not sever his ties to them altogether. She is righteous, [it is] from me. I had thought my two sons died on her account, but now I see that it was due to their own wickedness, for she has conceived through me yet I am still alive (Abarbanel).

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:1:1

וירד יהודה מאת אחיו, “Yehudah separated from his brothers;” he could not bear watching the anguish of his father. Rashi here writes that the word וירד, which means: “he descended,” means that he had been deposed from his position of being the brothers’ spokesman and leader by the other brothers. He derives this from the expression: מאת, understanding the meaning of that word as being: על ידי, “through the action of;”You could well ask that seeing that it took only 22 years until the brothers under the leadership of Yehudah went down to Egypt in order to buy grain, how was it possible that during these few years not only did Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife bear him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah, but that two of them had already become married? And a few years after the death of Onan, Yehudah sired twins from his daughterinlaw Tamar, all before the descent of the brothers to Egypt for the first time? The answer to such questions is that in those times girls and boys were able to both sire and conceive and give birth already at the age of seven. According to a historical text accepted by our sages as accurate and reliable, called seder olam, Er, Yehudah’s oldest was born approximately a year after the sale of Joseph. Bat Shua bore Yehudah two more sons in short order, before she died (verse 12). When Er was seven years old he married Tamar. When he died and married Onan, and Onan died, Shelah was still too young to marry. Tamar remained a widow in the house of Yehudah for a year before returning to her mother’s home. When two or three more years had passed and she was not allowed to marry Shelah, she took matters into her own hands and contrived to become pregnant from a member of Yaakov’s family, her dearest desire, i.e. she became pregnant by her fatherinlaw, Yehudah. All of this had only taken about 19 years after Yehudah had been deposed and moved away from his brothers. In the meantime, Peretz, one of the twins Tamar had born to Yehudah had married at the age of seven and had himself become a father of Chetzron and Chamul, (Genesis 46,12) all before Yaakov and his family moved down to Egypt after the brothers’ second trip there. By the time Chetzron and Chamul came to Egypt, only twenty two years had elapsed since the sale of Joseph.[While this is interesting, this Editor cannot reconcile it with G-d having punished both Er and Onan at the tender age of 7 or eight years, for having deliberately failed to produce children (38,7 and 10) Where is the source for the culpability of such young children anywhere? Ed.]

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 38:1:1

וירד יהודה, “Yehudah descended;” our sages explained that this choice of words by the Torah means that Yehudah’s brothers, who up until then had considered him as their leader and spokesman, demoted him on account of the sale of their brother Joseph and the anguish this had caused their father. (B’reshit Rabbah, 85,1) Ibn Ezra questioned this, seeing that only twenty two years elapsed between the sale of Joseph and the reunification of the brothers with him and the family’s moving to Egypt. We know that Joseph had been seventeen years old when he had been sold; we also know that he was thirty years old when he interpreted Pharaoh’s dream; we further know that the family descended to Egypt in the second year of the famine, i.e. nine years after Joseph had been appointed viceroy of Egypt. If you count the years from the time Yehudah got married to the daughter of the man described earlier until the descent of the whole family with Yehudah at their head more than twenty two years must have passed. If we count a year each for the time Yehudah’s wife was pregnant with each of her three sons, and add the years after Onan’s death during which Shelah grew to maturity, i.e. was old enough to get married, you already have accounted for 16 years. Add a year till Peretz could have been born and you have accounted for already 17 years. Even if you were to assume that Peretz was no more than 7 years old when he became the father of Chetzron and another year for the birth of his brother Chamul, all of whom are listed in Genesis chapter 46 as having come to Egypt with Yaakov and Yehudah, you already have accounted for 25 years not 22. One would have to say that when Shelah was described as having “grown” up, the Torah refers to his having become 9 years old, at which age it is possible to produce semen fit to sire a child. We can find support for this from the Talmud, tractate Niddah, folio 45, where the Mishnah discusses a nine year old who performed the levirate marriage ceremony on his sister-in-law whose husband had died without having had any children, that he cannot give such a sister-in-law a decree of divorce until he reaches the age of 13, as a minor cannot divorce his wife. Moreover, the original marriage of his deceased brother had been a marriage in the full sense of the word, and what he did was only to substitute for his deceased brother, so that any divorce cannot be less complete than that. According to an opinion quoted in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, folio 69, there were periods in former eras when seven year old males were able to impregnate females with their semen.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:1:1

AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME. This does not refer to the time that Joseph was sold. (As the sequence of chapters would tend to indicate.) It refers to the events that happened prior to that time. From thence they journeyed unto Gudgod…At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name, unto this day (Deut. 10:7, 8) is similar. (The two events described in the latter verse did not take place at the same time even though Deut. 10:8 says, At that time.) The tribe of Levi was chosen to minister unto the Lord in the second year while Israel journeyed to Gudgod in the fortieth year. (Following the Exodus.) I will explain the latter verses in their proper place. Why, then, did Scripture insert this chapter (Chap. 38) at this point when logic dictates that And Joseph was brought down to Egypt (Gen. 39:1) should follow And the Midianites sold him (Joseph) into Egypt (Gen. 37:36)? (That is, Chap. 39 should follow Chap. 37.) The Bible placed this chapter (38) here to contrast the behavior of Joseph vis-a-vis his master’s wife with that of Judah toward his daughter-in-law. (Joseph controlled his passions. When Potiphar’s wife said to him, Lie with me (Gen. 39:7) he refused. On the other hand when Judah saw the harlot in the entrance to Enaim he said to her, Come, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee (Gen. 38:16).) What forced me to offer this interpretation is the fact that only twenty-two years passed between the sale of Joseph and the descent of our ancestors into Egypt. (Joseph was 17 when sold. He was 30 when appointed vizier over Egypt. Jacob came to Egypt after seven years of plenty and two of hunger passed. Thus a total of 22 years passed from the sale of Joseph to Jacob’s descent into Egypt (Cherez). It is impossible for the events described in Chap. 38 to have occurred in such a short time.) Now we learn in this chapter of the birth of Onan, Judah’s second son, (The point is that not only does Scripture tell of the birth of Er, the eldest son of Judah, it also tells of the birth of and marriage of his second son, Onan, as well. Er was at least close to a year older than Onan. Thus at least 13 years had to pass between the sale of Joseph and the marriage of Onan and Tamar.) and his reaching the age of procreation, which at the very earliest starts at the age of 12. Scripture goes on to state, And in the process of time (v. 12). (The Hebrew literally reads, and the days became many. That is, following Onan’s death Tamar, his widow, dwelt in her father’s house for a long time.) The chapter then tells us that Tamar conceived and gave birth to Perez. This same Perez came to Egypt with two sons of his own (Gen. 46:12). (We thus have to allow at least 13 years for the birth and marriage of Onan. We have to allow for the years that Tamar spent in her father’s house. We have to allow 12 years for Perez’s coming of age and two each for the birth of his sons. All of this could not have happened in 22 years, even assuming the above minimum figures.) Do not be disturbed by the question of Bezalel, (According to the Talmud the early generations produced children at the age of eight. If this is the case then it is possible for all of the above to have taken place in 22 years: namely, Er was married in the ninth year after Joseph’s sale. A year later Onan married. Tamar then stayed for many days in her father’s house. We can interpret many days to mean a year. Eight years later Perez gave birth to a son and a year later to a second one. Thus it is possible for all that is reported in Chap. 38 to have taken place between the sale of Joseph and the descent into Egypt. The Talmud concludes from the account of Bezalel that the early generations had children at the age of eight We read in Sanhedrin 69b: “Whence do we know that the first generations produced children at eight years? This is to be inferred from the following: Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah (Ex. 35:30), and it is written:..And Caleb (the son of Hezron) took unto him Ephrath, who bore him Hur. And Hur begot Uri, and Uri begot Bezalel (I Chron. 2:19, 20). When Bezalel was engaged in building the Tabernacle he was at least 13 years old as it is written, came every man from his work which they wrought (Ex. 36:4) and one is not called a man before the age of 13. And there is a Baraitha which states: The first year Moses prepared all that was necessary for the Tabernacle, and in the second year he erected it and sent the spies. And it is written: And Caleb the son of Jephunneh said…Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh-barnea (Josh. 14:6, 7) Now deduct 14, the age of Bezalel, from the age of Caleb when he was sent as a spy and there remains 26. Deduct two years for the three pregnancies with Uri and Hur and Bezalel, and there remains 24. Hence each of them produced children at the age of 8.” It should be noted that the above is based on identifying Caleb ben Hezron (I Chron. 2:18-20) as Caleb ben Jephunneh (Josh. 14:6, 7). However, according to I.E. these two Calebs were not the same. Hence, the entire Talmudic passage quoted above is Aggadic and not in keeping with the plain meaning of the text.) for I will explain it when I come to it.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:1:1

38.1. וירד יהודה מאת אחיו, Yehudah descended and turned from his brothers, etc. Our sages in Sotah 13 say that the brothers demoted him. Ibn Ezra says that anyone who comes from the northern part of the world to the South is considered as "descending." What he said is correct; it does not apply here, however, because then the Torah need not have added: "from his brothers." This clearly indicates that Yehudah's descent, i.e. demotion, was caused by his brothers. It also says: ויט עד איש, "he turned to a certain person, etc." Our sages are quite correct when they interpret the word וירד as a moral descent and the words ויט, etc., are integral to the verse.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:1:1-3

ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה, “it was at about that time that Yehudah descended.” Actually, the passage about Joseph being brought down to Egypt (39,1) should have been the natural continuation at this point. The Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 85:2 explains that the reason the Torah inserted this chapter about Yehudah and his marriage was to draw our attention to the fact that Yehudah’s having counseled selling Joseph had become the cause for his “descent,” i.e. for his losing the role of leadership amongst his brothers. When the brothers observed the inconsolable state of mind of their father they blamed Yehudah for being the cause of it telling him that if only he had stopped them and had suggested that they return Joseph to his father they would have listened to him.” A kabbalistic approach: the paragraph describing a levirate marriage was appended to the paragraph describing the sale of Joseph as both paragraphs deal with the subject of גלגול, a form of reincarnation, complete transformation of one’s fate. It is a fact that the sin committed by the brothers was of the type that could be atoned for by nothing less than reincarnation of their souls in different bodies. This is also the mystical dimension of the levirate marriage (widow of a brother who died without having sired children to one of the surviving brothers, compare Deut. 25:5-10). The mystical dimension of the levirate marriage is the same as the mystical dimension of reincarnation of the souls in a new body. The ten martyrs whom the Romans chose to expiate for the sin of the brothers having sold Joseph were none other than reincarnations of the brothers’ souls in different bodies. By dying a martyr’s death the millennia-old sin overhanging them was finally expiated. Er and Onan, the sons of Yehudah who died prematurely for committing a sin, were similarly reincarnated in the bodies of the twin sons Peretz and Zerach whom Tamar bore for Yehudah (verse 29). This is the deeper meaning of the sequence (Numbers 26:19-20) “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan and the sons of Yehudah were , etc.” All this is alluded to here through the sequence in which the Torah relates these events, something which the intelligent reader will comprehend. As to the problem that there were ten such martyrs at the hands of the Romans whereas only nine of the brothers were actively involved in the sale of Joseph, seeing that Reuven had been absent at the time of the sale and had previously expressed disapproval of the brothers’ treatment of Joseph, we would have to say that the tenth person was Joseph himself who was guilty of providing the brothers with cause to hate him to such a degree that they committed this crime against him. Seeing Joseph had been an inseparable part of the sin he also became part of the method of expiation. Another way of answering the problem of why the Romans chose ten martyrs [and why G’d allowed this, Ed.] is that certainly Joseph was not held responsible in such a fashion but that Reuven was. Reuven was punished in that way not because of his share in the sale of Joseph, something he had had no share in, but he had not been punished yet for his misdemeanour involving the couch of his stepmother Bilhah. We even have an allusion to this in Moses’ blessing for Reuven at the end of his life (Deut. 33:6) ויהי מתיו מספר, “may his population be included in the count,” the count being the ten martyrs who would absolve the ten brothers from their sin in the future.

Radak on Genesis 38:1:1

ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה, after Joseph had been sold. The fact that the Torah speaks of וירד, “he descended,” seems to imply that Dotan was situated at a much higher elevation than Adulam. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, the word וירד does not refer to a physical descent but to the brothers having demoted Yehudah from his role of their leader as they held him responsible for the debacle with Joseph. They had repented their part in the whole episode, and they accused Yehudah of not having been firm enough. Just as they had listened to him when he told them not to kill Joseph, they claimed that they would have listened to him if he had suggested that they should bring him back to their father. In Bereshit Rabbah 85,2 the whole paragraph commencing with וירד יהודה until the beginning of chapter 39 is considered as not relevant to the story, at least not at this point. Why then did the Torah insert this episode here thereby spoiling our concentration on what would happen to Joseph? According to Rabbi Eliezer the Torah wanted to create a conceptual link between one “descent,” and another “descent.” Rabbi Yochanan justifies the “interruption,” by linking one הכר נא “please identify!” to another הכר נא. Yehudah had deceived his father with these words, whereas Tamar reminded Yehudah that he had been deceived by her and that his assumption that she was a harlot who had become pregnant by her customer was totally unfounded.(compare 37,2 and 38,25 respectively)

Radak on Genesis 38:1:2

ויט עד איש עדולמי, he pitched his tent and let his flock graze in the proximity of this town Adulam; eventually he struck up a friendship with the man חירם described in our verse.

Rashi on Genesis 38:1:1

ויהי בעת ההוא AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME — Why is this section placed here thus interrupting the section dealing with the history of Joseph? To teach that his brothers degraded him from his high position. When they saw their father’s grief they said, “You told us to sell him: if you had told us to send him back to his father we would also have obeyed you” (Genesis Rabbah 85:2).

Rashi on Genesis 38:1:2

ויט AND HE TURNED away from his brothers.

Rashi on Genesis 38:1:3

עד איש עדלמי UNTO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE — he entered into a business-partnership with him.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 38:1:1

In dieser Entfernung Judas von seinen Brüdern dürfen wir das Symptom einer Spannung oder Spaltung erkennen, die denn doch in Folge der an Josef verübten Tat unter den Brüdern entstanden, und sich am entschiedensten gegen Juda richtete, unter dessen, als des, wie es scheint, Einflußreichsten, Vorschlag und Leitung sich der traurige Vorgang vollzogen hatte. Schwer übrigens sehen wir das Unrecht in Judas eigenem Familienkreise gebüßt. Frau und Söhne starben, und was noch herber ist, die Söhne starben, weil sie vor Gottes Augen schlecht gewesen.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 38:1:2

Wenn übrigens Judas Vergehen mit Tamar einerseits auch hier ein Moment offenbart, welches dem sittigenden Einfluss des künftigen Gottesgesetzes vorbehalten blieb, so sehen wir doch eben gleichzeitig auch ihn nur in einer Monogamie leben, sehen ihn zu dieser Abirrung nur nach dem Tode seiner Frau kommen, und sehen endlich bereits vor der Gesetzgebung eine Institution durch die Sitte in Jakobs Hause geheiligt, die durch und durch auf dem sittlichsten Begriffe der Ehe und des Familienlebens zu beruhen scheint.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 38:1:3

Daß die Ehe ihren sittlichen Charakter nur in ihrem Endziel, der Erzeugung und Heranziehung der Kinder (פרו ורב) findet; daß eine Ehe, die dieses Ziel nicht erreicht, wesentlich in ihrem sittlichen Charakter getrübt erscheint; daß ferner der Begriff eines Familienkreises, d. i, eines Vaterhauses mit den ihm entstammenden Zweigen zusammen eine spezifische Individualität am Baume der Menschheit, eine charakteristisch einheitliche moralische Person dergestalt bilde, das alle in ihm und aus ihm entstehenden Häuser an dem Ausbau eines bestimmten Grundtypus menschlicher Geistigkeit und Gesittung gemeinschaftlich arbeiten, also, daß, wenn eine Ehe in eben diesem ihrem höchsten sittlichen Endzweck, dem Fortbau des Menschengeschlechtes in einer bestimmten durch die Familieneigentümlichkeit gegebenen Richtung, mit dem kinderlosen Tode eines Gliedes mangelhaft geblieben, dieser sittliche Charaktermangel der Ehe durch Fortsetzung derselben mit der hinterbliebenen Wittwe von einem der nächsten Familienglieder nachträglich ergänzt werden kann und soll: diese, den höchsten sittlichen Charakter der Ehe und die höchste sittliche Dignität der Familie aussprechenden Gedanken scheinen der großen Institution des Jibbum zu Grunde zu liegen, der wir schon hier, in dieser frühesten Zeit des Jakobshauses, in vollster Geltung begegnen. Obgleich Witwe des Verstorbenen, erscheint Thamar als die noch Angetraute des überlebenden Hauses (זיקה) und zwar in solcher Schärfe, daß ihr vermeintliches Vergehen (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 38: 24) als Ehebruch geahndet werden soll, in Beziehung zu einem nächsten Familiengliede aber so sehr das ursprünglich durch den Verstorbenen geknüpfte Eheband fortdauert, daß es zur Fortsetzung derselben keiner besonderen Anehelichung bedarf, sondern dieselbe sich einfach vollzieht: הבא על יבמתו בין בשוגג וכו׳ קנה Jebamot 43b; ein Verhältnis, das zur gerechten Würdigung Tamars nicht unberücksichtigt bleiben dürfte. — Ob übrigens die Wurzel יבם ihre Grundbedeutung in der Lautverwandtschaft mit קום (vergl. z. B. קול יבל — יין יון גפן, —) findet, und demgemäß יַבֵם der Grundbedeutung nach so viel als קַיֵם, aufrecht halten, aufrichten, wäre — הקם זרע לאחיו — wollen wir nur als eine Möglichkeit berühren.

Sforno on Genesis 38:1:1

ויהי בעת ההיא, והמדנים מכרו אותו, [the Torah contrasts the facts with the perception of the facts, i.e. Joseph was alive but the Midianites had sold him. I believe that this is why the author quotes the beginning of this verse without elaborating on it at all. He leaves it to our imagination to fill in this next item in the tragic chain of errors beginning with the fact that Yitzchok had shown more love for Esau. Ed.] at about the same time when Joseph was sold to Egypt at the suggestion of Yehudah who had proposed this instead of bringing him back to his father and had thereby bereaved his father, Yehudah reaped some of the fruit of his ill advised plans, in that the way was paved for him to be bereaved of two of his own sons in due course.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:1

It was at that time; Judah descended from his brothers. Based on chronological considerations, this incident took place shortly before the sale of Joseph. 18 Even after the brothers married and established families of their own, they continued to live in close proximity to one another and worked together. It is unclear whether each brother owned his own property, or if they were partners in a family business. In any case, Judah now left the presence of his brothers to establish his own private business. Judah reached Adulam, a city in the south of Judea, and he turned to an Adulamite man and befriended him, and his name was Hira.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:1:1

ויהי בעת ההיא,,”It was at that time,” according to Rashi the reason why the Torah introduces this paragraph with these words is to tell us that Yehudah’s demotion from his position of leadership of the brothers and his moving away from them was because he had proposed the sale of Joseph to Egypt. Many commentators challenge Rashi’s commentary saying that 22 years elapsed from the sale of Joseph to Egypt to the eventual reunion of the family, seeing that Joseph was 17 when he was sold and 39 when the brothers and his father moved to Egypt. Seeing that only so few years had elapsed, how could Yehudah have married, sired 3 sons, married off two of them, and have married Tamar and become the father of Zerach and Peretz, and Peretz siring Chetzron and Chamul, all within such a short space of time? [seeing the last two grandsons of Yehudah are numbered among the seventy members of Yaakov’s familty who left Canaan for Egypt (46,12)? Ed] Ibn Ezra writes that what is related here occurred before the sale of Joseph, and that the story was interrupted in order to contrast the story of Yehudah and Tamar with that of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar. [how Joseph could control his libido, whereas Yehudah could not.]

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 64

“About that time Judah left his brothers” [38:1]. The children of Jacob saw that Jacob had great anguish over Joseph. The children all hated Judah. They said to him: you were the chief and just as you said that we should not kill Joseph, but we should sell him, so too, if you had said that we should let Joseph go home to our father, we would have listened to you. Therefore, all the brothers hated Judah and denigrated him. Thus, Judah separated himself from them. (Rashi, Genesis, 38:1.)

Midrash

The Midrash discusses the descent of Judah from his brothers in Genesis 38:1, connecting it to the story of Joseph being sold into Egypt. Judah's descent is seen as a punishment for his role in selling Joseph, and it is suggested that he would bury his wife and children due to not completing a mitzva. The text also explores the significance of the coat of many colors in Joseph's story and the consequences of Israel's actions leading to their exile in Egypt. The narrative highlights the themes of punishment, divine justice, and the importance of completing righteous deeds.

Aggadat Bereshit 61:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Aggadat Bereshit 64:1

Chapter (63) 64: Torah [1] "And it came to pass at that time that Judah went down" (Genesis 38:1). Like it is said in scriptures: "I will yet bring you, O inhabitants of Mareshah" (Micah 1:15). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, "Even though I made a covenant with your father Abraham and told him to 'Arise, walk through the land' (Genesis 13:17), and I did what I promised him, and gave him all the land, as it is said, 'And the children came and possessed the land' (Nehemiah 9:24), and also 'I brought you into a land of fruitful fields' (Jeremiah 2:7), a land that is soft and full, yet you angered Me and came and defiled My land, etc." (Jeremiah 2:7). "What shall I do with you? Behold, I will bring the nations against you, and they shall drive you out of your land. I will yet bring you, O inhabitants of Mareshah" (Micah 1:15). This is because you did not listen to the words of Micah the Morashtite, who prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, King of Judah, etc. (Jeremiah 26:18). Therefore, this is what will be done to them: "The heir to Israel will come, and the glory of Israel will not be snuffed out" (Micah 5:1). When Israel went into exile, they were stripped and made to wear rags until they reached their destination. Their enemies stripped them of their clothing and left them naked, as it is written: "The glory of Israel will come to you forever" (Micah 4:5). A person's honor is in their clothing. If you don't believe this, consider what is written: "I will strip you of your clothes and leave you naked" (Ezekiel 23:26). They were ashamed to be seen naked, as it was embarrassing for one person to see the shame of another. Jeremiah also says: "All her splendor has departed" (Lamentations 1:6), which teaches us that they went out without clothing, and splendor is nothing but clothing, as it is written: "This is the generation that wears clothing" (Isaiah 33:1). Their officers were like deer (Lamentations 1:6). Just as these rams go one after the other, and each one's head is behind the back of his fellow, and he sees his own shame, so too did the Israelites see the shame of each and every one of them, but not their own shame, because they were stripped and in collars, until they arrived at eternity. Their enemies would strip them of their clothing and leave them naked, as it says, "until eternity the honor of Israel will come" (Micah 4:5). From the beginning, the tribe of Judah hinted to them that this is what would happen to them when they arrived at "World to come" [edit. actual word is 1. עדולם Adullam = "justice of the people. 2. a town of the Canaanites allotted to Judah and lying in the lowlands; site of the cave where David hid.]

Bereshit Rabbah 85:1

“It was at that time; Judah descended from his brothers and turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” (Genesis 38:1). “It was at that time; Judah descended from his brothers” – “Judah has betrayed, and an abomination has been performed…” (Malachi 2:11). [God] said to him: ‘You have denied, Judah; you have lied, Judah’ – “and an abomination has been performed in Israel” (Malachi 2:11). (Judah is portrayed as having denied and lied in that he betrayed his status as a member of Jacob’s household by marrying a Canaanite woman (Matnot Kehuna). This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya (see Bereshit Rabba 84:21). ) ‘Judah has become profane’ – “for Judah has profaned the holy of the Lord that He loves” (Malachi 2:11). “It was at that time.” “I will yet bring to you a dispossessor, inhabitant of Maresha; [the glory of Israel] will come as far as Adulam” (Micah 1:15) – the King and Holy One of Israel. (God will come to Adulam to punish Israel (Yefe To’ar). ) [Alternatively,] should the glory of Israel have “come as far as Adulam”? (In this clause the midrash interprets “the glory of Israel” to refer to Judah himself. This sentence is to be read rhetorically; was it really fitting for Judah to come to Adulam and to marry a Canaanite woman? (see Yefe To’ar). ) “Come as far as Adulam” – as it is written: “And turned to an Adulamite man.” “It was at that time” – Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman began: “For I have known the thoughts” (Jeremiah 29:11) – the tribes were engaged in the sale of Joseph, Joseph was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Reuben was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Jacob was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Judah was engaged in taking a wife for himself, and the Holy One blessed be He was engaged in creating the light of the messianic king: “It was at that time, Judah descended from his brothers.” (Judah married the daughter of Shua, thereby establishing the family that would produce the Messiah. ) “Before she begins labor, she will give birth” (Isaiah 66:7) – before the first one who would enslave [Israel] was born, the ultimate redeemer was born. “It was at that time” – what is written prior to the matter? “The Medanites sold him to Egypt” (Genesis 37:36). (As the events that would lead to Israel’s enslavement in Egypt were just beginning to unfold, God was already planting the seeds of the ultimate redemption. )

Bereshit Rabbah 85:2

“It was at that time” – the verse should have said only: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). (This verse, describing the sale of Joseph to Potifar in Egypt, is the direct continuation of chapter 37, which concludes with Joseph being brought down to Egypt. This narrative is interrupted by the story of Judah in chapter 38. ) Why, then, did it juxtapose this portion to that one? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Elazar said: In order to juxtapose descent to descent. (The story of Judah’s descent is embedded within the story of Joseph’s descent to imply that Judah lost stature among his brothers due to the sale of Joseph, when they saw how much pain it caused their father (Yefe To’ar). ) Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In order to juxtapose “identify” (Genesis 37:32) to “identify” (Genesis 38:25). (Because Judah was responsible for the sale of Joseph, in which the brothers asked Jacob to identify Joseph’s tunic, he experienced the embarrassment of having to admit his error when Tamar asked him to identify the possessions he had left with her (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose the incident of Tamar to the incident of Potifar’s wife. Just as this one, [Tamar, acted] for the sake of Heaven, so too, that one, [Potifar’s wife, acted] for the sake of Heaven, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: She saw through her astrology that she was destined to bring forth a child from him, but she did not know whether it would be from her or from her daughter. That is what is written: “[The astrologers, the stargazers,] who foretell by the new moons of that which will befall you” (Isaiah 47:13). Rabbi Aivu said: [They foretell] “of that which [will befall you]” but not all that [will befall you]. (They do not provide all the details.) Similarly, “[They were both naked, the man and his wife,] and they were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25), “the serpent was…cunning” (Genesis 3:1). The verse should have said only: “The Lord God made for Adam and for his wife [hide tunics, and clothed them]” (Genesis 3:21). (Why is the story of the serpent inserted in between the verse stating that Adam and Eve were naked and the verse stating that God clothed them? ) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: It is to inform you for what reason that wicked one [the serpent] accosted them; because it saw them engaged in conjugal relations, it lusted after them. Rabbi Yaakov of Kefar Ḥanin said: So as not to end with the portion of the serpent. (The verse regarding the hide tunics was placed after the incident of the serpent so as not to conclude a passage with God’s curses, given in the aftermath of the story of the serpent. ) Similarly, “[Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt, and glorify the King of heaven…] and He is able to humble those who walk in arrogance” (Daniel 4:34), “King Belshatzar” (Daniel 5:1) and “Darius the Mede” (Daniel 6:1). Where is Evil Merodakh? (The text proceeds from discussing Nebuchadnezzar to King Belshatzar and to Darius the Mede, while skipping Evil Merodakh, who reigned between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshatzar. ) Rabbi Elazar said: To juxtapose a wicked one to a wicked one, a tormentor to a tormentor, a conceited one to a conceited one. (Both Nebuchadnezzar and his grandson Belshatzar were wicked, tormentors, and conceited.) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose a reign that was truncated to a reign that was truncated. Similarly, “During that night, Belshatzar the Chaldean king was killed” (Daniel 5:30), “and Darius the Mede [received the kingdom]” (Daniel 6:1). Where is [the chapter beginning:] “In the third year of the reign of King Belshatzar” (Daniel 8:1)? (Why does this chapter, which is set during the reign of Belshatzar, not precede the transition in the text to the reign of Darius? ) Rav Huna said: So that they will not say that this is mere literature; so that everyone will know that he said it through the divine spirit. (At times, works composed with the divine spirit arrange events out of chronological order for esoteric reasons (Maharzu). ) The Rabbis say: In order to indicate regarding the whole book that it was stated through the divine spirit. Here too, it should have said: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1), but it is written: “Judah descended from his brothers.” [Judah] said [to his brothers]: (This is an additional insight into the phrase “Judah descended from his brothers” (Yefe To’ar). ) ‘Let us disperse ourselves, for so long as we are together, the promissory note is liable to be collected.’ (Since we sinned together in the sale of Joseph, it would be fitting for the punishment to occur when we are all together (Etz Yosef). Alternatively, the promissory note refers to the prophecy to Abraham that his descendants would be oppressed in a foreign land. Judah sensed that the departure of Joseph might eventually lead to their all descending to exile. That would be more likely to occur if they were all together (Yefe To’ar). ) The Holy One blessed be He said to them: If ten people were implicated for robbery, can one not be apprehended for the act of them all? (I can punish each of you separately, or I can punish even just one of you for the entire episode. ) When they were implicated regarding the goblet, they said: “God has found [matza] the iniquity of your servants” (Genesis 44:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The creditor has found the opportunity to collect on his promissory note. Rabbi Levi said: Like this one who empties [mematze] the barrel and leaves it with only its dregs. (God is punishing us for the sin in its entirety, to the last drop. ) The Rabbis say: (The Rabbis say another reason for the juxtaposition of the story of Judah descending from his brothers and marrying, to the story of the sale of Joseph. ) [Judah said:] ‘Come and let us provide for ourselves. In the past, he [Jacob] would have felt obligated to arrange for us to marry wives, but now he is preoccupied with his sackcloth and fasting. It is not right that he should engage in [arranging for us to marry wives.’ They said to Judah: ‘Are you not the leader of us all? You arise and provide for yourself.’ Immediately, “Judah descended” – it is a descent for him that he married a gentile woman. It is a descent for him that he buried his wife and his sons.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:3

Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon and Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, buries his wife and his children. From whom do you derive this? It is from Judah. “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it [if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?]” (Genesis 37:26). He should have borne him on his shoulder to his father. What did it cause for him? He buried his wife and his children. Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, but another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the second one. That is what is written: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up” (Joshua 24:32). Did Moses not take them up, as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him” (Exodus 13:19)? But since it was decreed upon him that he would not enter the land, and these [the children of Israel] tended to them, it is therefore attributed to them. “Joseph’s bones…” (Joshua 24:32) – they analogize it; to what is the matter comparable? To robbers who entered a certain wine cellar. They took a particular jug and drank. The owner of the cellar peered at them. He said to them: ‘May it be pleasant for you, may it be enjoyable for you, may it be sweet for you. You drank the wine, restore the jug to its place.’ So, the Holy One blessed be He said to the tribes: ‘You sold Joseph. Restore his bones to their place.’ Another matter: Joseph said to them: ‘To the place from which you abducted me, return me’ – “are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). (This proves that the sale of Joseph took place in or around Shekhem. ) That is what the children of Israel did: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32).

Bereshit Rabbah 85:4

“And turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” – the Rabbis say: Ḥira is Ḥiram who was in the days of David, as it is stated: “For Ḥiram had been David’s friend all the days” (I Kings 5:15) – this man was accustomed to being a friend of this tribe. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Ḥiram was someone else. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, he lived close to one thousand two hundred years; according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda [ben Rabbi Simon], he lived close to five hundred years. (Both opinions agree that Hiram was the prince of Tyre who was addressed by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 28:2) almost five hundred years after the time of David (see Yalkut Shimoni, Va’era 180) The debate is whether Ḥiram was also the same person as the Ḥira in the time of Judah, five hundred or so years before David.) “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her” (Genesis 38:2). “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua” – the daughter (The Hebrew text has the word son, rather than daughter, but many suggest that the text should say daughter (see, e.g., Etz Yosef). ) of a merchant, (This opinion interprets kenaani, generally translated as Canaanite, to mean merchant, which is in fact how the term is used in some places in Bible (see, e.g., Isaiah 23:8). Accordingly, Judah followed the family tradition of not marrying Canaanites. ) the shining light of his place. “She conceived, and she bore a son; he called his name Er” (Genesis 38:3). “She conceived, and she bore a son; he (Although the most common text of the midrash says “she”, the actual text of the verse is “he”. ) called his name Er” – as he was discharged [shehuar] from the world. “She conceived again, and bore a son; she called his name Onan. She continued and bore a son again, and called his name Shela; and he was in Keziv when she bore him” (Genesis 38:4–5). “She conceived again…Onan” – as he brought acute mourning [anina] upon himself. “She conceived again.… Shela” – as he initiated a genealogy [shenishtalshel] in the world. (This translation is based on a variant reading, “in the world [baolam],” instead of “from the world [min haolam].”) “She continued…again…Keziv” – Poskat, (This is the Aramaic name for Keziv.) the name of a place. “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death” (Genesis 38:7). “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord” – he would plow in the gardens and discharge in the waste. (This is a euphemism for the fact that he would begin intercourse with his wife but then withdraw before discharging the semen so as to avoid impregnating her.)

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sanhedrin 11:71

(I Kin. 11, 29) And it came to pass at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, etc. It was taught in the name of R. Jose: At that time, refers to the time designated for evil dispensation (Gen. 38, 1) At that time when Juda went down; R. Jose says: "A time designated for evil." (Jer. 51, 18) In the time of their visitation shall they perish. It was taught in the name of R. Jose: A time designated for evil dispensation. (Isa. 49, 8) In the time of favor have I answered thee. It was taught in the name of R. Jose: A time designated for Divine goodness. (Ex. 32, 34) Nevertheless in the day when I visit, I will visit their sins upon them. It was taught in the name of R. Jose: A time designated for evil dispensation. (I Kin. 12, 1) And Rehoboam went to Shechem; for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king. It was taught in the name of R. Jose: That place was designated for trouble. In Shechem Dina was assaulted; in the same place Joseph was sold by his brothers, and in the same place the kingdom of David was divided. And (Ib. 11, 29) And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem. R. Chana b. Papa said: "It means he went out of the destiny of Jerusalem (i.e., was to have no share in the welfare of Jerusalem)." (Ib., ib. 7) That the Shilonite, the prophet Achiyah, found him in the way; how Achiyah had clad himself with a new garment, what does it mean? R. Nachman said: "As a new garment has no spots so also was the teaching of Jeroboam clean, without any error." According to others: "They renewed things which no ear has ever heard of." And what is meant by, And they two were alone in the field? R. Juda said in the name of Rab: "All other scholars were like the plants of the field in comparison with them." According to others: "All the reasons for the commandment of the Torah were revealed to them as a field." (Mic. 1, 14) Therefore shalt thou give a parting gift to Moreshethgath; the houses of Achzib shall be a deceitful thing unto the kings of Israel. R. Chanina b. Papa said: "A heavenly voice was heard saying: 'To him who has killed Goliath, the Philistine, and inherited to you the city of Gath, should ye send away his descendants? Therefore the house of Achzib shall be a deceitful thing unto the kings of Israel.'"

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 1:49

"Who is greater than Joseph, who in return was attended by no one else than Moses." Our Rabbis were taught: "Come, see how beloved meritorious deeds were to our teacher Moses; for, while all Israel was busy with the spoils of Egypt, he occupied himself with meritorious deeds, as it is said (Pr. 10, 8) The wise in heart will accept commandments; but, he that is a fool in his speaking will stumble. But how did Moses know where Joseph was buried? It was said that Serach, the daughter of Asher, was of the previous generation and to her Moses went and asked whether she knew where Joseph was buried, and she said: "An iron casket was made by the Egyptians wherein he was placed and sunk in the River Nile, so that the water of the Nile should be blessed through him." Thereupon Moses went and stationed himself on the brink of the Nile and said: "Joseph the time which the Holy One, praised be He, gave an oath to redeem Israel has expired; the oath with which thou hast adjured Israel is now to be fulfilled. If thou wilt reveal thyself, well, but if not, then we shall be free from the obligation of thy oath." Immediately did the casket of Joseph float the water, and be not surprised that iron floats on the water, for so also do we find in the passage (II Kings 6, 5) But as one was felling a beam, the axe had fallen into the water; and he cried and said, 'Alas, my Lord, it was also borrowed, etc., and cast it in there and made the iron to swim. Is this not a fortiori? If for Ellisha who was only the disciple of Elijah and Elijah who was the disciple of Moses could cause iron to float on water, how much more easily could Moses himself do so? R. Nathan said: "Joseph was buried in the royal cemetery, Moses thereupon went and stationed himself on the royal cemetery and said: 'Joseph the time at which the Holy One, praised be He, gave this oath to redeem Israel has expired; and the oath which thou hast besworn Israel must now be fulfilled. If thou wilst. reveal thyself, well, but if not then we shall be free from the obligation of thy oath." At that moment the casket of Joseph began to tremble, whereupon Moses [having revealed his place] took it and brought it to him, and during all the years that Israel was in wilderness the ark of Joseph was carried side by side with the ark of the Shechina. This caused all passersby to ask, "What is the reason for these two arks?" And when they were told that one contained a dead body and the other the Shechina. The inquirers would ask, "How is it that a dead body is to be placed near the ark of the Shechina?" Whereupon they were told: (Ib. b) "This is because the one who lies in the ark has fulfilled everything that is written in the Torah, which is placed in the other ark." Is it possible that Joseph's body was left to the charge of Moses and the entire people of Israel did not attend it? Behold it is written (Josh. 24, 32) And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israel have brought up out of Egypt, they buried in Shechem, and again granted that Israel would not have attended it, is it possible that his children would not have attended it? Behold, it is written in the same passage, And it remained inheritance of the children of Joseph. His children said: "Let us leave our Father to be attended by the entire people of Israel, for it will be a greater honor for him to be attended by a multitude of people." And again Israel said: "Let us leave it attended by Moses for it would be a greater honor than to be attended by inferior men." (Ib., ib., ib.) They buried in Shechecm. Why in Shechem? They said: "From Shechem was he (Joseph) stolen, (See Gen. 37, 14-29) and let us bring back the loss to Shechem." But the passages contradict each other, it is written (Gen. 13, 19) And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, for he had caused the children of Israel to swear, etc., and in the previous passage it is written. And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israel had brought out of Egypt, they buried in Shechem. Said R. Chama b. R. Chanina: "Whoever starts a thing and does not complete it, and another comes and finishes it. Scripture considers the one who finished it as having performed the entire task." R. Elazar says: "Such a man [who begins a thing and does not finish] is even removed from his high position, as it is written (Gen. 38, 1) And it came to pass at that time that Juda went down from his brothers." R. Samuel b. Nachmeni said: "Such a man will bury even his wife and children, as it is said (Ib., ib., 12) And the daughter of Shuah. Juda's wife, died and again it is written there, And Er and Onan both died."

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 14; The Meaning of a Chronological Problem; Connecting Yosef and Yehuda 107

Because R. Elazar does not elaborate the meaning of the connection he has raised, we need to re-examine the relevant verses to determine the significance of the parallel being drawn. (This is yet another example of techniques used by Hazal to engage the reader in interaction with their commentary and with the biblical text.) Yehuda’s descent is described in Genesis 38:1: “And it was at that time, and Yehuda went down from [being with] his brothers” (…vayered Yehuda me’et ehav). Yosef’s descent appears in Genesis 39:1: “And Yosef was brought down to Egypt…” (veYosef hurad Mitzraima).

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 14; The Meaning of a Chronological Problem; Connecting Yosef and Yehuda 179

In lines 46–48, the midrash returns to the verses with which it began (We should note that in bringing us back to the verses they began explicating, the midrashic editors in effect bring us back to the first midrashic commentary on the link between the two stories, i.e., R. Elazar’s statement that the stories are juxtaposed to connect the two descents.) : “And Yosef was brought down to Egypt…” (Genesis 39:1) and “And Yehuda went down from [being with] his brothers…” (Genesis 38:1). (The order of the verses is reversed here, with the verse from Genesis 39 preceding the one from Genesis 38. Perhaps this is yet another subtle reminder that sequential ordering is not always the most important way to connect events.) The remainder of the midrash then presents two more perspectives on the connection between these verses.

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 14; The Meaning of a Chronological Problem; Connecting Yosef and Yehuda 7

The interpretive problem is obvious. Why is the Yosef strand of the narrative, surely the dominant one, interrupted at this critical juncture by an apparently unrelated story? When, in fact, does the Yehuda/Tamar episode take place in relation to the Yosef story? Bearing in mind that both stories unfold over a period of years, what is meant by the phrase, “And it was at that time…” (Genesis 38:1)? Does Yehuda marry immediately after his role in the selling of Yosef or does this story begin at some earlier point in Yehuda’s life, as some of the commentators contend? (See, for example, ibn Ezra on this verse.) Even if the story of Yehuda’s marriage takes place immediately after the brothers’ selling of Yosef, (Rashi and Sforno, among other commentators, take this position.) why is the Yosef strand of the narrative interrupted so abruptly by this episode, when it might just as easily have been placed at a more natural break in the story?

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 10:1

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE >.] This text is related (to Micah 1:15): I WILL YET BRING TO YOU ONE WHO SHALL DISPOSSESS YOU, < O INHABITANT OF MARESHAH; TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE GLORY OF ISRAEL >. (Rashi on Gen. 37:35; see Gen. R. 85:1.) R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differed. The one said: The tribal patriarchs married their sisters, since it is stated (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS (According to R. Judah, the plural here shows that Jacob had more than one daughter.) AROSE TO COMFORT HIM. And how many daughters were there? They were simply their < brothers' twelve > twin sisters. < A given brother's mother > bore twins at his < birth >, and he would marry her. Moreover, it says so about Benjamin (in Gen. 35:17): BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU. (Gen. R. 82:8.) "Because this is a son for you" is not stated, but BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU, since his mother had < already > given birth to < his > twin sister. Ergo (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROSE…. Hence you learn that they married their sisters. But R. Nehemiah maintains: His daughters were his daughters-in-law. Since one's son-in-law is like his son, and his daughter-in-law, like a daughter, one does not refrain from calling his daughter-in-law his daughter. (Gen. R. 84:21.) Our masters have said: Judah, who was the eldest in his father's house, married a Canaanite. Thus it is written (in Gen. 38:2): AND JUDAH SAW THERE < THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE >. And the prophet proclaims (in Micah 1:15): TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE (HOLY ONE) [GLORY] OF ISRAEL. Ergo (according to Gen. 38:1-2): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS > AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE < WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH. AND JUDAH SAW THERE THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE WHOSE NAME WAS SHUA. SO HE TOOK HER AND WENT IN UNTO HER >.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 11:1

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.] This text is related (to Is. 55:8): FOR MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT YOUR THOUGHTS, AND YOUR WAYS ARE NOT MY WAYS. < The matter > is comparable to a king of flesh and blood when he sits down to judge someone. The judge says to him: Say whether you have killed or not killed. If he says to him: I killed, the judge kills him; but if he does not confess, he does not kill him. However, the Holy One is not like this. Over the one who confesses the Holy One has mercy, as stated (in Prov. 28:13): BUT WHOEVER CONFESSES AND FORSAKES < HIS TRANSGRESSIONS > SHALL OBTAIN MERCY. R. Simeon ben Halafta says: The Holy One said to Jerusalem: For what reason have I brought all these judgments upon you? Because you said: I have not sinned, as stated (in Jer. 2:35): BEHOLD, I AM BRINGING YOU TO JUDGMENT FOR SAYING: I HAVE NOT SINNED. However (according to Prov. 28:13): BUT WHOEVER CONFESSES AND FORSAKES < HIS TRANSGRESSIONS > SHALL OBTAIN MERCY. Ergo (in Is. 55:8): FOR MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT < YOUR THOUGHTS, AND YOUR WAYS ARE NOT MY WAYS >. R. Jose ben Qetsartah said: Flesh and blood makes a path on the mountain or in the valley. Could one possibly make < a path > in the waters? It is written of the Holy One, however, (in Ps. 77:20 [19]): YOUR WAY WAS IN THE SEA, [AND YOUR PATH IN THE GREAT WATERS]. He makes his way wherever he wants.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 11:3

Another interpretation (of Is. 55:8): FOR MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT < YOUR THOUGHTS >. In the case of Joseph, his brothers sold him to the Midianites, and the Midianites sold him unto the Egyptians. Before Joseph went away, Judah went away to prepare for the final redeemer, i.e., the Messianic King, (I.e., through a marriage out of which would come the Messianic King. See Gen. R. 85:1.) [for out of him would the Messianic King come forth]. "That Judah went" is not written here, but THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY. R. Johanan said: The one going away depends upon the other. The going away of Judah depends upon the going away of Joseph. (Gen. R. 85:2.) (Gen. 39:1:) WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN AWAY TO EGYPT < corresponds to > (Gen. 38:1) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY. Similarly you say on the matter (in Dan. 5:30): IN THAT VERY NIGHT WAS BELSHAZZAR THE CHALDEAN KING SLAIN. What is written next (in Dan. 6:1 [5:31])? AND DARIUS THE MEDE RECEIVED THE KINGDOM. The one destroyer depends upon the other, the destroyer of a house upon the destroyer of a house, the cessation of a kingdom upon the cessation of a kingdom.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 12:1

(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY (literally: WENT DOWN). What is the meaning of WENT DOWN? That they brought him down from his greatness. Why? Because they had appointed him king over themselves. When they had sold Joseph, they came to their father to comfort him, [but] he did [not] wish to be comforted. They said: Now the old man was upset with us. What did they do. They arose and banished him (i.e., Judah), as stated (in Gen. 38:1) THAT JUDAH WENT DOWN.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 12:2

Another interpretation (of Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY. As soon as they had sold Joseph (in Gen. 37:28), what is written (in vs. 29)? WHEN REUBEN RETURNED UNTO THE PIT < … > when he did not find him, HE RENT HIS CLOTHES. In addition they all arose and dispersed, and Judah also dispersed with them. [Ergo] (in Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:1

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.] What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 37:14)? PLEASE GO AND SEE [ABOUT YOUR BROTHERS' WELFARE AND ABOUT THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK]. Would the flock know what WELFARE was when he told him < to see about > THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK? (“What is your welfare” corresponds to the English greeting “How do you do.” How could animals respond to such a greeting?) R. Ayyevu said: A person must pray for whoever is beneficial to him. (The Buber text, which reads “shatters him,” makes little sense. The emendation adopted here is slight. It has been accepted by Jastrow, in his lexicon under SKR, and suggested in Midrash Tanhuma (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.), vol. 1, appendix, p. 74, n. 2. See Gen. R. 84:13.) Because Jacob was benefiting from his flock by consuming the milk and wearing the shorn wool, for that reason he had to ask about their welfare. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 37:14): YOUR BROTHERS' WELFARE AND THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK. (Ibid., cont,:) AND BRING BACK WORD TO ME. They said (in vs. 33): JOSEPH HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS. (According to the biblical context, these words were spoken by Jacob.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:11

(Gen. 37:28:) WHEN MIDIANITE < TRADERS > PASSED BY, < THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, THEN SOLD JOSEPH FOR TWENTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE ISHMAELITES >. And they (the Midianites in vs. 36) SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT TO POTIPHAR…. Three bills of sale (Gk.: onai, i.e., “purchases” or “contracts for tax farming.”) were made over him. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:22 for other totals.) When he was sold, they all began to cry: Woe (Way). Thus it is stated (in Gen. 38:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS (wayehi) AT THAT TIME. (Ibid., cont.:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY (rt.: YRD). For what sin did he go away? (Gen. R. 85:3.) R. Hiyya bar Abba < said > in the name of R. Johanan: Everyone who begins with a good deed and does not finish it causes himself to bury his wife and children and causes a lowering of status (rt.: YRD) for himself. Who was this? This was Judah, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:12

[(Gen. 38:1, cont.:) < THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE > WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH.] R. Judah bar Simon said: That Hirah from the days of Judah is Hiram from the days of Solomon; (Cf. Gen. R. 85:4.) and throughout his days he loved this tribe, for so it says (in Gen. 38:12): HIS FRIEND HIRAH THE ADULLAMITE. And it says elsewhere (in I Kings 5:15 [1]): < THEN HIRAM KING OF TYRE SENT HIS SERVANTS UNTO SOLOMON > … FOR HIRAM HAD ALWAYS BEEN A FRIEND TO DAVID.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 8:1

(Gen. 38:1:) NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH. Let our master instruct us: If a ruin falls on the Sabbath, and it is not known whether Israelites are there or not, is it legitimate to clear away < the rubble > over them on the Sabbath? Thus have our masters taught (in Yoma 8:7): IF A FALLING STRUCTURE FALLS ON SOMEONE [ON THE SABBATH], AND THERE IS DOUBT WHETHER HE IS THERE OR NOT THERE, DOUBT WHETHER HE IS ALIVE OR DEAD, DOUBT WHETHER HE IS A FOREIGNER OR AN ISRAELITE, THEY SHALL CLEAR AWAY [THE RUBBLE] FOR HIS SAKE. IF THEY FIND HIM ALIVE, THEY SHALL CLEAR AWAY < THE REST OF THE RUBBLE > FOR HIS SAKE; BUT, IF HE IS DEAD, THEY SHALL LEAVE HIM. (The Mishnah text here (without Buber’s bracketed emendations) is that found in the Yerushalmi.) It is written concerning the Sabbath (in Exod. 31:14): WHOEVER PROFANES IT (the Sabbath) SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH; yet our masters have taught: they shall clear away [the rubble] over one who is alive on the Sabbath. R. Eleazar ben Azariah said: If circumcision, which < affects > only one of two hundred and forty-eight < human > organs, overrides the Sabbath, how much the more would two hundred and forty-eight organs under stone override the Sabbath for someone? (Shab. 132a; Yoma 85b; Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Shabbata 1.) R. Simeon ben Menasya says: Defile one Sabbath for him so that he may keep a lot of Sabbaths. So, if you clear away < the rubble > over someone to restore a single soul to life, I will also do for you what is written (in Ezek. 37:12): < THUS SAYS THE LORD GOD > BEHOLD, I WILL OPEN YOUR GRAVES < AND RAISE YOU UP OUT FROM YOUR GRAVES, O MY PEOPLE, AND BRING YOU UNTO THE LAND OF ISRAEL >. A certain heretic (min) asked our Rabbi: Is it possible for the dead to live again? Your ancestors do not acknowledge < the belief >, yet you do acknowledge < it >! What is written about Jacob (in Gen. 37:35)? THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROSE TO COMFORT HIM [BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED]. If he had known that the dead would live < again >, would he have refused to be comforted and said (ibid., cont.): NO I WILL GO DOWN MOURNING UNTO MY SON IN SHEOL? Our Rabbi said to him: You are the biggest fool in the world. < It was > because our father Jacob knew through the Holy Spirit that Joseph was alive. For that reason he did not accept consolation over him. After all, one does not accept consolation over one who is alive. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:6; see Soferim 21 (43b).)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 8:2

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED. It is simply that our father Jacob said: See, the tribal covenant has been broken! How I have toiled to raise up twelve tribes. Now I see that, since Joseph has gone, behold the very covenant has ceased. All the works of the Holy One correspond to twelve tribes: twelve constellations, twelve months, twelve hours in the day, twelve hours in the night, twelve stones which Aaron wore < on his breastplate >. But now Joseph has gone! Behold, the tribal covenant has been broken. But did Jacob not know how to take a wife and sire a son so that there would be twelve tribes? < He did not do so > simply because he had kept a vow to Laban, as stated (in Gen. 31:50): IF YOU MISTREAT MY DAUGHTERS OR TAKE WIVES BESIDES MY DAUGHTERS, even after their death < …. > What did Laban do? He brought him outside. He said to him (ibid., cont.): THOUGH NO ONE IS WITH US, SEE, GOD IS A WITNESS…. Because of that vow, he was unable to take a wife. When his sons saw that he was complaining so and that he would not accept consolation, they went to Judah and said to him: You have made all this great misfortune for us! He said to them: I said to you (in Gen. 37:26): WHAT PROFIT < IS THERE IF WE KILL OUR BROTHER AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD >? Now are you saying: What have you done? They said to him: But did we not hearken to you < when > you said (Gen. 37:27): COME, AND LET US SELL HIM TO THE ISHMAELITES? So we hearkened to you. If you had said: Come, and let us return him to his father, should we not have hearkened to you? In that hour, therefore, they arose and expelled him. How is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Gen. 38:1): JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 9:1

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.] This text is related (to Mal. 2:11): JUDAH HAS BEEN FAITHLESS, AND AN ABOMINATION HAS BEEN DONE IN ISRAEL. (Gen. R. 85:1.) What is the meaning of JUDAH HAS BEEN FAITHLESS? Judah had been deceitful. < It is > just as you say (in Mal. 2:14): < FOR THE LORD IS A WITNESS BETWEEN YOU (Judah) AND THE WIFE OF YOUR YOUTH >, WITH WHOM YOU HAVE BEEN FAITHLESS. Thus it says: Judah was deceitful. Over what was he deceitful? (Mal. 2:11, cont.:) FOR JUDAH HAS PROFANED THE SANCTUARY OF THE LORD. See (ibid., cont.): HE HAS MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF A FOREIGN GOD. Now it says elsewhere (in Ps. 114:2): JUDAH WAS HIS SANCTUARY, while it says here (in Mal. 2:11): FOR JUDAH HAS PROFANED < THE SANCTUARY OF THE LORD >. See (ibid., cont.): HE HAS MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF A FOREIGN GOD.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 10:3

(Gen. 37:35, cont.:) SO HIS FATHER WEPT FOR HIM. What is written next (in vs. 36)? BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT. The Holy One said to Judah: You have no children; therefore you do not know what the pain of children is. Now you have deceived your father and told him: Your son is dead. By your life, when you take a wife you shall bury your sons in order that you may know the pain of children. What is written next (in Gen. 38:1-10): NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME THAT < JUDAH >…. (The verses continue with the story of Judah's marriage to Shua, the birth of three sons, and the death of two of them.) It is also written (in Gen. 46:12): < AND THE SONS OF JUDAH: ER, ONAN, SHELAH, PEREZ, AND ZERAH >; BUT ER AND ONAN HAD DIED < IN THE LAND OF CANAAN >. Now all those years that Joseph had been away from his father, Jacob's mind had been against Judah. (Tanh., Gen. 11:9, specifically states in the parallel account, “It was in Jacob’s heart that Judah had killed him.” See also above.) From where do you learn that? From Benjamin, about whom Judah said to Joseph (in Gen. 44:32): FOR YOUR SERVANT HAS BECOME SURETY FOR THE LAD. Then, as soon as he had set his mind on Benjamin and Joseph had made himself known, Judah was found to be innocent, as stated (in Is. 11:13): THEN EPHRAIM'S JEALOUSY SHALL DEPART, < AND THOSE WHO HARASS JUDAH SHALL BE CUT OFF >…. Therefore (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM UNTO JOSEPH.

Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 22:1

Go, get thee down (Exod. 32:7). The sages said: Moses was actually excommunicated by the heavenly court at that time. Here it is said: Get thee down (red) as a rebuke, for the people had dealt corruptly, and elsewhere it is said: And Judah went down (vayered) from his brethren (Gen. 38:1). What is written preceding that? And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him (ibid. 37:35). But when he remained uncomforted they arose and excommunicated Judah. They said: “When you told us: ‘Come and let us sell him,’ we listened to you, but if you had told us: ‘Come, let us take him back,’ we would have listened to you. You are responsible for our father’s grief.” That is why they excommunicated him. Hence the word red (“get thee down”) implies excommunication.

Shemot Rabbah 42:3

Another matter: “Go descend” – Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: Moses was ostracized and rebuked. (He was distanced from God and sent down from the mountain, like one who is sent away in shame from a human court. ) “Descend” is nothing other than ostracism. From where do you derive this? When Joseph’s brothers sold him and they went to console their father, he was not consoled. They said: (The brothers said to each other. ) It was Judah who did all these things to us, for had he not sought it, we would not have sold him. Just as he said to us: ‘Do not kill him,’ and we heeded him, had he said: ‘Do not sell him,’ we would have heeded him. Instead, he said to us: “Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:27). They stood and ostracized him, as it is stated: “It was at that time, Judah descended from his brothers” (Genesis 38:1). It should have said only: “Judah went”; he was in descent from his brothers. (The reason it states “Judah descended” is to indicate that he did not merely leave. His brothers stripped him of his elevated status and ostracized him. ) Just as “descended [vayered]” that is stated there connotes ostracism, so too, “descend [red]” that is written here connotes ostracism. This is analogous to a province that sent an emissary to crown the king. Before he arrived, the residents of the province overturned the idols and stoned the images [of the king]. The prominent leaders of the province wrote to the king. (They informed him of what had occurred. ) The missives entered before the emissary entered to crown the king. The king said to him… (The text of the midrash does not include the end of the sentence, but the point is that the king turned back the emissary and informed him that he would not be seen due to the disloyal conduct of the residents of his province. ) “Your people…have acted corruptly” – were they Moses’s people? Rather, that is what the verse said: “Woe to them, as they have wandered from Me; plunder upon them, as they rebelled against Me. I would redeem them, but they have spoken lies about Me” (Hosea 7:13). They were separating themselves from Me, as it is stated: “Woe to them, as they have wandered from Me.” Is there a person who exchanges a good item for a bad item? A person before whom they place gems and coal, would he forsake the gems and take the coal? But they forsake the living of the world (The true, living God, who gives life to the entire world. ) and opt for the dead, as it is stated: “They have eyes, but do not see” (Psalms 115:5). (In worshipping the golden calf, the people chose an inanimate object over God. ) “Plunder upon them” – calamity is destined to befall them. “But they have spoken lies about Me” – what lies did they speak about the Holy One blessed be He? Rabbi Akiva expounded: They said: Was He engaged with us? It was with Himself that He was engaged. He redeemed Himself; He did not redeem us, as it is stated: “Nations and their gods from before Your people, whom You have redeemed for Yourself from Egypt” (II Samuel 7:23). The Rabbis say: “This is your god [that took you out of Egypt]” (Nehemiah 9:18) – it redeemed us. Rabbi Ḥagai ben Elazar says: It is not written here, “this is your god,” but rather, “these are your gods” (Exodus 32:4) – they included Him with them and said: God and the calf redeemed us. They lie about Me; [thus,] “I would redeem them, but they have spoken lies about Me.” I, too, say that they are not My people. That is why it is stated: “For your people…have acted corruptly.”

Musar

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman interprets Jeremiah 29:11 to emphasize that G-d's intentions are always for the good of the Jewish people, even when it may not seem that way. The sale of Joseph by his brothers, who were only concerned with getting rid of him, actually furthered G-d's plans. While Joseph, Reuben, and Jacob mourned their roles in the situation, Yehudah was focused on choosing a wife. Despite the apparent chaos, G-d was working to pave the way for the eventual arrival of the Messiah.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 41

Bereshit Rabbah 85, 1, commenting on Genesis 38, 1, the episode introducing Yehudah's marriage, etc., quotes Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman who interprets Jeremiah 29,11 in which G–d is on record that all His intentions are for the good of the Jewish people, even though it may not always appear thus to us. G–d also stresses that He is fully aware of our thoughts. The sale of Joseph is an example of how what appear to be plans and actions contrary to G–d's intentions are nonetheless furthering His plans. The brothers were concerned only with ridding themselves of Joseph and the danger they thought he represented to them. Joseph and Reuben, as well as Jacob, were each mourning their part in the fate that had befallen the other; Yehudah was busy choosing a wife. G–d, on the other hand, was busy paving the way for the eventual arrival of the Messiah.

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that Judah was brought down in esteem by his brothers after the sale of Joseph, while the midrash elaborates that the brothers blamed Judah for the incident despite his efforts to spare Joseph's life. Chizkuni notes that Joseph was the first Israelite to become enslaved in Egypt, but Peretz, the ancestor of the Messiah, was born before this event took place. Rashbam criticizes the interpretation of "the following describes events and problems which Yaakov encountered in his life" as nonsensical, arguing that the term "תולדות" introduces the names of grandchildren as seen in other biblical passages.

Chizkuni, Genesis 39:1:1

ויוסף הורד מצרימה, “meanwhile Joseph had been transported toward Egypt;” before the first Israelite became enslaved the eventual redeemer had been born. Peretz who was destined to become the ancestor of the Mashiach was born, and only after that does the Torah report about Joseph becoming a slave in Egypt. [Joseph clearly had been brought to Egypt about 21 years earlier, as we demonstrated in our commentary on Genesis 38,1. Ed.] Joseph was the first Israelite to become enslaved.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:2:2

אלה תולדות יעקב, “the following describes events and problems which Yaakov encountered in his life.” [by the way, Seforno, who lived hundreds of years later than Rash’bam, also accepts the interpretation described as nonsensical by Rash’bam. Ed.] This exegesis is nonsense. Whenever the expression תולדות occurs in the Bible, sometimes this word introduces the names of the grandsons of the party referred to, such as in Genesis 6,9 where the Torah after describing the righteousness of Noach tells us that Noach had three sons and proceeds to give us their names. The names of the sons could not be the purpose of the story there, as we had been told earlier in 5,32 that Noach at the age of 500 sired three sons and we were already told their names. The Torah then continues to describe mankind’s ongoing corruption and that Noach was the only one with whom G’d was pleased. When the Torah commences a second time with the line אלה תולדות נח in 6,9, clearly the Torah does not mean to repeat itself, but it leads to the Torah telling us of Noach’s grandchildren, something that is reported in greater detail in 10,1 under the heading of “and these are the generations of the sons of Noach.” [Perhaps the reason for the repetition of אלה תולדות בני נח in chapter 10, is that if, as the author says, the grandchildren were meant already in chapter 6, now after the deluge, the task of these children to generate a new mankind began in earnest, whereas up to that point they were charged with merely surviving the deluge. Ed.] Just as the Torah reported the growth and development of mankind after the deluge until we have a total of 70 such descendants of Noach being named, so in chapter 36,6 we have been told of the descendants of Esau who have been born in the land of Canaan, i.e. the land in which his father lived. After that, the Torah reported Esau’s further development in Mount Seir, commencing with verse 9 of that chapter. The Torah reports the development of Yaakov’s family in a parallel manner, 35,23 extending through verses 26-27 and listing all his children who had been born in exile, while he was in Padan Aram with Lavan. Now the Torah continues with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, concentrating forthwith on the grandchildren who combine to make up a total of 70 prior to the descent of the family to Egypt. Details of the birth of these various grandchildren are being provided, beginning with the chronicle of what happened to Joseph, who at 17 years of age experienced traumatic events, as a result of which his older brother Yehudah separated from the other brothers and started his own family in Keziv and Adulam, siring three sons, and grandsons respectively, i.e. Shelah, Peretz and Zerach. The history of Yaakov’s family became complicated further with Joseph having been brought to Egypt as a slave where Menashe and Ephrayim were born for him. Having attained high office, Joseph invited his father and family to join him in Egypt so that ultimately 70 members of Yaakov’s family wound up in Egypt. Moses had to record all this in order to substantiate his claim in Deuteronomy 10,22 that “your fathers descended to Egypt when they numbered only 70 persons.”

Rashi on Genesis 39:1:1

ויוסף הורד AND JOSEPH WAS BROUGHT DOWN — It (Scripture) now reverts to the original subject (and consequently it states ויוסף הורד “Joseph had been brought down to Egypt” before the events last mentioned); it interrupted it only in order to connect the account of the degradation of Judah (Genesis 38:1) with that of the sale of Joseph, thus suggesting that it was on account of him (i.e. Joseph — Judah’s part in the sale of Joseph — ) that they (his brothers) degraded him from his high position. A further reason why this narrative of Judah and Tamar is interpolated here is to place in juxtaposition the story of Potiphar’s wife and the story of Tamar, suggesting that just as this woman (Tamar) acted out of pure motives so also the other (Potiphar’s wife) acted out of pure motives, for she foresaw by her astrological speculations that she was destined to be the ancestress of children by him (Joseph) — but she did not know whether these children were to be hers or her daughter’s (Genesis Rabbah 85:2).

Tribal Lands, Chapter 5; Yehudah 16

Yet in the disastrous aftermath of their father’s unending grief, the brothers turned on Judah, attacking him for poor leadership. After the sale of Joseph, we are told: “About that time, Judah went down from his brothers… ” (Genesis 38:1). Rashi explains: “He was brought down in their esteem.”

Tribal Lands, Chapter 5; Yehudah 17

The midrash elaborates: Upon seeing Jacob’s sorrow, the brothers were filled with remorse, and blamed Judah for the whole affair. Judah defended himself, reminding them that he had counseled against killing Joseph; it was thanks in part to him that Joseph’s life was spared! But they retorted: “Had you told us to restore him to our father we would have done so – we follow your lead!” (Rashi, Genesis 38:1, based on Tan. B. VaYeshev 8; BR 85:3; DR 7:4. Philo commented explicitly that Judah was the leader of his brothers (De Josepho 32).)

Talmud

Rabbi Elazar explains that one who starts a mitzva but does not finish it is demoted from greatness, as seen in the case of Judah in Genesis 38:1. Rabbi Yosei teaches that phrases like "at the time" and "on the day when" indicate ordained times for calamity or good, as shown in verses from Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Exodus.

Sanhedrin 102a:5

The verse states: “At the time of their punishment, they shall perish” (Jeremiah 51:18). It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The phrase “at the time” indicates that it is a time ordained for calamity. The verse states: “In an acceptable time have I answered you” (Isaiah 49:8). It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The phrase “in an acceptable time” indicates that it is a time ordained for good. The verse states: “On the day when I punish, I will punish their sin upon them” (Exodus 32:34). It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The phrase “on the day when I punish” indicates that it is a time ordained for calamity. The verse states: “And it came to pass at that time, and Judah descended from his brothers” (Genesis 38:1). It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The phrase “at that time” indicates that it is a time ordained for calamity.

Sotah 13b:7

Rabbi Elazar says with regard to one who initiates performance of a mitzva but does not complete it when capable of doing so: He is also demoted [moridin] from his position of greatness, as it is written: “And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down [vayyered] from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah” (Genesis 38:1). Usage of the term “went down” indicates that the rest of Judah’s brothers had demoted him from his position of greatness because he began the process of saving Joseph, but he did not complete it.

Tanakh

David fled to the cave of Adullam, where his brothers and father's household joined him (I Samuel 22:1).

I Samuel 22:1

David departed from there and escaped to the cave (The “cave” in v. 1 is referred to as “stronghold” in vv. 4–5; cf. the same variation in 2 Sam. 23.13–14; 1 Chron. 11.15–16.) of Adullam; and when his brothers and all his father’s house heard, they joined him down there.

Targum

Yehudah separated from his brothers and went to a man named Chirah, an Adullamite.

Onkelos Genesis 38:1

And it was at that time, that Yehudah descended from his brothers. He turned away [from them], until [he came to] a man, an Adullamite, whose name was Chirah.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:1

It was at that time that Jehuda had gone down from his property, and separated himself from his brethren, and had inclined to a man an Adullemite whose name was Hira,

וַיַּרְא־שָׁ֧ם יְהוּדָ֛ה בַּת־אִ֥ישׁ כְּנַעֲנִ֖י וּשְׁמ֣וֹ שׁ֑וּעַ וַיִּקָּחֶ֖הָ וַיָּבֹ֥א אֵלֶֽיהָ׃ 2 J There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he took her [into his household as wife] and cohabited with her.
Ramban explains that "Canaanite" in Genesis 38:2 refers to a merchant, not an actual Canaanite, to clarify Judah did not marry a Canaanitish woman. Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Or HaChaim, Radak, Tur HaArokh, and Rabbeinu Bahya support this interpretation, with Siftei Chakhamim adding that Jacob's sons would not marry Canaanites. Tamar was not a Canaanite, and Ibn Ezra believes Judah's sons were evil due to marrying Canaanites. The Talmud discusses whether a merchant can be referred to as a Canaanite, citing examples from Genesis 38:2 and other verses. In the Second Temple period, Tamar's story is idealized and allegorized, with Rabbinical comments showing little admiration for her, but recognizing her role in the lineage of David and the Messiah.

Commentary

Ramban explains that the term "Canaanite" in Genesis 38:2 refers to a merchant, not an actual Canaanite, to clarify that Judah did not marry a Canaanitish woman. Ibn Ezra suggests that "Canaanite" could be taken literally or as a merchant, while Rashbam, Or HaChaim, and Radak agree that it refers to a merchant. Tur HaArokh and Rabbeinu Bahya support the idea that Judah did not marry a Canaanite woman, and Siftei Chakhamim explains that the sons of Jacob would not marry Canaanites. Tamar was also not a Canaanite, and Ibn Ezra believes that Judah's sons were evil due to marrying Canaanites.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:2:1

בת שוע, איש כנעני, “Bat Shua, daughter of a merchant. She was not a Canaanite, as the sons of Yaakov would not marry women of this nation.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:2:1

A CERTAIN CANAANITE. Some say that kena’ani (Canaanite) means a merchant, (The commentators were bothered by Judah marrying a Canaanite woman. Hence their interpretation.) as in As for the trafficker (kena’an), the balances of deceit are in his hand (Hos. 12:8) and in, and in that day there shall be no more a trafficker (kena’ani) in the house of the Lord of Hosts (Zech. 14:21), wherein the word trafficker is spelled with a yod as in our verse. However, it is possible that the word kena’ani is to be taken literally. (It means a Canaanite.) Our sages said, that Judah went down (v. 1) means that Judah was demoted from his leadership. (He thus went down from his exalted position. Cf. Soteh 13b.) However, this is a Midrashic interpretation. The Bible says that Judah went down because whoever goes from north to south is going down. (North is above south. I.E. was of the opinion that Jacob and his family dwelt north of Adullam (Weiser).) Those acquainted with science will understand that what I say is correct.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:2:1

בת איש כנעני. the daughter of a Canaanite. The word "Canaanite" means a trader. Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that the word Canaanite is to be understood in the usual way, i.e. a local inhabitant of the Canaanite tribes. I maintain that it is impossible to imagine that any of the sons of Jacob would intermarry with the Canaanites, something which their forefathers had so strenuously opposed, as pointed out specifically in Pessachim 50. The Torah was careful to say "the daughter of a Canaanite man," meaning that she herself was not a Canaanite woman. This is only possible if her father was a merchant, not an actual Canaanite. Had she been a Canaanite, Yehudah would have been guilty of a great misdemeanour by marrying her. If this had indeed been the case the Torah would have indicated it by writing "he married a Canaanite woman whose father was called Shua," or something similar. It would not even have required an additional word to inform us of that fact. The Torah should not have let us surmise that Yehudah married a Canaanite woman but should have spelled it out clearly.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:2:2

ויקחיה, he married her, etc. He performed all the necessary legal requirements for marriage.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:2:1

בת איש כנעני , “the daughter of a Canaanite man of distinction.” According to Onkelos the word כנעני in this instance refers to a merchant, a trader. Yehudah was certainly true to the tradition of his fathers not to marry girls of Canaanite descent. The respective wives of all the brothers may be presumed to have been of Egyptian descent or of Moabite and Ammonite descent respectively, neighboring peoples who were not from Canaanitic stock. The brothers may also have married descendants of Ishmael or Keturah, Avraham’s second wife who had born him six sons. This is the reason that we are told in 46,10 amongst the list of sons of Shimon that there was someone who is described as שאול בן הכנענית, “Saul the son of a Canaanite woman.” Even when the Torah was so explicit, our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 80:11) still explained that that woman was not a true Canaanite, claiming that the “Canaanite woman” was none other than Dinah who had been raped by a Canaanite and that Shimon had married her and had adopted the son she bore as a result of this rape.

Radak on Genesis 38:2:1

בת איש כנעני, we do not know why the woman’s name has not been mentioned although the Torah revealed the name of her father. Her father was a merchant, a resident stranger, an export-import merchant, not a member of one of the local tribes. The sons of Yaakov were very careful in avoiding intermarriage with the local population, and when one of them did so, Shimon, his son Sha-ul is mentioned in a derogatory fashion as the “son of Canaanite” in 46,10. This critical comment on Shimon’s wife sets him apart from all of his brothers.

Radak on Genesis 38:2:2

ויקחה, he first legally married her before having marital relations with her, i.e. ויבא אליה.

Radak on Genesis 38:2:3

וירא, it appears that she was very attractive physically and therefore appeared to him as an appropriate mate.

Ramban on Genesis 38:2:1

A DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE. [In translating “Canaanite,” Onkelos said “merchant.” That is to say, a merchantman who came to dwell in the land of Canaan for business reasons. His intent is to say that Jacob’s sons guarded themselves from marrying Canaanitish women, as Isaac and Abraham, their fathers, had commanded. (Above, 28:1. 24:3.) And thus did the Sages mention in the Gemara of Tractate Pesachim. (Pesachim 50a.) They took as wives women from Egypt, Ammon, Moab, and from the noble families of the children of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. It is for this reason that Scripture singles out Shaul, the son of Simeon, as the son of a Canaanitish woman, (Further, 46:10. ) as he was the only one among them. And even there the Rabbis expounded (Bereshith Rabbah 80:10. ) that the reference is to Dinah who had relations with a Canaanite [Shechem]. Our Rabbis, however, have differed in this matter. Thus they have said: (Ibid., 84:19.) “Rabbi Yehudah says, ‘Twin sisters were born with each of Jacob’s sons, and they took them as wives.’ Rabbi Nechemyah says, ‘Their wives were Canaanitish women.’” It is possible that Rabbi Nechemyah was not particular about [ the term “Canaanitish” and did not mean it to indicate] their genealogy. He meant to say only that they took women from the land of Canaan as wives. However, they were from among the strangers and the sojourners who had come there from all lands, either Ammonite or Moabite women, and other peoples. His purpose (Ramban is pointing out that Rabbi Nechemyah agrees with the Talmudic sages who said that Jacob’s sons did not marry Canaanitish women. See Note 108.) was only to differ with Rabbi Yehudah and say that they did not marry their sisters, since a maternal sister is forbidden to the sons of Noah. But according to Rabbi Yehudah it will be necessary to say that the sons of Leah married the twin sisters of the six other brothers, (This is because “the sons of Noah” were forbidden to marry a maternal sister. Prior to the giving of the Torah on Sinai, our ancestors had the status of b’nei Noach (sons of Noah). Consequently they could marry a paternal sister but not a maternal sister. See Sanhedrin 58 a; Rambam, Hilchoth Melachim 9:5.) and they in turn wed the twin sisters of the sons of Leah. It may be that Rabbi Nechemyah does not at all admit the existence of these twins, with Jacob not having any daughter other than Dinah, as the literal interpretation of Scripture would indicate. It is not logically correct to say that they all married Canaanitish women since there would then have been descendants of Canaan, the accursed servant, among those who inherited the land, just as there were representatives of the seed of Abraham, and Scripture has commanded that he be destroyed until neither remnant nor survivor remain. In any case, (I.e., whatever the correct opinion be in the matter discussed above.) this man [the Canaanite referred to here] was a merchant, for why should Scripture find it necessary to state that he was a Canaanite by descent when all people of the land were Canaanites, of the Perizzites and Jebusites and their brothers, as all of these traced their genealogy to Canaan? Adullam, [from where this man came] furthermore, was in the land of Canaan. (In Joshua 12:15, the king of Adullam is mentioned among the kings of Canaan. Thus if the word “Canaanite” is to be understood literally, why should Scripture have even mentioned it?) It would then have been proper for the verse to say: “And Judah took there a wife with such-and-such a name,” just as it mentions the names of the women in the case of Tamar, and Esau’s wives, (Above, 26:34.) and others. But the true explanation is that he was a merchant, not of the land of Canaan, which belonged to the Hivite or the Amorite. This then is the meaning of the verse: And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, implying that he married her on account of her father. (This is implied in the expression, And he saw there, meaning that he saw a man there who was not of the regular community. The word “Canaanite” must therefore mean merchant, for they were all Canaanites, and if “Canaanite” were to refer to his genealogy it would not be significant enough to be mentioned.) And concerning the verse which states, The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah; which three were born unto him of Bath-shua the Canaanitess, (I Chronicles 2:3. This would seem to indicate that she was indeed a Canaanitess.) this is due to the fact that being the daughter of the man called “the Canaanite,” she was also so called, since this man was called “the merchant” by them as he was known for, and expert in, his trade, on account of which he settled there. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says (In his commentary on Genesis 46:10.) that because this woman was a Canaanitess, and Judah had transgressed the opinion of his fathers, her children were evil and they died. And this is why concerning Shaul, (Further, 46:10. ) Scripture mentions only that he was the son of a Canaanitish woman, but with respect to Shelah the son of Judah it was not necessary for Scripture to mention it (Since it is so stated in this present chapter. Shaul, on the other hand, was not mentioned above. Hence in mentioning the seventy souls, it states that he was of a Canaanitish woman (46:10). These are the words of Ibn Ezra, and Ramban now proceeds to comment upon them.) [when enumerating the descendants of Jacob who entered Egypt]. If so, (If Judah, according to Ibn Ezra, went against the command of Abraham and Isaac.) the expression, And Judah saw there a daughter, would mean that he saw her and desired her, even as it says of Samson, And he saw a woman in Timnah. (Judges 14:1.) And in the Parshah of Vayechi Yaakov, Rashi wrote: “And his sons bore him, (Further, 50:13.) but not his sons’ sons. For thus indeed did Jacob command them; ‘My bier shall not be borne by any of your sons since they are children of Canaanitish women.’” (Now this text of Rashi would apparently contradict the opinion of Ibn Ezra who states that only Shaul the son of Simeon, and Shelah the son of Judah, were born of Canaanitish women. Ramban, however, proceeds to reconcile the position of Rashi with that of Ibn Ezra.) It may be that, according to Rashi, Jacob said this of Shaul the son of Simeon, and Shelah the son of Judah, who were of the daughters of Canaan, and therefore Jacob excluded all the other [grandsons although their mothers were not Canaanitish]. However, in all of our texts of Bereshith Rabbah (Mentioned in Yalkut Shimoni 161.) we find this version: “My bier shall not be borne by any of your sons’ sons, as there is among them of the daughters of Canaan.” (The Midrash there concludes: “For it is said, And Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman (46:10).” Thus it is clear from this Midrash that only Shaul was born of a Canaanitish woman, but not Shelah the son of Judah.) Tamar likewise was the daughter of one of the strangers living in the land, not the daughter of a man who was a Canaanite by descent. Far be it that our lord David (He was a descendant of Tamar and Judah through Peretz, who was the ancestor of David. See Ruth 4:15-22.) and the Messiah our just one, who will speedily reveal himself to us, be of the seed of Canaan, the accursed servant. Our Rabbis have also said (Bereshith Rabbah 85:11.) concerning Tamar that she was the daughter of Shem, of whom it is said, And he was a priest of the most high G-d. (Above, 14:18.)

Rashbam on Genesis 38:2:1

כנעני, a merchant, as per Onkelos. The word appears in that sense both in Isaiah 23,8 כנעניה נכבדי ארץ, “as its merchants, the land’s nobles.” The word כנעני also occurs in this sense in Hoseah 12,8 כנען בידו מאזני מרמה, “a trader who uses false weights.” The word cannot refer to the local Canaanite inhabitants as the sons of Yaakov were very careful not to intermarry with these people.

Rashi on Genesis 38:2:1

כנעני means A MERCHANT — (cf. Pesachim 50a and Zachariah 14:21).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:2:1

A merchant. You might ask: How does Rashi know that this term refers to a merchant? Perhaps Shua was an actual Canaanite. The answer is: Avraham did not want to give Yitzchok a Canaanite wife, and also Yitzchok commanded Yaakov not to marry one, so Yaakov’s sons surely would not [marry a Canaanite] either. But you might object: Rashi explained on 37:35, “R. Nechemiah says: ‘They [Yaakov’s daughters-in-law] were Canaanites,’” implying the sons did marry Canaanites. The answer is: Men from a different nation took Canaanite women and begat daughters, [whom Yaakov’s sons married], for these daughters were not [true] Canaanites because the lineage follows the father. But here it cannot be explained so, since it is written, “The daughter of a Canaanite man,” implying that the father was Canaanite.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:2

Judah saw there, in Adulam, the daughter of a Canaanite man, and his name was Shua. He took her in marriage, and engaged in intercourse with her.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:2:1

בת איש כנען, “daughter of a Canaanite named Shu’a.” Onkelos translates the word איש כנעני not as an ethnic description, but as the description given to “traders.” He wants to be sure that we know that none of the brothers married a Canaanite woman. This is the reason why the Torah singled out “Sha-ul, son of the Canaanite,” in 46,10 among the sons of Shimon as an exception. This subject has already been the subject of disagreement of Tannaim in the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah claiming that twin sisters had been born with all of the twelve brothers, enabling them to marry half sisters, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah holds that the brothers other than Joseph, married Canaanite women. Rabbi Yehudah is forced to have the brothers marry half sisters, something permitted to Israelites before the Torah was given, whereas according to Rabbi Nechemyah we would have to presume that all these twin sisters died before their husbands moved to Egypt, as otherwise, how come they are not included in the list of descendants of Yaakov who moved to Egypt? If we approach the subject logically, it is hard to understand how sons of Yaakov could marry women of a cursed nation such as the Canaanites. It is therefore most likely that Onkelos was correct in translating the word איש כנעני as “a prominent trader.” This would also account for the Torah writing ‘Yehudah saw there, etc.” Had this girl been an ethnic Canaanite, what was so special in Yehudah “seeing” her? They were a dime a dozen! She struck him as not belonging to the true inhabitants of that region. It is possible to understand Rabbi Nechemyah as not meaning that the brothers actually married ethnic Canaanites. He may only have wanted to dispute the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that the brothers committed what was incest in terms of Torah legislation. Not only this, but half sisters from the same mother were also forbidden even before the Torah was given. There is little doubt that among the inhabitants of the land of Canaan there were also a minority of Moabites and Ammonites who did not belong to descendants of Canaan who had been cursed. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason Yehudah had sons who were not loyal to their father and grandfather’s tradition was that he had married a Canaanite, and that this was the reason they died so young. This was also the reason the Torah criticized Shimon for having sired Sha-ul from a Canaanite mother [not necessarily his wife, Ed.]. If not for this reason, why would the Torah have singled out the maternity of Sha-ul as the only one of Yaakov’s grandchildren? According to the approach of Ibn Ezra, we would have to understand the line: “Yehudah saw there the daughter of a prominent Canaanite, etc.,” as Yehudah taking an instant liking to that woman, much as Shimshon took an instant liking to the Philistine woman in Judges 14,1 something described by the prophet Samuel as “Shimshon descended to Timnatah, where he saw a woman of the daughters of the Philistines, etc.” According to Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 50,13 וישאו אותו בניו , that “Yaakov’s sons carried his bier,” the absence of mention of Yaakov’s grandsons as pall bearers is due to Yaakov having forbidden Egyptians to be pall bearers as well as his grandsons, seeing they had been born of Canaanite mothers. He had referred at least to Shelah son of Yehudah and a Canaanite, and Shau-l son of Shimon and a Canaanite. In order not to slight these grandsons, he precluded all of them from being his pall bearers. [Tanchumah on Numbers12 explains why also Joseph and Levi were excluded from that task. Ed.]

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:2:2

ער ואונן, some commentators trace the origin of these names to ערירי and אנינות, “childlessness, and pre burial state of mourning.” They had been named so, out of deference to Yaakov’s painful memories of the son he presumed lost. Nachmanides explains that Yehudah called his son ער, as a symbol of awakening, עוררה, whereas his wife called the second son אונן, and the Torah did not bother to inform us why either son was named as he was. It is possible that the wife of Yehudah had a difficult birth with her second son, just as Rachel called her second son by a name that reflected the pains she experienced in order to give birth to him. The word is closely related to the word מתאוננים in Numbers 11,1, where it describes deep frustration of the people and deep dissatisfaction. Yehudah, unlike his father Yaakov, did not bother to change the name his wife had given to their son. According to Bereshit Rabbah 85,4 the name ער foreshadows that the boy would be “poured out from the world,” הוער, whereas the name אונן foreshadows that this child would bring sorrow and mourning upon himself, i.e. אנינה.

Midrash

Jacob was 63 when he was blessed, Ishmael died, and Nebaioth married off his sister to Esau. Jacob hid for 14 years, served Eber, went to Aram-Naharaim, stayed in Laban's house for 20 years, and had all the tribes born in seven years besides Benjamin. Judah saw the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua, married her, and had three sons. Er was wicked and died, Onan brought mourning, and Shela initiated a genealogy. Er withdrew during intercourse to avoid impregnating his wife.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:4

“And turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” – the Rabbis say: Ḥira is Ḥiram who was in the days of David, as it is stated: “For Ḥiram had been David’s friend all the days” (I Kings 5:15) – this man was accustomed to being a friend of this tribe. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Ḥiram was someone else. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, he lived close to one thousand two hundred years; according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda [ben Rabbi Simon], he lived close to five hundred years. (Both opinions agree that Hiram was the prince of Tyre who was addressed by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 28:2) almost five hundred years after the time of David (see Yalkut Shimoni, Va’era 180) The debate is whether Ḥiram was also the same person as the Ḥira in the time of Judah, five hundred or so years before David.) “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her” (Genesis 38:2). “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua” – the daughter (The Hebrew text has the word son, rather than daughter, but many suggest that the text should say daughter (see, e.g., Etz Yosef). ) of a merchant, (This opinion interprets kenaani, generally translated as Canaanite, to mean merchant, which is in fact how the term is used in some places in Bible (see, e.g., Isaiah 23:8). Accordingly, Judah followed the family tradition of not marrying Canaanites. ) the shining light of his place. “She conceived, and she bore a son; he called his name Er” (Genesis 38:3). “She conceived, and she bore a son; he (Although the most common text of the midrash says “she”, the actual text of the verse is “he”. ) called his name Er” – as he was discharged [shehuar] from the world. “She conceived again, and bore a son; she called his name Onan. She continued and bore a son again, and called his name Shela; and he was in Keziv when she bore him” (Genesis 38:4–5). “She conceived again…Onan” – as he brought acute mourning [anina] upon himself. “She conceived again.… Shela” – as he initiated a genealogy [shenishtalshel] in the world. (This translation is based on a variant reading, “in the world [baolam],” instead of “from the world [min haolam].”) “She continued…again…Keziv” – Poskat, (This is the Aramaic name for Keziv.) the name of a place. “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death” (Genesis 38:7). “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord” – he would plow in the gardens and discharge in the waste. (This is a euphemism for the fact that he would begin intercourse with his wife but then withdraw before discharging the semen so as to avoid impregnating her.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 10:1

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE >.] This text is related (to Micah 1:15): I WILL YET BRING TO YOU ONE WHO SHALL DISPOSSESS YOU, < O INHABITANT OF MARESHAH; TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE GLORY OF ISRAEL >. (Rashi on Gen. 37:35; see Gen. R. 85:1.) R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differed. The one said: The tribal patriarchs married their sisters, since it is stated (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS (According to R. Judah, the plural here shows that Jacob had more than one daughter.) AROSE TO COMFORT HIM. And how many daughters were there? They were simply their < brothers' twelve > twin sisters. < A given brother's mother > bore twins at his < birth >, and he would marry her. Moreover, it says so about Benjamin (in Gen. 35:17): BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU. (Gen. R. 82:8.) "Because this is a son for you" is not stated, but BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU, since his mother had < already > given birth to < his > twin sister. Ergo (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROSE…. Hence you learn that they married their sisters. But R. Nehemiah maintains: His daughters were his daughters-in-law. Since one's son-in-law is like his son, and his daughter-in-law, like a daughter, one does not refrain from calling his daughter-in-law his daughter. (Gen. R. 84:21.) Our masters have said: Judah, who was the eldest in his father's house, married a Canaanite. Thus it is written (in Gen. 38:2): AND JUDAH SAW THERE < THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE >. And the prophet proclaims (in Micah 1:15): TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE (HOLY ONE) [GLORY] OF ISRAEL. Ergo (according to Gen. 38:1-2): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS > AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE < WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH. AND JUDAH SAW THERE THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE WHOSE NAME WAS SHUA. SO HE TOOK HER AND WENT IN UNTO HER >.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:13

Another interpretation (continuing in Gen. 38:2): AND JUDAH SAW THERE < THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE >. There is the one who committed fornication and profited; there is also the one who committed fornication and lost. < There is the one who killed and profited; there is also the one who killed and lost. There is the one who stole and profited; there is also the one who stole and lost. There is the one who stole and lost, i.e., Achan (of Joshua 7). There is the one who stole and profited, i.e., Rachel, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 31:19): SO RACHEL STOLE. There is the one who killed and lost (in Numb. 35:16): THE MURDERER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. There is the one who killed and profited, i.e., Phinehas (of Numb. 25:7-13) >. (This section in angle brackets (< >) is taken from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34. The shorter Buber text, which has Phinehas stealing instead of killing, reads as follows: “There is the one who stole and profited; there is also the one who stole and lost. There is the one who stole and profited. This is Phinehas. There is the one who stole and lost. This is Achan (of Joshua 7).”) There is the one who committed fornication and lost. This is Zimri (of Numb. 25:6-14). There is the one who committed fornication and profited. This is Judah, since from him arose Perez and Hezron, who were going to sire < the line of > David (according to Ruth 4:18-21) and the Messianic King, who is going to redeem Israel. Look at how many episodes the Holy One brings about before he raises up the Messianic King from Judah! That is the one about whom it is written (in Is. 11:2): AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD SHALL REST UPON HIM.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 9:2

(Gen. 38:2:) AND JUDAH SAW THERE THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE WHOSE NAME WAS SHUA. When? When he had separated from his brothers, as stated (in vs. 1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Seder Olam Rabbah 2:2

Our forefather Jacob was 63 when he was blessed. Ishmael died at that time as is written, "Esau saw that Isaac had blessed...Jacob listened to his father...Esau saw [the Canaanite women] were bad [in the eyes of Isaac]...Esau went to Ishmael..."(Genesis 28:9). There seems no need for the verse to state "sister of Nebaioth." What do we learn from the fact that it says "sister of Nebaioth"? We learn that Ishmael died and Nebaioth [Ishmael's firstborn therefore] married off his sister to Esau. Jacob our forefather hid [from Esau] 14 years in the land of Israel and served Eber. Eber died two years after Jacob went to Aram-Naharaim. [Jacob] left and went to Aram-Naharaim and he was found by the well when he was 77 years old and he was in Laban's house for 20 years: 7 before he married any matriarchs, 7 from when he married in the Matriarchs and 6 years after the 11 tribes and Dinah were born. It comes out that all the tribes were born in seven years besides Benjamin. Each and every one each 7 months. He left Aram-Naharaim and came to Succoth and stayed there 18 months as is written "And Jacob went to Succoth" (Genesis 33:17). He left Succoth and went to Bet El and made 6 new encampments close to the place.

Musar

In Shenei Luchot HaBerit, it is mentioned that our sages in Kidushin 41 derive the rule that one must not marry a woman until one has seen her from the verse "וירא שם יודא בת איש כנעני" in Vayeshev.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Derekh Chayim, Vayeshev 13

וירא שם יודא בת איש כנעני . From this verse, our sages in Kidushin 41 derive the rule that one must not marry a woman until one has seen her.

Quoting Commentary

Yaakov did not want his grandsons to be pallbearers at his funeral because some of them were born to Canaanite women. Rashi explains that Ephrayim and Menashe acted as pallbearers instead of Levi and Joseph because Yaakov had described them as being like his sons. Yehudah married a Canaanite woman, despite his ancestors' concerns about intermarrying with Canaanites. The Talmud suggests that Canaanite can also mean "trader," explaining Yehudah's wife's lineage. Chizkuni suggests that Yaakov's twin daughters died prematurely, leading his sons to marry Canaanite women. Joseph's coffin and the Holy Ark are described as carrying themselves, explaining how Moses, a Levite, could carry Joseph's coffin at the Exodus.

Chizkuni, Genesis 50:13:1

וישאו אותו בניו, “His sons carried him, etc;” only his sons, not any of his grandsons as they had Canaanite mothers. We have read in the Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 50, “are we to assume that Yehudah’s wife (Genesis 38,2) was really a Canaanite, in spite of the fact that Avraham had gone to great length to insure that Eliezer would not select a Canaanite wife for his son Yitzchok? (Genesis 24,3 Yitzchok) Yitzchok had similarly instructed his son Yaakov. The answer given by the Talmud is that the word Canaanite also means: “trader,” and that the Torah told us in Genesis 38,2 that Yehudah’s wife was the daughter of a well known trader, named Shua. If you were to counter how this can be squared with the opinion expressed on Genesis 37,35 where we read about Yaakov’s “sons and daughters all trying to comfort Yaakov over the disappearance and presumed death of Joseph,” that all of Yaakov’s sons had twin girls born with them, so why did Yehudah not marry one of them or a granddaughter of Yaakov? We must assume that all of these twin daughters died prematurely so that the sons of Yaakov had no other option but to marry Canaanite girls. To the additional question why they could not at least have married the children of Shimon of whom we know that he had a son by a Canaanite woman (Genesis 46,10)? B‘reshit Rabbah 80,10 suggests that Shaul borne to Shimon was actually a son of Sh’chem who had raped Dinah; one opinion offered is that Shimon buried that offspring in the land of Canaan before the brothers descended to Egypt and that this is why he is referred to as son of a Canaanite. Getting back to the question why the grandsons of Yaakov were not part of the pall bearers, of the grandfather; Joseph did not wish to do anything that could arouse jealousies among them, some being biologically qualified others not; seeing that no one would be jealous of Ephrayim and Menashe who were princes, he did not object to their being pall bearers. (They would also be founding fathers of tribes in the future) Moreover, Rashi says that Levi was not among the pall bearers, as he would be carrying the Holy Ark. More questions are raised as to how Moses could carry the coffin of Joseph at the Exodus, seeing that he too was a Levite. A suggestion is offered that Joseph’s coffin, similar to the Holy Ark, did not actually need pall bearers as it carried itself, similar to the Holy Ark which is described as carrying its bearers. (based on a verse in Psalms 80,2: כצאן יוסף יושב הכרובים, (Compare more about this in Moshav z’keynim)

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:35:1

וכל בנותיו, “and all of his daughters;” according to Rabbi Yehudah, twin sisters had been born for Yaakov with the birth of all of his sons. These had been married by their respective half-brothers, sons of different mothers. According to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah, all the sons married wives of Canaanite origin. If he were correct, why does the Torah in our verse not speak of “all his daughter-in-law?“ Rabbi Nechemyah, aware of this, would reply, that in the whole world daughters-in-law are referred to as daughters. (B‘reshit Rabbah 84,21) [Naomi, in the Book of Ruth, certainly is not described as calling her daughters-in-law, “daughters.” Ed.] It is difficult to understand Rabbi Nechemyah, as we all know to what length Avraham had gone to prevent Yitzchok from marrying a wife of Canaanite descent. Yitzchok too had commanded Yaakov not to marry a woman of Canaanite descent and had sent him all the way to Charan to avoid such a union. (Genesis 28,1) Nonetheless, Yehudah married a woman of Canaanite descent. (Genesis 38,2 ברת גבר תגרא, (daughter of a business man, according to Onkelos איש כנעני means business man, traveling salesman) Onkelos therefore accepts the view of Rabbi Yehudah, who said that twin daughters were born with all of Yaakov’s sons.) This is also how we have to understand Genesis 46,10: ושאול בן הכנענית, “and Sha-ul, son of a female merchant.” According to Rabbi Nechemyah’s approach to the subject, there is no need for what sound like far fetched solutions to our problem. The word כנעני or כנענית in either of the verses that bothered us, are simply understood as elsewhere in the Bible, as people of Canaanite descent. We do have a problem if we accept Rabbi Yehudah’s interpretation, an interpretation lacking specific sources in the written text. The Talmud, tractate Yumah folio 28, states that Avaraham had voluntarily observed all the commandments in the written and oral Torah, even including the rabbinic commandment known as eyruv tavshilin, a method of how to prepare food when the day after a festival is a Sabbath, and preparation of food on the festival for the Sabbath is not admissible. He is also supposed to have observed the law of yibbum, marrying the widow of a brother who died without having ever had any children. (Compare Genesis 38,8) where Yehudah, Er’s father, gave Er’s widow Tamar to Onan, his brother, as a wife, in order for him to become posthumously and vicariously a father. If these laws were operative prior to the Torah having been revealed at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people, how could Yaakov have married two sisters while the first sister had still been alive? Also, how could any of the sons of Yaakov have married their sisters? We could answer that although these laws were already known by tradition since Avraham’s time, they had not become obligatory until after revealed at Mount Sinai. Our forefathers were free to choose the parts of the commandments they wished to observe voluntarily even they had been privy to them through the Holy Spirit. When the Talmud in Pessachim, folio 119, tells us that in the future (afterlife) at the meal prepared by G–d for the righteous, that when Yaakov was being honoured presiding over the grace after the meal, he declined the honour, saying that seeing he had wed two sisters while both were alive, he was not worthy of that honour. Clearly he considered what he had done as having been improper. It is possible to argue that having been aware that what he had done would qualify for a penalty if he would do so after the revelation at Mount Sinai, he felt that he deserved at least a minor penalty. If he decided in favour of committing an act deserving of a minor penalty, he did so because he wished to marry only wives who were personally righteous, and these were hard to find, especially considering the age at which he had a chance to get married. As it turned out, even one of these two sisters who was a righteous woman did not by herself bore for him all the twelve tribes.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 50:12:1

ויעשו בניו לו כן כאשר צום, ”his sons did for him exactly in accordance with his instructions.” Rashi understands the emphasis in our verse as being the word בניו “his sons,” i.e. that his grandsons were not to be pallbearers. Some of these grandsons had been mothered by Canaanite women, and Yaakov did not want to be carried by them. If so, it seems hard to understand that Yaakov, while alive and much younger, had not forbidden his sons to marry such women, seeing that Avraham and Yitzchok had both been very concerned about this. Not only this, but Rashi himself on Genesis 38,2 where Yehudah’s marriage to the daughter of a “Canaanite” man by the name of Shua is reported, goes out of his way to explain that the word “Canaanite” in that verse is not an ethnic description but means: “a trader.” It is possible that among Yaakov’s grandchildren there were at least some who had been born to Canaanite mothers, such as “Sha-ul son of the Canaanite” in Genesis (adoptee of Shimon?) As to Rashi explaining that Ephrayim and Menashe acted as pallbearers in lieu of Levi and Joseph, although they too were grandsons of Yaakov, this is no problem, Yaakov having explicitly described both Ephrayim and Menashe as being just like Reuven and Shimon (his sons) in every respect. (Genesis 48,5)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 65

“The daughter of a certain Canaanite” [38:2]. Judah married a wife, the daughter of a merchant. (Ramban, Genesis, 38:2.)

Second Temple

Tamar's story is idealized and allegorized in various texts, with Rabbinical comments collected in Strack and Billerbeck's Talmudic commentary on Matthew 1:3 showing little admiration for her. Despite the shocking nature of the story, Tamar is seen as overruled by Providence, as her pure bloodline descended from Shem and her union with Judah produced offspring fit to be the progenitor of David and the Messiah.

On the Virtues, Appendix 45

§ 221. Tamar. “The story of Tamar,” says Cohn, “is greatly idealized.” In the allegorizing of her story in De Fug. 149 ff., De Mut. 134 ff. and elsewhere, we do not expect any censure. But this beatification of the actress in what to our minds is a peculiarly shocking story outdoes the other extravagances of the De Nobilitate. A number of Rabbinical comments are collected in Strack and Billerbeck’s Talmudic commentary on Matthew 1:3. I do not think they show much signs of admiration for Tamar, though the sin of her and Judah is regarded as overruled by Providence. One reason for this seems to be as follows: Tamar was believed to be of pure blood descended from Shem (quite in opposition to Philo). Judah had married a Canaanite (Gen. 38:2) and her sons were tainted. The union between him and Tamar produced the offspring which was fit to be the progenitor of David and the Messiah.

Talmud

The Talmud discusses whether a merchant can be referred to as a kena'ani, citing examples from Genesis 38:2 and Hosea 12:8 and Isaiah 23:8 to support this interpretation.

Pesachim 50a:15

And from where do we derive that a merchant can be called a kena’ani? As it is written: “And Judah saw there the daughter of a certain kena’ani…and he took her, and went in unto her” (Genesis 38:2). What is the meaning of the word kena’ani in this context? If you say it refers to an actual Canaanite, is it possible that Abraham warned Isaac not to marry a Canaanite woman, and Isaac warned Jacob to the same effect, and nonetheless Judah went and married a Canaanite woman? Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: She was the daughter of a merchant, as it is written: “As for the merchant [kena’an], the balances of deceit are in his hand. He loves to oppress” (Hosea 12:8). And if you wish, say instead that this meaning of the word can be understood from the following verse, which describes Tyre: “Whose traders are princes, whose merchants [kinaneha] are the honorable of the earth” (Isaiah 23:8).

Targum

Yehudah saw the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shu’a, married her, and proselyted her according to the Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:2.

Onkelos Genesis 38:2

There Yehudah saw the daughter of a Canaanite man [merchant] whose name was Shu’a. He took her and consummated a marriage with her.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:2

that Jehudah saw there the daughter of a merchant man whose name was Shuva, and he proselyted her, and entered with her.

וַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֑ן וַיִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ עֵֽר׃ 3 J She conceived and bore a son, and he named him Er.
Judah named his first son Er and his wife named their second son Onan, with the Rabbis suggesting that Er's name indicated his fate of being thrown off from the world. The Midrash draws parallels between Joseph and Zion, while the Targum states that Tamar named her son Er because he was destined to die childless.

Commentary

Judah named his first son Er, which means "Stir up Thy might," while his wife named their second son Onan, which suggests grief and mourning. It is possible that Onan's name was chosen due to a difficult labor experience, as women often named their children after such experiences. The Rabbis suggested that Er's name indicated his fate of being thrown off from the world, as he died due to his sin. Judah's wife named their third son, as Judah was not present at the time of his birth.

Radak on Genesis 38:3:1

ותהר ותלד, Yehudah named the first son, whereas his wife named the second son. This appears to have been the custom at that time. The third son actually should have been named by Yehudah again, but seeing that Yehudah was in Keziv at the time of his birth, Yehudah’s wife named him. This is why the Torah explains the departure from the norm by writing of Yehudah that he was in Keziv.

Ramban on Genesis 38:3:1

AND HE CALLED HIS NAME ER. Judah called his son Er, said name being derived from the expression, Stir up (‘Or’rah’) Thy might. (Psalms 80:3.) His wife called the name of the second son Onan, (A word which suggests grief and mourning. Ramban makes the point that the name Judah chose for his son can easily be surmised, as it suggests strength. But why his wife should choose a name like “Onan” is not indicated.) but Scripture does not relate the reason for this name. Now it is possible that she experienced difficult labor, for it is customary for women to name their children after such an experience, as did the mother of Jabez who so named him, saying: Because I bore him with pain. (I Chronicles 4:9. The name “Yavetz” contains the Hebrew letters of atzev (pain).) And so did Atarah, the mother of Onam, (Ibid., 2:26.) [call him by the name Onam on account of her difficult labor], the name being derived from the expression, And the people were ‘k’mithon’nim’ (as murmurers); (Numbers 11:1.) Wherefore doth a living man ‘yithonen’ (complain)? (Lamentations 3:39.) This is similar in expression to ben oni (the son of my sorrow) (Above, 35:18.) mentioned in the case of Rachel. Judah was not particular about changing Onan’s name as his father Jacob had done. (Above, 35:18.) In Bereshith Rabbah (85:5.) our Rabbis said, by way of explaining the name Er, that he was destined to be thrown off (she’hu’ar) from the world. (Since, as Scripture relates, he died on account of his sin. (Verse 7, and see Ramban there.)) Now this is not to say that such was Judah’s intent. However, the Rabbis made their exposition since the names indicate the future.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:3

She conceived and she bore a son; he called his name Er.

Midrash

The Midrash Tanchuma Vayigash 10:1 draws parallels between the misfortunes of Joseph and Zion, highlighting similarities in their experiences and the language used to describe them. In Bereshit Rabbah 85:4, the debate centers around whether Ḥiram was the same person in the time of David and Judah, with differing opinions on the length of his life and his identity. The commentary also provides interpretations of the names of Judah's sons and their significance.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:4

“And turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” – the Rabbis say: Ḥira is Ḥiram who was in the days of David, as it is stated: “For Ḥiram had been David’s friend all the days” (I Kings 5:15) – this man was accustomed to being a friend of this tribe. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Ḥiram was someone else. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, he lived close to one thousand two hundred years; according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda [ben Rabbi Simon], he lived close to five hundred years. (Both opinions agree that Hiram was the prince of Tyre who was addressed by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 28:2) almost five hundred years after the time of David (see Yalkut Shimoni, Va’era 180) The debate is whether Ḥiram was also the same person as the Ḥira in the time of Judah, five hundred or so years before David.) “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her” (Genesis 38:2). “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua” – the daughter (The Hebrew text has the word son, rather than daughter, but many suggest that the text should say daughter (see, e.g., Etz Yosef). ) of a merchant, (This opinion interprets kenaani, generally translated as Canaanite, to mean merchant, which is in fact how the term is used in some places in Bible (see, e.g., Isaiah 23:8). Accordingly, Judah followed the family tradition of not marrying Canaanites. ) the shining light of his place. “She conceived, and she bore a son; he called his name Er” (Genesis 38:3). “She conceived, and she bore a son; he (Although the most common text of the midrash says “she”, the actual text of the verse is “he”. ) called his name Er” – as he was discharged [shehuar] from the world. “She conceived again, and bore a son; she called his name Onan. She continued and bore a son again, and called his name Shela; and he was in Keziv when she bore him” (Genesis 38:4–5). “She conceived again…Onan” – as he brought acute mourning [anina] upon himself. “She conceived again.… Shela” – as he initiated a genealogy [shenishtalshel] in the world. (This translation is based on a variant reading, “in the world [baolam],” instead of “from the world [min haolam].”) “She continued…again…Keziv” – Poskat, (This is the Aramaic name for Keziv.) the name of a place. “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death” (Genesis 38:7). “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord” – he would plow in the gardens and discharge in the waste. (This is a euphemism for the fact that he would begin intercourse with his wife but then withdraw before discharging the semen so as to avoid impregnating her.)

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:1

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Targum

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:3 states that when Tamar gave birth to a son, she named him Er because he was destined to die childless.

Onkelos Genesis 38:3

She conceived and gave birth to a son. He named him Er.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:3

And she conceived and bare a son, and called his name Er, because he was to die without a child.

וַתַּ֥הַר ע֖וֹד וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֑ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ אוֹנָֽן׃ 4 J She conceived again and bore a son, and named him Onan.
Tamar conceives and names her son Onan in Genesis 38:4, with interpretations suggesting the name may mean might or vitality [Steinsaltz]. The Midrash discusses Judah's sons, Er, Onan, and Shela, with Er being considered wicked for avoiding impregnating his wife during intercourse. Targum explains that Onan was named as such because his father would have to mourn for him [Onkelos, Targum Jonathan].

Commentary

The verse in Genesis 38:4 describes Tamar conceiving and naming her son Onan, which may derive from a Hebrew word meaning might or vitality [Steinsaltz].

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:4

She conceived again and bore a son; she called his name Onan. This name might derive from the similar Hebrew word for might or vitality.

Midrash

The Rabbis debate whether Ḥira was the same person as Ḥiram from the time of David, with some saying he lived close to 1200 years and others close to 500 years. Judah married the daughter of a merchant, not a Canaanite, and had three sons: Er, who died young, Onan, who brought mourning upon himself, and Shela, who initiated a genealogy. Er was considered wicked for withdrawing during intercourse to avoid impregnating his wife.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:4

“And turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” – the Rabbis say: Ḥira is Ḥiram who was in the days of David, as it is stated: “For Ḥiram had been David’s friend all the days” (I Kings 5:15) – this man was accustomed to being a friend of this tribe. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Ḥiram was someone else. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, he lived close to one thousand two hundred years; according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda [ben Rabbi Simon], he lived close to five hundred years. (Both opinions agree that Hiram was the prince of Tyre who was addressed by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 28:2) almost five hundred years after the time of David (see Yalkut Shimoni, Va’era 180) The debate is whether Ḥiram was also the same person as the Ḥira in the time of Judah, five hundred or so years before David.) “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her” (Genesis 38:2). “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua” – the daughter (The Hebrew text has the word son, rather than daughter, but many suggest that the text should say daughter (see, e.g., Etz Yosef). ) of a merchant, (This opinion interprets kenaani, generally translated as Canaanite, to mean merchant, which is in fact how the term is used in some places in Bible (see, e.g., Isaiah 23:8). Accordingly, Judah followed the family tradition of not marrying Canaanites. ) the shining light of his place. “She conceived, and she bore a son; he called his name Er” (Genesis 38:3). “She conceived, and she bore a son; he (Although the most common text of the midrash says “she”, the actual text of the verse is “he”. ) called his name Er” – as he was discharged [shehuar] from the world. “She conceived again, and bore a son; she called his name Onan. She continued and bore a son again, and called his name Shela; and he was in Keziv when she bore him” (Genesis 38:4–5). “She conceived again…Onan” – as he brought acute mourning [anina] upon himself. “She conceived again.… Shela” – as he initiated a genealogy [shenishtalshel] in the world. (This translation is based on a variant reading, “in the world [baolam],” instead of “from the world [min haolam].”) “She continued…again…Keziv” – Poskat, (This is the Aramaic name for Keziv.) the name of a place. “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death” (Genesis 38:7). “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord” – he would plow in the gardens and discharge in the waste. (This is a euphemism for the fact that he would begin intercourse with his wife but then withdraw before discharging the semen so as to avoid impregnating her.)

Targum

In Genesis 38:4, Onkelos states that Tamar gave birth to a son named Onan. Targum Jonathan adds that Onan was named as such because his father would have to mourn for him.

Onkelos Genesis 38:4

She conceived again and gave birth to a son. She named him Onan.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:4

And she conceived again, and bare a son, and called his name Onan, because his father would have to mourn for him.

וַתֹּ֤סֶף עוֹד֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֔ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ שֵׁלָ֑ה וְהָיָ֥ה בִכְזִ֖יב בְּלִדְתָּ֥הּ אֹתֽוֹ׃ 5 J Once again she bore a son, and named him Shelah; he was at Chezib when she bore him.
The name Chezib may have been given to the place where Shelah was born because it was there that Bat Shua ceased bearing children, and some scholars suggest that Yehudah was not present at Shelah's birth. The name Shelah itself may be related to the concept of error or deception, possibly indicating that Yehudah made a mistake by not being present at the birth. In the Midrash, there is a debate on whether Ḥiram was the same person as the Ḥira in the time of Judah, and it is discussed how Ketura was perfumed with mitzvot and good deeds. Radak explains that the names Jokim, Cozeba, Joash, Saraph, and Yashuvi in I Chronicles 4:22 have various midrashic interpretations, with some suggesting they are descendants of Shelah and possibly from Bethlehem in Judah. According to Targum Jonathan, the son was named Shela because Judah had forgotten about his wife and was not present when she gave birth. Targum Jerusalem simply states that she ceased giving birth after this son.

Commentary

The name Chezib may have been given to the place where Shelah was born because it was there that Bat Shua ceased bearing children, although Ramban questions this reasoning. Some scholars suggest that the father usually named the firstborn, but since Yehudah was not present at Shelah's birth, Bat Shua named him instead. The name Shelah itself may be related to the concept of error or deception, possibly indicating that Yehudah made a mistake by not being present at the birth. The word Keziv may also allude to a disruption or interval in the birth of Shelah, as suggested by Tur HaArokh.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:5:1

והיה יהודה בכזיב בלדתו אותו, “and Yehudah had been in Keziv (Achziv, according to Atlas Carta) when she gave birth to him.” (about 20 km north of Akko). This was the reason she named this son Sheylah; had Yehudah, the father been present at his birth, he would have named him. Rashi, commenting on this verse states that he has seen a comment in Bereshit Rabbah, according to which the name Sheylah means that Bat Shua announced that her pregnancy had come to an end. The word could be a reference to her being disappointed about her husband’s absence while she gave birth. Compare what the woman from Shunem had said (אל תשלה אותי) to Elisha when promised she would have a son, i.e. and the son had died (Kings II 4,28).

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 38:5:1

ותקרא את שמו שלה והיה בכזיב בלדתה אותו, “she called his name Shelah, as he (her husband) was in a place called Keziv at the time when she gave birth to him.” (standard explanation) The expression “shelah” and “keziv,” are identical in meaning. They appear in connection with inability to give birth, such as in Kings II 4,16 when the woman from Shunem being promised by the prophet Elisha that she would give birth to a son tells him not raise false hopes as she knew she was past the age when this was possible. The words she used were אל תכזב. When she upbraided the prophet after the son she did bear had died before growing up, she reminded him of what she had said then and used the verb שלה. (verse 28 in the same chapter) The word כזב meaning interruption in the sense of termination, also occurs in Isaiah 58,11: וכמוצא מים אשר לא יכזבו, “like a spring whose waters do not fail.” According to this, the name shelah indicated that his mother knew she would not bear any more children. [This leaves the question of why the masculine והיה, “he was,” is used in our verse Ed.] My teacher told me that כזיב is the place of a town or village. It was customary in those days that mother and father named their children alternately. The father would name the firstborn, so that it would have been Yehudah’s turn to name the son born third. Seeing that he was not at home when this son was born, the mother decided to name him instead. This is why the Torah explains why Yehudah had not named Shelah.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:5:1

AT CHEZIB. Chezib is the name of a place.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:5:1-2

והיה בכזיב בלדתה אותו, “he was at Keziv when she gave birth to him.” Why did the Torah have to tell us that Yehudah was at a certain place at the time his wife gave birth? According to Rashi this place was called כזיב because Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife, stopped having any more children after this. According to Nachmanides, Yehudah called his son Shelah, a word connected to שגגה, error, as the place he was born at brought home to Yehudah that he had committed an error. There is a mystical dimension to this verse and the word כזיב alludes to the third of the emanations, the emanation called בינה. This emanation has a great deal to do with the ability of a woman (or man) to have children. In fact this is alluded to already when G’d is described as ויבן, i.e. He provided בינה for the first woman who was formed from part of Adam. Our sages there commented that a woman has an extra portion of such בינה, i.e. she has been providentially endowed with the ability to have children. Yehudah had a prophetic insight which told him that his principal issue would not be any one of these three sons and he therefore prayed invoking the great attribute of G’d known as כוזו [which appears on the back of the parchments of our Mezzuzot, — Ed.], an attribute involved in matters pertaining to fertility and other genetic influences not subject to a person’s merit, the same attribute Hannah prayed to when she asked G’d to grant her זרע אנשים, not just a child but a child who would become worthy, i.e. an איש in the full sense of the word. (compare Samuel I 1,11) Yehudah’s prayer was accepted as he had twin sons by Tamar (verse 18) one of whom, Peretz, became the ancestor of King David. According to Rashi, the words ותהר לו, “she became pregnant for him,” in the above-mentioned verse are significant in this respect. We do not find this pronoun לו in connection with Bat Shua’s pregnancies or births. This entitles us to assume that Yehudah’s descendants would be known through Peretz and Zerach rather than through his other surviving son Shelah. The word בכזיב may also be read as an acrostic for the words ב-כח כ-וזו,ז-כה י-הודה ב--תאומים, “through the merit of invoking G’d’ attribute כוזו Yehudah merited having the twins born for him by Tamar.”

Ramban on Genesis 38:5:1

AND SHE CALLED HIS NAME SHELAH, AND HE [Judah] WAS AT CHEZIB, WHEN SHE BORE HIM. Rashi wrote: “I am of the opinion that because it was there that she ceased bearing children, the place was called Chezib (deceit). It is similar in expression to the verse, Wilt thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful (‘achzav’) brook. (Jeremiah 15:18.) If this be not so, what is the verse teaching us by mentioning that Judah was in Chezib?” Now I do not know why a place should be named for that reason, [i.e., because there she ceased bearing children], there being nothing outstanding in such an event as three sons were sufficient for her. (Had she been barren that would be a tragedy of some significance.) Moreover, at the time she gave birth to the third son it was not yet known whether she had ceased bearing or would give birth afterwards. Only at the time of her demise did it become established [that she had ceased bearing with the third son]. (Why then would the place have been called Chezib at the time she gave birth to the third son?) Now some scholars (R’dak in his commentary. Also in Da’ath Z’keinim ba’alei Tosafoth.) say that it was their custom for the father to name the firstborn, and the mother the second one. It is for this reason that Scripture states concerning the first son, And he called his name, (Verse 3 here.) and concerning the second one, And she called. (Verse 4 here.) Now concerning the third son, [the naming of whom was the father’s prerogative, Scripture nevertheless] says, And she called, explaining that this was because Judah was in Chezib when she gave birth to him, and he was not there to name him. This interpretation lacks rhyme or reason. In the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra Scripture relates where they were born; the statement, when she bore ‘him,’ is as if it had said ‘them,’ as all three sons were born in one place. In my opinion, the name Shelah is an expression meaning a thing which stops and deceives. Thus, do not ‘thashleh’ (deceive) me, (II Kings 4:28.) which the Targum there renders as, “Let not your word deceive your handmaid.” Perhaps it is related to the concept of error, for he who commits an error deceives his thinking. Thus Scripture is saying that she called him Shelah, [a word which is traceable to the root of the Hebrew word meaning ‘error,’] because of the name of the place, as he was in Chezib — [a word which means ‘deceive’] — when she bore him. And [the word v’hayah (and he was), although it should really be saying, v’haytha, (and she was), is identical with the expression ‘V’hayah hana’arah’ (And the damsel shall be). (Above, 24:14. There, too, it should be saying, v’haytha hana’arah in the feminine, except that the word v’haya does not refer to na’arah but to the event itself and is therefore to be understood as: “And it shall come to pass that the damsel, etc.” Here, likewise, it is to be so understood.) This is the intent of the saying of the Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah: (85:5.) “Paskath was the name of the place.” (This contradicts the opinion of Rashi, who maintains that it was the mother who named the place Chezib because she ceased bearing children.)

Rashbam on Genesis 38:5:1

והיה בכזיב, Yehudah was at that location and that is where the child was born.

Rashi on Genesis 38:5:1

והיה בכזיב AND HE WAS AT CHEZIB — the name of a place. I am of opinion that it was called Chezib because there she ceased bearing. This meaning of the word occurs in (Jeremiah 15:18) “wilt thou indeed be unto me as an (אכזב) a deceiver (one who ceases to keep faith)”, and (Isaiah 58:11) “whose waters do not (יכזבו) fail (cease)". For if this be not so (that it was called Chezib for the reason stated) what is it intended to tell us (what reason is there for telling us where he was at that time)? In Genesis Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah 55:4) I found the following ‘ותקרא את שמו שלה וגו AND SHE CALLED HIS NAME SHELAH [AND HE WAS AT CHEZIB] etc. — פסקת “ceasing”.

Sforno on Genesis 38:5:1

והיה בכזיב, the reason why she called their third son Shelah, a word reminiscent of Kings II 4,28 (לא) תשלה, “(do not) deceive, disappoint, disillusion,” a name which is not exactly complimentary to the bearer of it, was due to Yehudah being in כזיב, i.e. a reference to his being absent, so that she did not have this moral support when she began the labour pains prior to giving birth to her third son. [I am not sure if the author understood the Torah as using to the word כזיב to describe Yehudah’s state of mind, and that there was no such place at all. Ed.] Had he been there, he would never have agreed to the name she gave his son.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:5

She continued and bore a son again, and she called his name Shela. He, Judah, was at the place known as Keziv, when she bore him. Perhaps this parenthetical comment is meant to explain why Shua’s daughter, rather than Judah, named both their second and third sons. Perhaps the standard custom was for parents to alternate naming rights, such that Judah was supposed to name their third son. However, since Judah was in Keziv, his wife named the child.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:5:1

ותוסף עוד ותלד בן ותקרא שמו שלה, “She continued to give birth to another child whom she named Shelah.” I find it peculiar that on this occasion the Torah does not mention Bat Shua’s pregnancy before mentioning that she gave birth. Perhaps we may explain this as her having become pregnant with two children at the time she conceived Onan, and that there was an interval between Onan’s birth and Shelah’s birth. This could be borne out by the wording of the verse that refers to the birth of Shelah as an “additional” birth. This would also explain the Torah speaking about Yehudah being in כזיב, The word is understood as describing “interval, interruption,” as in Isaiah 58,11 אשר לא יכזבו מימיו ‘whose waters will flow without interruption.” [how does the author explain Yehudah asking Tamar to wait until Shelah grows up before giving her to him as a wife? Ed.] In other words, Yehudah separated from Bat Shua for some time after the birth of Onan. The Torah would then be telling us that in spite of Yehudah having separated from Bat Shua after the birth of Onan, she bore him another son, something that he had not expected. According to the author, Yehudah’s stalling Tamar was only that, an excuse not to have a third son marry the same woman whose two husbands had already died.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:5:2

והיה בכגזיב בלדתה אותו, “while he was in Keziv when she gave birth to him.” According to Rashi the location was called Keziv because this was where Bat Shua stopped bearing children. Nachmanides queries this, wanting to know why a place would be named to mark such a non-event. Furthermore, who knew at the time when Onan was born that his mother would not have any more children? No one knew this until after Bat Shua died. Some commentators say that seeing Yehudah had named his first son, his wife had named his second son. This was an accepted custom in those days. It would have been Yehudah’s turn to name the third child. The Torah explains the fact that he did not do so, by mentioning that he was in a different place at the time Bat Shua gave birth Nachmanides writes also that the meaning of the word כזיב indicates some disruption. The translation of לא תשלה by the Targum is also לא תכזב, “do not err in your prediction, i.e. do not deceive by being wrong.” (compare Kings II 4,28) Bat Shua giving birth in the absence of her husband was a mistake on Yehudah’s part, he should have been at her side.

Midrash

In Bereshit Rabbah 85:4, the debate is whether Ḥiram was the same person as the Ḥira in the time of Judah, with opinions differing on his lifespan. Meanwhile, in Bereshit Rabbah 61:4, it is discussed how Ketura was perfumed with mitzvot and good deeds, and how additions granted by God are considered greater than the original item, as seen with various biblical figures such as Cain, Joseph, and Ishmael.

Bereshit Rabbah 61:4

“And her name was Ketura” – Rav said: This is Hagar. Rabbi Neḥemya said to him: ‘But is it not written “[Abraham took] another [vayosef]”?’ He said to him: ‘[That means only that] he married her on the basis of a divine command, just as it says: “The Lord continued [vayosef] speaking to me again, saying”’ (Isaiah 8:5). He said to him: ‘But is it not written “and her name was Ketura”?’ He said to him: ‘That is because she was perfumed [mekuteret] with mitzvot and good deeds.’ [He said to him:] But is it not written: “And to the sons of the concubines (Plural. If Hagar and Ketura were one and the same, Abraham would have had only one concubine.) of Abraham [Abraham gave gifts and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he was still alive…]”?’ (Genesis 25:6). He said to him: ‘Pilagsham (The omission of the yud intimates that the word could be interpreted as a single concubine.) is written. “While he was still alive [ḥai]” – [this alludes to Hagar] the one who had sat by the well and said to the One who lives [ḥai] forever: See my misery.’ Rabbi Berekhya said: Even though it says: “She [Hagar] went off and wandered in the wilderness…” (Genesis 21:14), lest you say that perhaps some person was suspected [of becoming immorally involved] with her, the verse states: “And her name was Ketura” – from the word ‘bound up’ [ketar]; she was like one who seals a treasure and takes it out bound and sealed. (Her name indicates that she was chaste after leaving Abraham.) Bar Kappara said: Additions [tosafto] that are granted by the Holy One blessed be He are even greater than the original item. Cain was the original son [of Eve], and Abel, because he was considered an addition, as it is written: “She continued [vatosef] giving birth…[to Abel]” (Genesis 4:2) – he was born with his two twin sisters. (Whereas Cain was born with just one twin sister (see Bereshit Rabba 22:2).) Joseph was the original son [of Rachel], and Benjamin, because addition is written in his regard, (See Genesis 30:24.) he produced ten children, as it is written: “And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Bekher…” (Genesis 46:21). Er was the original son [of Judah], and Shela, because an expression of addition is used for him, (See Genesis 38:5.) he produced ten courts. That is what is written in Chronicles: “The sons of Shela son of Judah: Er, father (The term father in this passage refers to the head of a court.) of Lekha; and Lada father of Maresha; and the families of the house of the craft of fine linen, of the house of Ashbe’a...” (I Chronicles 4:21–23). Job’s age was originally (Before he began to suffer from his afflictions.) only seventy years, and one hundred and forty years were added to his life, as it is written: “After this, Job lived for one hundred and forty years” (Job 42:16). Hezekiah’s original reign (Before being reprimanded by Isaiah and praying for forgiveness (Isaiah 38:1–3).) was only fourteen years, but fifteen years were added to it, as it is stated: “Behold, I am adding fifteen years to your days” (Isaiah 38:5). Ishmael was the original son, and the sons of Ketura, because an expression of addition is used regarding them (Genesis 25:1.) [the verse tells us] “She bore him Zimran…” (Genesis 25:2). (The verse goes on to list six children.)

Bereshit Rabbah 85:4

“And turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” – the Rabbis say: Ḥira is Ḥiram who was in the days of David, as it is stated: “For Ḥiram had been David’s friend all the days” (I Kings 5:15) – this man was accustomed to being a friend of this tribe. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Ḥiram was someone else. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, he lived close to one thousand two hundred years; according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda [ben Rabbi Simon], he lived close to five hundred years. (Both opinions agree that Hiram was the prince of Tyre who was addressed by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 28:2) almost five hundred years after the time of David (see Yalkut Shimoni, Va’era 180) The debate is whether Ḥiram was also the same person as the Ḥira in the time of Judah, five hundred or so years before David.) “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her” (Genesis 38:2). “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua” – the daughter (The Hebrew text has the word son, rather than daughter, but many suggest that the text should say daughter (see, e.g., Etz Yosef). ) of a merchant, (This opinion interprets kenaani, generally translated as Canaanite, to mean merchant, which is in fact how the term is used in some places in Bible (see, e.g., Isaiah 23:8). Accordingly, Judah followed the family tradition of not marrying Canaanites. ) the shining light of his place. “She conceived, and she bore a son; he called his name Er” (Genesis 38:3). “She conceived, and she bore a son; he (Although the most common text of the midrash says “she”, the actual text of the verse is “he”. ) called his name Er” – as he was discharged [shehuar] from the world. “She conceived again, and bore a son; she called his name Onan. She continued and bore a son again, and called his name Shela; and he was in Keziv when she bore him” (Genesis 38:4–5). “She conceived again…Onan” – as he brought acute mourning [anina] upon himself. “She conceived again.… Shela” – as he initiated a genealogy [shenishtalshel] in the world. (This translation is based on a variant reading, “in the world [baolam],” instead of “from the world [min haolam].”) “She continued…again…Keziv” – Poskat, (This is the Aramaic name for Keziv.) the name of a place. “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death” (Genesis 38:7). “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord” – he would plow in the gardens and discharge in the waste. (This is a euphemism for the fact that he would begin intercourse with his wife but then withdraw before discharging the semen so as to avoid impregnating her.)

Quoting Commentary

Radak explains that the names Jokim, Cozeba, Joash, Saraph, and Yashuvi in I Chronicles 4:22 have various midrashic interpretations, with some suggesting they are descendants of Shelah and possibly from Bethlehem in Judah. The verse "These were the potters" is also subject to midrashic explanations, but the plain meaning is that they are all descendants of Shelah, with Joash and Saraph also being his descendants who fought and mastered the Moabites.

Radak on I Chronicles 4:22:1

And Jokim, and the men of Cozeba. There are many midrashic explanations of these names: [The Sages] explain (b. Bava Batra 91b) Joash and Saraph to be Mahlon and Chilion, asher ba‘alu le-Moav to mean that they married Moabite women, and ve-yashuvi (וישבי) Laḥem to mean that they were from Bethlehem in Judah. They also provide many midrashic explanations (ibid.) of the verse “These were the potters …” (v. 23). But the plain meaning of the verse is that all these are sons and grandsons of Shelah: all the people of Cozeba were his descendants (perhaps Cozeba is Chezib [Gen 38:5]); Joash and Saraph were also his descendants, with asher ba‘alu le-Moav meaning that they fought the Moabites and were their masters; and Yashuvi Laḥem (=Jashubi-lehem) was also one of his descendants.

Targum

Judah's wife gave birth to a son named Sheilah while Judah was away in Keziv. According to Targum Jonathan, the son was named Shela because Judah had forgotten about his wife and was not present when she gave birth. Targum Jerusalem simply states that she ceased giving birth after this son.

Onkelos Genesis 38:5

She conceived once again and gave birth to a son. She named him Sheilah. He [Yehudah] was in Keziv when she gave birth to him.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 38:5

And it was that she ceased.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:5

And she added, and bare a son, and called his name Shela, because her husband had forgotten her and was in cessation when she bare him.

וַיִּקַּ֧ח יְהוּדָ֛ה אִשָּׁ֖ה לְעֵ֣ר בְּכוֹר֑וֹ וּשְׁמָ֖הּ תָּמָֽר׃ 6 J Judah got a wife for Er his first-born; her name was Tamar.
Tamar, the wife of Er, is believed to be of unknown origins and possibly descended from Shem or Aram Naharayim. In the Second Temple interpretation, Tamar symbolizes victory and Er's immediate death after marrying her represents the mind achieving victory over the body. The Targum suggests that Tamar was a daughter of Shem.

Commentary

Judah married Tamar to his firstborn son Er, but her origins and ethnicity are unknown. Some suggest she was not from the local population and may have been a descendant of Shem or from Aram Naharayim.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:6

Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. Nothing is known of her origins or ethnicity. It is possible that the absence of any background information alludes to the fact that Tamar was not from the local population. Indeed, the Sages identify her as a descendant of Shem. 19 Some suggest she was from Aram Naharayim. 20

Second Temple

The soul will realize itself as a corpse-bearer when it is perfected and becomes a lover of God, not the body. This is symbolized by Tamar, who represents victory, and when Er marries her, he is immediately found to be wicked and slain, showing that when the mind achieves victory, it condemns the body to death (Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III 23:2).

Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III 23:2

[74] When, then, O soul, wilt thou in fullest measure realize thyself to be a corpse-bearer? Will it not be when thou art perfected, and accounted worthy of prizes and crowns? For then shalt thou be no lover of the body, but a lover of God. And thou shalt win the rewards if Judah’s daughter-in-law become thy wife, even Tamar, which means a palm-tree, the sign of victory. Here is a proof of it. When Er has married her, he is immediately found to be wicked and slain. For we read, “And Judah took for Er his firstborn a wife whose name was Tamar” (Gen. 38:6), and the next words are, “And Er was wicked before the Lord, and God slew him” (ibid. 7). For when the mind has carried off the rewards of victory, it condemns the corpse-body to death.

Targum

Yehudah married Tamar to his firstborn son Er, who was a daughter of Shem the great. (Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:6)

Onkelos Genesis 38:6

Yehudah took a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:6

And Jehuda took a wife for Er his firstborn, a daughter of Shem the great, whose name was Tamar.

וַיְהִ֗י עֵ֚ר בְּכ֣וֹר יְהוּדָ֔ה רַ֖ע בְּעֵינֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה וַיְמִתֵ֖הוּ יְהֹוָֽה׃ 7 J But Er, Judah’s first-born, was displeasing to יהוה, and יהוה took his life.
Er's sin of seeking honor from his fellow man led to his downfall, as did Onan's similar error. The birth of Peretz and Zerach rectified their souls by embodying different aspects of seeking honor. Masturbation is forbidden in Halakhah as it goes against the mitzva of procreation, with the severity of the sin emphasized in Kabbalah and Musar teachings. The deaths of Er and Onan are linked to the destruction of the Temples in Or HaChaim's commentary, while Talmudic references warn of consequences for neglecting vows and Torah study. Judah's actions and the birth of his sons are explained in the Midrash, with the birth of Perez and Zerah seen as a way for the Messiah to come.

Chasidut

Er's sin stemmed from seeking honor from his fellow man, leading to his downfall. Onan, influenced by his father's intentions, also erred in seeking honor for himself. The rectification of their souls came through the birth of Peretz and Zerach, who embodied different aspects of seeking honor. Constant attentiveness to fulfilling mitzvot can protect against impure thoughts and actions, preventing spiritual damage and ensuring purity in both waking and dreaming states. This concept is emphasized in Chasidic thought as a means of rectifying the sin of spilling seed, which is considered a grave transgression.

Ba'al Shem Tov, Vaetchanan 6:1

This is a very great thing. For then, a person knows that he did [a mitzvah] on that day, and created one angel – “And if there is for him an angel, an intercessor, one among a thousand (A thousand accusers.) to vouch for a man’s uprightness, then He will be gracious to him, and say, ‘Deliver him from descending to the pit, I have found a ransom’” (Job 33:23). This is alluded to in [the verse]: “He who keeps (shomer) the commandment will not know an evil thing…” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). That is, when a person commits himself to being constantly attentive – from morning till eve – for a mitzvah to present itself to him. This is the meaning of shomer, as in “And his father watched out for the matter (shomar et hadavar)” (Genesis 37:11). Then, the result will be that he “will not know an evil thing.” That is, he will not have an improper seminal emission, which is called “evil,” G-d forbid. (The Torah considers the act of spilling seed as one of the most grievous sins possible, so much so that it is given the unique title of “evil” – ra. (As in the verse: “And Er, Judah’s first-born, was evil in the sight of G-d…” (Genesis 38:7), on which Rashi comments that he intentionally spilled his seed on the ground.) According to Kabbalah, this act was part of the sin of Adam, and causes damage even when it happens unintentionally, such as during sleep. Much of Chasidic thought deals with rectifying this sin on the personal and cosmic level. In addition to the mystical power of mitzvah observance to engender purity, the Baal Shem Tov may have meant that constant attentiveness to fulfilling the will of G-d protects a man from impure thoughts during the day, so that his dreams will be pure at night. This is as the Talmud states: “A person shouldn’t think about illicit things during the day that will bring him to impurity in the night” (Kesuvos 46a).) This is alluded to in the verse: “The kindness of G-d is all the day” (Psalms 52:3). That is, each and every day, you must do kindness to G-d. Tzava’as HaRivash, p. 3b

Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Genesis, Vayeshev 7

“And Er the firstborn of Yehuda was evil in the sight of God ….” (Bereshit, 38:7) Rashi explains, “he was afraid that she would become pregnant and lose her beauty.” The sin of Er emerged in a way similar to what is explained. “Yaakov asked to dwell in peace [but the troubles of Yosef came upon him. The righteous want to dwell in peace. The Holy One, blessed be He said, it is not enough for the righteous that which is prepared for them in the world to come, but they seek also to dwell in peace in this world].” “To dwell in peace” means to guard oneself from all actions that could lead him into uncertainty. But this is not God’s will in this world. Therefore God showed Yaakov, saying, “look who will come from your progeny [Er], and he also intentionally avoided action in order not to suffer a loss. The only difference is he was involved in physical matters. See and understand the value of this.” Yaakov Avinu also had this deficiency, but his deficiency concerned the service of God where he guarded himself so as not to mar the beauty of his service. When this intention branches out into the body it becomes an explicit sin. So it was with all the thoughts of the Patriarchs, which to them were quite small, and then afterwards, when the Holy One, blessed be He, clarifies them, and creates a unique soul from this thought, then whatever will be clarified is clarified. The sin of Er and Onan follows according to what is explained in the Mishna (Avot, 2:1), “Rabbi said, what is the proper course for a man to follow? All that brings honor to he who does it, and honor to his fellow man.” “Honor to he who does it” actually means that the action will find favor in the eyes of his fellow man. “Honor to his fellow man” means that it will be good at its depth, from the depths of his life, at the very form (essence) of man. (For Adam, “man,” is a higher level than Ish, “mortal”. Tashlum.) A man must look into all his actions to make sure they are refined according to these two requirements. If a man happens into an action that does not effect these two birurum (birrurs), on this we have the disagreement between the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel in the tractate Ketubot (16b). “Our Rabbis taught, how should one dance in front of a new bride? The house of Shammai says, the bride just as she is [one should not exaggerate in her presence and say she is beautiful if she is not].” Their assertion is that the main principle is “bringing honor to the one who does it,” for if they were to say, “a beautiful and comely bride,” it would not bring honor in the view of men because we are told to “stay far from lies.” “The house of Hillel says, a beautiful and comely bride,” meaning that even if it does not bring honor to the one who does it, still it is not necessary to look at this, since it brings honor from his fellow man. This means that man’s intellect will necessitate this. (As it is written (Mishlei, 3), “to find grace and good understanding” first, “in the eyes of God,” and only after “and man.” Tashlum.) This is as it explained, “The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, according to you if one has made a bad purchase in the market, should one praise it in his eyes or criticize it? Surely, one should praise it in his eyes.” It was that Er primarily regarded “bringing honor from his fellow man,” for it is well known that every birth will only come about through concealment and forgetting, just as the seed that is sown will not sprout unless it is destroyed and deteriorates in the soil. So too the drop of life, which descends from the brain, will not bring about birth until it becomes coarse and conglomerates in the seed of man. For at the moment of conception the consciousness of man (before God) is interrupted and forgotten, and if a man’s consciousness could stand constantly before his Creator then he would not be able to experience this concealment and forgetting necessary for conception. Therefore Er, since he only looked towards “bringing honor from his fellow man,” meaning that he always had a clear and brilliant intellect, and stood in the presence of God, therefore he did not want to detract from this. This is the meaning of “he did not want to detract from [or mar] her beauty,” meaning that he did not want to mar the splendor of Israel. Onan took the other way, for his actions were based on how he saw his father’s intentions, that his seed would only be called in the name of his brother. Therefore it was evil in his view that he would not be able to fix himself, but only the soul of his brother. This caused him to voice his grudges, as also happens with the great Tsaddikim. And the action of Onan is called “bringing honor to the one who does the action,” so therefore their souls were rectified when Peretz and Zerach were born. Peretz was the soul of Er, because Peretz is a term denoting tekufut (vigorous strength), (A kind of “holy Chutspah.”) meaning “bringing honor from his fellow man.” This means that even when the honor turns against his fellow man (into something else), he shall not look at this. Zerach was the soul of Onan, for his very name proves that his attribute is “bringing honor in contrast to his fellow man.” (Zerach means to shine, meaning shining from within, or bringing honor to the one who does it.) Concerning these two, Peretz and Zerach, God said, “she is more righteous than I [also, from me],” (what Yehuda said of Tamar, their mother, and as the Gemara explains) “from Me came forth hidden things.” This means that even though Er and Onan were not worthy in God’s eyes, still their souls in Peretz and Zerach would be fixed. Even though it would seem that the descendants of Peretz would act against God’s law, as we find with the kingdom of the House of David, God would testify that it was always because of “a time to do for God.” Even though in terms of the action it seems that Er’s sin was greater than that of Onan, nonetheless his soul was greater at the depth than the soul of Onan, for the kingdom of the House of David was born from him. For the Holy One, blessed be He, conducts all the structures of the kingdom of the House of David, according to structures such as these, even though at the time of the action it seemed like a sin. In this way Yehuda thought that Tamar was a harlot because she was covering her face, which really means that the matter was concealed; a secret from God. This is as it is explained (Sotah, 10b, “she is more righteous than I” [Mimeni means both “than I” and “from me]), “from Me came forth hidden things.” The secret of the kingdom of the House of David is greatly concealed, even from the prophets.

Commentary

Er, Judah's firstborn, was considered wicked in the eyes of the Lord and died for his own sin, which was not specified in the text. Some commentaries suggest that Er's sin was wasting his seed, possibly to preserve his wife's beauty, leading to his death at a young age. This act was similar to the sin of Onan, who also died for the same reason. Er's death was not a punishment for Judah's role in selling Joseph, as Judah was saved from this penalty by later saving Joseph's life. Er's refusal to impregnate his wife led to his death, and Onan's refusal to fulfill levirate marriage duties resulted in his demise as well. Judah's reluctance to give his third son Shelah to Tamar for marriage ultimately led to Tamar disguising herself to have children with Judah.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:7:1

וימיתהו, “He killed him.” The sin was that he did not sleep with his wife in such a way that she could become pregnant with his semen. Tamar had remained a virgin even after having been married to Onan, so that Yehudah was not guilty of sleeping with a close relative whose previous marriage had been consummated, so that she would have been forbidden to him on that score. Our author, at this point raises the same question this Editor had raised at the end of 38,1, i.e. that they should not have been culpable until the age of 20.

Radak on Genesis 38:7:1

'רע בעיני ה, the addition of the words “in the eyes of G’d,” is needed, seeing that no one else was aware of Er’s sin, something committed in the privacy of the bedroom. Our sages in Yevamot 34 said that the reason why Er ejaculated outside his wife’s vagina was in order for her to retain her beauty and not become pregnant.

Ramban on Genesis 38:7:1

AND ER, JUDAH’s FIRSTBORN, WAS WICKED IN THE SIGHT OF THE ETERNAL. Scripture does not specify the nature of his wickedness as it did in the case of his brother. (Verse 9 here.) Instead, it simply states that he died for his own sin. It informs us that this was not by way of punishment of Judah for his role in the sale of Joseph, since the saving of Joseph’s life by Judah compensated for his role in the sale. There was no case of death of a child in the house of the patriarchs except this one who was wicked in the sight of the Eternal, since the race of the righteous is blessed. This is why Jacob mourned many days for his son Joseph, and he refused to comfort himself, (Above, 37:34-35.) for he considered this to be a great punishment to himself, quite apart from his love for him.

Rashi on Genesis 38:7:1

רע בעיני ה' WAS WICKED IN THE EYES OF THE LORD — like the wickedness of Onan, and committing the same sin. This must have been the case because of Onan it is said, (v. 10) “And the Lord slew him also — Onan’s death was for a similar reason as Er’s death. Why did Er commit this sin? So that she should not bear children and her beauty thereby become impaired (Yevamot 34b).

Sforno on Genesis 38:7:1

ויהי ער רע בעיני ה', the words “in the eyes of G’d,” are mentioned to tell us that he was not evil to his fellow human beings.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:7:1

Why did Er waste his seed? However, it is understood why Onan wasted his [seed], as the verse explains: the son is called by the name of his deceased brother, and Onan did not want to do this.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:7

Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord; and as punishment for his sins the Lord put him to death while he was still young.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:7:1

ויהי ער רע בעיני ה' וימתיהו ה', “Er was wicked in the eyes of the Lord and He killed him.” Some scholars ask how it is possible that someone as young in years as Er could be held responsible for his deeds by the Heavenly tribunal, which supposedly does not judge anyone under 20 years of age. The forced answer given to this question is that if a youngster is intellectually developed to the level of a 20 year old, he is held responsible in spite of his being a minor in terms of years. According to what I have written earlier, about Yehudah having separated from his brothers and married prior to the sale of Joseph, it is quite possible that Er was 20 years old at the time of his death. Nachmanides draws attention to the fact that the Torah did not spell out Er’s sin, even though we have been told about Onan’s sin. Presumably, the words: “he was wicked in the eyes of the Lord and He killed him,” mean that he died on account of his own personal sin, and not as a punishment for Yehudah for his having sold Joseph. Yehudah was saved from his penalty for having saved Joseph’s life by the very act of selling him. Among all the families of the patriarchs the only one who had to bury his children was Yehudah.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 66-69

“Er, Judah’s firstborn was displeasing to the Lord” [38:7]. Judah had two children with his wife. The oldest one was called Er; he committed transgressions. The other one was called Onan; he also committed transgressions. Their transgression was that they did not want that their wives should become pregnant and did not inseminate their wives. Er did not want his wife to get pregnant because she was a beautiful woman. He thought that she would become ugly. Therefore the Holy One killed him because of his transgression. (Rashi, Genesis, 38:7.) From here our sages learn that one who ejaculates semen without a purpose is killed. This was the transgression of the generation of the Flood. (Bahya, Genesis, 38:10.) Er died and Judah said to his son that he should engage in levirate marriage with Er’s wife, in order to establish the name of his brother. The child should be named after his brother Er. Onan thought to himself. I will have children and they will be named after my brother and not after me. Therefore, he did not inseminate his brother’s wife and spilled his seed, and the Holy One killed him. (Genesis, 38:8–10.) Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law who had been married to Judah’s two sons. Wait until my son Shelah will grow up and he will marry you. However, Judah’s intention was not to give his son to Tamar, because Judah’s two sons who had been married to Tamar had died. Judah thought that this woman Tamar couldn’t keep a husband. Whoever sleeps with her must die, and the law is that whoever has two husbands who died, nobody will marry her a third time. (Rashi, Genesis, 38:11.) Ramban asks a question here. Why did Judah say, I will give you Shelah my son when Judah’s intention was not to do this? He should have said explicitly, since you had two husbands, I do not want to give you Shelah. Therefore, Ramban said that she was justified in expecting to be taken by Shelah for levirate marriage. However, he said: because Shelah is still small and young, it is not right to marry Tamar. He will also spill his seed needlessly because he is not ready to have children. Perhaps he will also die. Tamar saw that Shelah had grown up and Shelah was not given to her as a husband. Tamar disguised herself and removed the clothes that widows used to wear, covered herself with a veil, and sat on the road where Judah, he father-in-law, would pass. She wanted to have children with Judah. (Ramban, Genesis, 38:11.)

Halakhah

Anal intercourse is considered abnormal and forbidden if painful or against the wife's wishes, but permitted if she consents. Masturbation is also forbidden as it goes against the mitzva of procreation, with the story of Er and Onan serving as an example of displeasing God by wasting seed. There is a debate among poskim regarding the severity of the prohibition, with some viewing it as biblical and others as rabbinic, but all agree that it is contrary to the Torah's goals in the mitzvot of ona and procreation.

Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 1:9

If so, what is the meaning of the expressions employed by the Torah: "Below His feet" [Exodus 24:10], "Written by the finger of God" [ibid. 31:18], "God's hand" [ibid. 9:3], "God's eyes" [Genesis 38:7], "God's ears" [Numbers 11:1], and the like? All these [expressions were used] to relate to human thought processes which know only corporeal imagery, for the Torah speaks in the language of man. They are only descriptive terms, as [apparent from Deuteronomy 32:41]: "I will whet My lightning sword." Does He have a sword? Does He need a sword to kill? Rather, this is metaphoric imagery. [Similarly,] all [such expressions] are metaphoric imagery. A proof of this concept: One prophet says that he saw the Holy One, blessed be He, "clothed in snow white" [Daniel 7:9], and another envisioned Him [coming] "with crimson garments from Batzra" [Isaiah 63:1]. Moses, our teacher, himself envisioned Him at the [Red] Sea as a mighty man, waging war, and, at Mount Sinai, [saw Him] as the leader of a congregation, wrapped [in a tallit]. This shows that He has no image or form. All these are merely expressions of prophetic vision and imagery and the truth of this concept cannot be grasped or comprehended by human thought. This is what the verse [Job 11:7] states: "Can you find the comprehension of God? Can you find the ultimate bounds of the Almighty?"

Peninei Halakhah, Simchat Habayit U'Virkhato 2:18:2

Normal sexual intercourse is vaginal, but some people desire anal intercourse, which the Talmud calls bi’a she-lo ke-darka, “abnormal intercourse.” Clearly, if anal sexual intercourse is painful for the wife or done against her wishes, it is forbidden. But what if she consents or even desires it? The Talmud records (Nedarim 20b) that the Sages ruled that it is not prohibited. On the other hand, we learn (Yevamot 34b) that the sin of Yehuda’s sons, Er and Onan, was that they penetrated Tamar anally, thereby wasting their seed. This was evil in God’s eyes (Bereishit 38:7 and 38:10), and He put them to death.

Peninei Halakhah, Simchat Habayit U'Virkhato 4:1:6

Masturbation is also antithetical to the mitzva of procreation. We know that it displeases God from the story in which Er and Onan wasted their seed to ensure that Tamar would not get pregnant. The Torah states, “But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was displeasing to the Lord, and the Lord took his life” (Bereishit 38:7), and shortly afterwards states about Onan, “What he did was displeasing to the Lord, and He took his life also” (ibid. v. 10). Therefore, coitus interruptus is forbidden. Even if a man does so when his wife cannot conceive in any case, such as when she is pregnant, nursing, or menopausal, he transgresses this prohibition (Yevamot 34b). (em>Poskim disagree as to whether a couple may have relations in which the husband ejaculates somewhere other than the vagina, if they find it pleasurable (as discussed by Rema, EH 25:2; see above, ch. 2 n. 19). However, if the motive for doing so is contraceptive, even those who are normally permissive prohibit it (Derisha, EH 23:1). Yet even according to those who forbid, when a man ejaculates during non-vaginal intercourse or during foreplay, the prohibition is less severe than if he were to masturbate, since he is still being intimate with his wife and giving her some pleasure (Sefer Ḥaredim ch. 63; Avnei Nezer, EH 83). According to Tosafot (Sanhedrin 59b s.v “ve-ha”), the prohibition of wasting seed is an extension of the mitzva of procreation. Some say that the prohibition is derived from the biblical story of Er and Onan (Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham 3:14; Ben Yehoyada, Nidda 13a). Others explain that the act is forbidden because of the prohibition of bal tashḥit (wasteful destruction) (R. Yaakov Ettlinger in Arukh La-ner, Nidda 13b and in Binyan Tziyon §137). Or Zaru’a 1:124 and Smak §292 include it in the prohibition of “Do not commit adultery,” based on the extrapolation of the Sages in Nidda 13b. Finally, Baḥ (3:6) sees the source of the prohibition in the verse, “Stay away from every evil thing” (Devarim 23:10), which the Sages explain to mean that “a man mustn’t entertain thoughts during the day that will cause him to become impure at night” (AZ 20b). Aḥaronim are divided regarding the severity of the prohibition. Many say that it is biblical (R. Shneur Zalman Fradkin of Lublin, Torat Ḥesed, EH 43:1-2; Pri Megadim; R. Ḥayim Palachi, Ḥayim Ve-shalom, 2:18; Ezrat Kohen §32; Igrot Moshe, EH 3:14). Others maintain that it is rabbinic (Responsa Pnei Yehoshua 2:44; Meshivat Nefesh §18; Ezer Mi-kodesh 23:2; R. Shlomo Kluger, Mei Nidda, Kuntres Aḥaron 195:7; Torot Emet, EH 23). It seems that even according to those poskim who believe that the transgression is only rabbinic, its basis is from the Torah, because it is contrary to the Torah’s goals in the mitzvot of ona and procreation. For a more extensive discussion of this topic, see R. Tzadok Ha-Kohen of Lublin, Takanat Ha-shavin §15.)

Kabbalah

The Kabbalah emphasizes the severity of the sin of wasting semen, stating that it defiles man the most and prevents him from beholding the face of the Shechinah. Spilling semen in vain is equated with shedding blood, and those who commit this sin are considered evil and will not be accepted by Hashem unless they engage in great penitence. The Zohar also highlights that this sin is punished more severely in the world of truth than any other transgression, emphasizing the importance of repentance and purification to avoid defilement and punishment.

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:14

It also says in the Zohar in Noach: 57. Come and behold: all of man’s sins and corruption can be atoned for by repentance. But by the sin of spilling his seed on the earth, man corrupts himself and the earth as well. And of such a person, it is written: “The stain of your iniquity is before Me,” (Yirmeyah 2:22) and “For You are not an El that has pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil sojourn with You” (Tehilim 5:5). THIS MEANS THAT A PERSON WHO WASTES HIS SEMEN ON THE EARTH IS CALLED EVIL, AND HE SHALL NOT SOJOURN ANYMORE WITH THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE. IN OTHER WORDS, HE SHALL NOT ACCEPT HIS REPENTANCE, except after great penitence. It is also written that “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of Hashem; and Hashem slew him” (Beresheet 38:7), as was already explained elsewhere. (Some versions of the Zohar say ‘unless it is with very strong Teshuva’).

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:152

All of these are specific aspects that relate to the attribute of Tzadik, but one needs to correct all the aspects of the attributes in all its stature, since the damage of the Brit reaches the entire stature, since the Brit includes Yud-Kei-Vav-Kei which includes the entire stature, as we explained above. This is said by Rabbi Shimon in the Zohar in Vayakhel, and we wrote down its text above in regards to the damage of the Brit: 388. This is true only for those who did not repent completely, enough to wipe their misdeeds. 389. For there is not a graver offense before the Holy One, blessed be He, than that of lying and impairing the holy sign of the covenant. That person may not see the face of the Shechinah, if he thus sins, as is written: “And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of Hashem” (Beresheet 38:7) and also “nor shall evil dwell with You” (Tehilim 5:5), FOR THIS OFFENSE IS CALLED ‘EVIL’.

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:17

The Zohar in Vayechi was also very strict about this sin when talking about the verse “Woe to the wicked, it shall be ill with him, for according to the deserving of his hands shall be done to him” (Yeshayah 3:11): 191. What is “the deserving of his hands”? Rabbi Yitzchak said: It includes him who defiles with his hands by spilling his semen in vain. 192. For we have learned that he who spills his semen in vain is called evil (Heb. ra), and cannot behold the face of the Shechinah, as it is written: “For You are not an El that has pleasure in wickedness: nor shall evil dwell with You” (Tehilim 5:5) and also “And Er, Yehuda’s firstborn, was evil (Heb. ra)” (Beresheet 38:7). Here too, “Woe to the wicked...ill (Heb. ra)” ALLUDES TO HIM WHO SPILLS HIS SEMEN IN VAIN. Woe to the wicked who is evil and made himself evil (Heb. ra), “for according to the deserving of his hands shall be done to him.” This means that whoever whores himself by letting his semen spill in vain is punished in the world of truth more than any OTHER TRANSGRESSION. 193. Come and see it is written: “Woe to the wicked.” Since it says, “Woe to the wicked (Heb. rasha),” why add ‘evil (ra)’ SEEING THAT THE WICKED IS EVIL? This is as I said: that he has made himself evil, ESPECIALLY HE WHO SPILLED HIS SEMEN IN VAIN. ALSO: “...nor shall evil dwell with You.” Everyone ascends FROM GEHENOM save this one, who does not. HE ASKS: Would you say that other evil - doers who killed people ARE BETTER THAN HE, AND WILL ASCEND WHILE HE SHALL NOT? HE ANSWERS, Come and behold: everyone rises but he does not, because they killed other people, yet he killed his own children, and spilled much blood. Come and behold: it is not written of any other wicked man in the world that he “displeased Hashem” (Beresheet 38:10), only in this case where it says, “And the thing which he did displeased Hashem.” Why? Because, the verse says, “He spilled it on the ground” (Ibid. 9).

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:4

Rav stated: 'A man who willfully causes erection should be placed under the ban'. But why did he not say, 'This is forbidden'? Because the man merely incites his evil inclination against himself. Rav Ami, however, stated: He is called a renegade, because such is the art of the evil inclination: today it incites man to do one wrong thing, and tomorrow it incites him to worship idols and he proceeds to worship them. There are others who say that Rav Ami stated, He who excites himself by lustful thoughts will not be allowed to enter the division of the Holy One, blessed be He. For here it is written, “was evil in the eyes of Hashem" (Genesis 38:7), and elsewhere it is written, “For You are not El who has pleasure in wickedness; nor shall evil dwell with you” (Tehilim 5:5). Rav Elazar stated: Who are referred to in the Scriptural text, “Your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15)? Those that commit masturbation with their hands. It was taught at the school of Rabbi Yishmael, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ implies, Thou shalt not practice masturbation either with hand or with foot. Our Rabbis taught: 'proselytes and those that play with children delay the advent of the Messiah', meaning: Those that marry minors who are not capable of bearing children, for Rav Yosi stated: The Son of David will not come until all the souls in Guf (Lit. 'Body' the region inhabited by the souls of the unborn) will have been disposed of, since it says, “For the spirit that humbles itself is from Me, and the souls which I have made” (Isaiah 57:16).

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:5

In Tractate Kalah (Bride) its says: Rebbi says “’enflaming yourselves with idols’ (Isaiah 57:5), whoever enflames himself to emit semen in vain is considered to be like an animal. Just like an animal does not calculate its actions, has no knowledge of what can cause it death, and does not have a share in the World to Come, so too is he. About him, Solomon said in his wisdom, ‘Who knows the spirit of man whether it goes upward’ (Ecclesiastes 3:21) this alludes to the souls of the Righteous who do not enflame themselves and emit semen in vain. ‘and the spirit of the beast whether it goes downward to the earth?’ (ibid.), this alludes to the souls of the wicked who enflame themselves and emit semen in vain. And whoever enflames himself deserves death, and whoever arouses himself is a renegade, as it says ‘And what he did was evil in the eyes of Hashem" (Genesis 38:7).”

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:6

In the Zohar they were very stringent about this sin, and this is what it says: (Zohar with Sulam commentary, Beresheet B) 393. Of the verse, "For You are not El who has pleasure in wickedness; nor shall evil dwell with you" (Tehilim 5:5), Rabbi Yehuda said: This verse has been discussed and explained, yet come and behold: he who cleaves to and is led by the Evil Inclination is defiled and will be led further into defilement, as we have learned. 394. "The wickedness of man was great," because men committed all sorts of sins and their guilt was complete when they spilled blood in vain upon the ground. This refers to those who pollute their ways upon the earth, THAT IS, THEY SPILL THEIR SPERM IN VAIN. Thus, it is written: "Only evil (Heb. ra) all day." In another place it is written: "And Er, the son of Judah, was evil (Heb. ra) in the eyes of Hashem" (Beresheet 38:7), BECAUSE HE SPILLED HIS SEED UPON THE EARTH. THIS INDICATES THAT THE WORD RA REFERS TO THE WASTE OF SEED.

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:9

Therefore, the Zohar explains that there is no sin that defiles man like the sin of wasting sperm, and this is what it says (Vayeshev): 182. Come and behold: of all the sins that defile a man in this world, that which defiles him the most in this world and in the World to Come is spilling his semen in vain. Letting it out in vain by the hand or leg brings impurity on man, as it is written: “For you are not an El that has pleasure in wickedness: nor shall evil dwell with You” (Tehilim 5:5). 183. He therefore does not come inside the curtain OF THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, or behold the presence of Atik Yomin, as is learned from the verses: “Nor shall evil dwell with You,” and “And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of Hashem” (Beresheet 38:7). BOTH VERSES INDICATE THAT HE DOES NOT BEHOLD THE FACE OF HASHEM. Hence, it is written: “Your hands are full of blood” (Yeshayah 1:15), WHICH REFERS TO LETTING SEMEN BY THE HAND, WHICH IS LIKENED TO SHEDDING BLOOD. Happy is the portion of the man who fears Hashem and is guarded from the evil path, and purifies himself to be occupied in the fear of his Master.

Zohar, Bereshit 102:435

Come and see! When Noah was born, they named him based on [the idea] of comforting (nechamah). (A different version: He was comforting to himself, he was comforting to the world; he was comforting to the fathers, he was comforting to the children: he was comforting to the higher ones, he was comforting to the lower ones, he was comforting to this world, he was comforting to the world to come.) And it was so that his name should cause [it to be fulfilled with him]. But it was not so for the Holy One, blessed be He: When the letters of Noah are reversed, it is favor (chen), as it is stated: But Noah found favor (Genesis 6:8). Rabbi Yose said, "Favor is Noah. With the righteous, their names cause the good; but with the wicked, their names cause the bad: With Noah, it is written: But Noah found favor with the Lord. With Er, the firstborn of Judah, his letters were reversed for the bad: Er is evil (ra), he was evil in the eyes of the Lord (Genesis 38:7)."

Zohar, Noach 9:57

Come and behold: all of man's sins and corruption can be atoned for by repentance. But by the sin of spilling his seed on the earth, man corrupts himself and the earth as well. And of such a person, it is written: "The stain of your iniquity is before Me," (Yirmeyah 2:22) and "For You are not an El that has pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil sojourn with You" (Tehilim 5:5). (For the sin of spilling seed, He does not accept his repentance) except after great penitence. It is also written that "Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of Hashem; and Hashem slew him" (Gen. 38:7), as was already explained elsewhere.

Midrash

The righteous are exalted through their eyes, while wicked men are degraded through their eyes, as seen in the examples of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, and Balak. Joseph's trials occurred because of the evil he spoke against his brothers. Judah's separation from his brothers and the trials he faced were a result of his actions against Joseph. The story of Judah marrying a Canaanite woman and the birth of his sons Er, Onan, and Shela are explained in the Midrash. The birth of Perez and Zerah from Tamar and Judah is interpreted as a way for the Messiah to come from Perez.

Aggadat Bereshit 64:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Judah went down, etc., and he saw there a daughter of a Canaanite man and took her. Once he took her, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'The Messiah is destined to issue from Judah, and he went and took a Canaanite wife! What then shall I do? I will cause that she engage in improper conduct and have a son from her, and the son will marry my daughter Tamar, who is the daughter of the great Shem.' Said the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Let her die as a Canaanite,' as it is said, 'And the days were multiplied and she died, daughter of Shua, the wife of Judah' (Genesis 38:12). And her sons died, as it is said, 'And Er and Onan died' (Genesis 38:7)[from Onan: Genesis 38:10], so that Judah should cling to Tamar, who was the priestly daughter of Shem son of Noah, as it is said, 'And Melchizedek king of Salem' (Genesis 14:18). And it came to pass, as she was giving birth, that one put out a hand; and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, “This one came out first.” But it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out; and she said, “How hast thou broken forth? [i.e., breached the womb].” Therefore his name was called Perez. And afterward his brother came out that had the scarlet thread upon his hand; and his name was called Zerah (Genesis 38:27-30). At the time of Tamar's childbirth, Zerah sought to come out first. God said, "The Messiah will come from Perez." Zerah then emerged first, but later returned to his mother's womb, and Perez emerged first. The Messiah comes from Perez, as it is written, "And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, 'How hast thou broken forth?' Therefore his name was called Perez." This Perez is the Messiah, as it is written, "The breaker is come up before them" (Micah 2:13).

Bereshit Rabbah 85:4

“And turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” – the Rabbis say: Ḥira is Ḥiram who was in the days of David, as it is stated: “For Ḥiram had been David’s friend all the days” (I Kings 5:15) – this man was accustomed to being a friend of this tribe. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Ḥiram was someone else. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, he lived close to one thousand two hundred years; according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda [ben Rabbi Simon], he lived close to five hundred years. (Both opinions agree that Hiram was the prince of Tyre who was addressed by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 28:2) almost five hundred years after the time of David (see Yalkut Shimoni, Va’era 180) The debate is whether Ḥiram was also the same person as the Ḥira in the time of Judah, five hundred or so years before David.) “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her” (Genesis 38:2). “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua” – the daughter (The Hebrew text has the word son, rather than daughter, but many suggest that the text should say daughter (see, e.g., Etz Yosef). ) of a merchant, (This opinion interprets kenaani, generally translated as Canaanite, to mean merchant, which is in fact how the term is used in some places in Bible (see, e.g., Isaiah 23:8). Accordingly, Judah followed the family tradition of not marrying Canaanites. ) the shining light of his place. “She conceived, and she bore a son; he called his name Er” (Genesis 38:3). “She conceived, and she bore a son; he (Although the most common text of the midrash says “she”, the actual text of the verse is “he”. ) called his name Er” – as he was discharged [shehuar] from the world. “She conceived again, and bore a son; she called his name Onan. She continued and bore a son again, and called his name Shela; and he was in Keziv when she bore him” (Genesis 38:4–5). “She conceived again…Onan” – as he brought acute mourning [anina] upon himself. “She conceived again.… Shela” – as he initiated a genealogy [shenishtalshel] in the world. (This translation is based on a variant reading, “in the world [baolam],” instead of “from the world [min haolam].”) “She continued…again…Keziv” – Poskat, (This is the Aramaic name for Keziv.) the name of a place. “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death” (Genesis 38:7). “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord” – he would plow in the gardens and discharge in the waste. (This is a euphemism for the fact that he would begin intercourse with his wife but then withdraw before discharging the semen so as to avoid impregnating her.)

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 6:4

His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph (Gen. 38:7). Scripture states elsewhere in allusion to this verse: Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to totter (Ps. 69:24). You find that the righteous are exalted through their eyes, as it is said: And Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place (Gen. 22:4); Abraham lifted his eyes and he saw, and behold, it was a ram (ibid., v. 13): and also: Abraham lifted his eyes, and looked, and lo, three men stood over against him (ibid. 18:2); Isaac lifted up his eyes, as is said: And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at eventide; and he lifted up his eyes (ibid. 24:63); and with regard to Jacob it likewise says: Jacob lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, Esau came (ibid. 33:1). Wicked men, however, are degraded through their eyes, as it is said: And Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld all the plain of the Jordan (ibid. 13:10). This refers to Sodom, which had been previously selected by Abraham, but to which Lot went, and where he behaved as they did. That is why his name was Lot. For Lot means accursed (lut), and that is what happened to him. And Balak the son of Zippor saw (Num. 22:2), and he was also degraded through his eyes. You may explain every instance in which a wicked man saw in the same way.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 7:1

His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph (Gen. 38:7). Scripture states elsewhere in allusion to this verse: Death and life are in the power of the tongue; and they that indulge it shall eat the fruit thereof (Prov. 18:21). R. Hiyya the son of Abba declared: If a man should eat from a basket of figs without offering a blessing, death is in the power of the tongue, but if he should pronounce the blessing and then eat it, life is in the power of the tongue. All of the trials that befell Joseph occurred because of the evil he spoke against his brothers, as it is said: And Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:20).

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9:3

And his father wept for him. After that Scripture states: The Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah: Until now you had no sons, and did not experience the grief caused by sons, but since you tormented your father, and deceived him with the words Joseph is without doubts torn to pieces (ibid., v. 33), by your life, you shall wed, bury your children, (His sons Er and Onan sinned grievously and were slain (see Gen. 38:7–10).) and suffer the grief that comes with children.” What is written after this verse? Judah went down from his brethren … and he took her … and bore a son (ibid. 38:1–2). This teaches us that Judah became separated from his brothers. If at the time he had said to them: Come, let us sell him (ibid. 37:27), he had said instead: “Come, let us return him (to father),” they would have listened to him. Therefore, Judah went down. That is, he was deposed from his role as leader.

Musar

The sin of wasting seed is considered severe in Jewish tradition, as it is equated with bringing a flood upon the world and shedding blood. Those who commit this sin are warned of severe consequences, including being cast away from the Supernal Abode and being compared to a broken vessel without repair. The Zohar emphasizes the severity of this sin more than any other sin in the Torah, and those who fail in this sin are warned to weep and mourn for their actions.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Shaar HaOtiyot, Hilchot Biah 1:22

However, I came to explain further the anger and wrath over the severity of the great sin of wasting seed. It is stated in Tractate Niddah, beginning of Chapter 20 (13a): "It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who holds his male organ and urinates is considered as though he brought a flood upon the world." They said to Rabbi Eliezer: But doesn't seminal drops drip onto his feet, appearing like one who cuts off his own flesh? And it turns out that he speaks disparagingly about his children, who are mamzerim (illegitimate offspring). He said to them: It is better that he should speak disparagingly about his children, who are mamzerim, and not make himself wicked for even one moment before the Omnipresent. And we say: For what reason does the verse state this? Because he emits semen wastefully, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who emits semen wastefully is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “And it was evil in the eyes of the Lord that which he did; and he also died” (Genesis 38:10). Rabbi Yitzḥak and Rabbi Ami say: It is as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: “Who comfort you with idols under every leafy tree, slaying the children in the valleys” (Isaiah 57:5). Do not read it as slaying [shoḥtei], but rather as squeezing [soḥtei]. Rav Ashi says: It is as though he worshiped idols, as here it is written: “Under every leafy tree,” and there it is written: “Upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree” (Deuteronomy 12:2).

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Shaar HaOtiyot, Hilchot Biah 1:29

The Zohar indeed emphasizes the severity of this grave sin in Parshat Vayechi (1:219b). The verse in Isaiah 3:11 states, "Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, for what his hands have done shall be done to him." This is its language. Why does it say "what his hands have done"? Rabbi Yitzchak said that this includes anyone who causes harm to himself or damages his own offspring. He is called "wicked," and not "angry at My Divine Presence" (Shechina), as You are not a God Who desires wickedness (Psalms 5:5). Additionally, it is written, "And there was wickedness in Judah's firstborn" (Genesis 38:7). Here too, it says, "Woe to the wicked." Woe to that person who commits evil and brings harm upon himself. For what his hands have done shall be done to him, including anyone who harms himself or damages his own offspring. These troubles are more severe than any others. Look, for it is written, "Woe to the wicked." Why "wicked"? Rather, as we say, he brings harm upon himself. Yet it is written, "No evil shall befall you" (Psalms 91:10). All these [troubles] are eliminated, but this one is not. If you say it is due to other guilty parties who killed the sons of nobles, look, all of them are eliminated, yet this one is not. What is the reason? They killed the sons of nobles, whereas he killed his very own son, and their blood is greater. Look, regarding other guilty parties, it is not written, "He did evil in the eyes of the Lord," but here it is written, "He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, which he committed." What is the reason? Because it is written, "And He destroyed His land" (Genesis 38:9). We learn that Rabbi Yehuda said, "You have no debt in the world for which there is no repentance except for this one. And you have no sin for which the Divine Presence does not become angry except for this one, as it is written, 'No evil shall befall you.'" Rabbi Yitzchak said, "The righteous in this world and the World to Come are called 'your people,' as it is written, 'And your people, all of them righteous, shall inherit the land forever' (Isaiah 60:21)." This is the extent of its language. See how the Zohar emphasizes the severity of this sin more than any other sin in the entire Torah, and one who fails in this sin will weep and mourn, for he has been cast away from the Supernal Abode. He is like a broken earthenware vessel without repair or purification. Woe to him for being created in such a state.

Quoting Commentary

Or HaChaim explains that the deaths of Er and Onan symbolize the destruction of both Temples, attributing it to the departure of G'd's Presence due to the sins of the Jewish people. The sins of wasting semen and senseless hatred are specifically linked to the destruction of the Temples, as seen in the Talmudic references. Da'at Zekenim discusses the importance of completing commandments once started, citing examples like Moses not being able to bury Joseph's remains in Israel and Yehudah failing to save Joseph, leading to negative consequences for not completing the commandments.

Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 8:1:1

כל המצוה, “All the instruction, etc.” our author understands the word כל in our verse not so much as “all,” i.e. each and every, but as “the whole commandment.” Once you have begun to fulfill a commandment you must complete what you have undertaken. This rule has been spelled out specifically in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah, chapter 1, halachah 8. The text is: when someone has commenced to perform a commandment he is told to complete it. If someone has commenced to perform a commandment and it is completed by someone else, the last person gets the credit for having performed it. The source of this ruling is traced to Moses who had commenced the commandment of transferring Joseph’s remains to the land of Israel, (Exodus 13,19) but who could not complete it as he never crossed the Jordan. The credit for burying his remains in the land of Israel is therefore given to the Jewish people, as we know from Joshua 24,32: “and the Children of Israel buried Joseph’s remains which they had brought with them from Egypt, and they were interred in the city of Sh’chem on a plot of land which his father Yaakov had acquired for the price of 1000 kessito as spelled out in Genesis 37,27. This plot became an ancestral heritage to the tribe of Joseph.” (Compare Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sotah) folio 13. Rabbi Sh’muel bar Nachmani is quoted in the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 13, as saying that if someone commences to fulfill a commandment but fails to complete it (not by circumstances beyond his control), he will wind up burying his wife and his children. He adds that we know this from Yehudah (Yaakov’s son) compare Genesis 37,26, who said: “what profit is there in killing our brother Joseph.” Yehudah, of course buried both his wife and two of his sons, as we read in Genesis 38, 7-12. Some scholars add that this was why the brothers demoted him as we know from the beginning of that chapter. Instead of saving Joseph, the brothers sat down to eat their meal, and in the interval Joseph was taken out of the pit by Ishmaelites and sold as a slave. Yehudah said that they could not pronounce benedictions of G–d while planning to commit murder of their brother. They therefore interrupted, and sold Joseph, before they sat down again to eat. Yehudah is perceived as having begun to save Joseph from death but not having brought him back safely to his father. The Torah had testified that the brothers listened to him, so that it could be assumed that they would also have agreed to bring him back to his father. At any rate, this is the meaning of Moses referring to כל מצוה, “the whole commandment.”

Or HaChaim on Numbers 26:19:2

The Torah goes on to say that Er and Onan died, a reference to the destruction of both Temples. Departure of the שכינה, G'd's Presence, from the Temple, is described as death. Just as death of a body is the departure of the soul, so the departure of the Holy Presence of G'd is the death of the Temple. The cause, of course, were the sins committed by the Jewish people. Instead of being filled with G'd's Presence, the respective Temples became filled with the negative spiritual forces created through the sins committed. There is also an opinion according to which the specific sins which the original Er and Onan had been guilty of became the cause of the destruction of both Temples (compare Shabbat 62). The Talmud there states that the Jews were causing their bedsteads to become evil-smelling with semen (which was not theirs), committing the same sin as Er who is reported as being "evil" i.e. wasting his semen, in the eyes of G'd (Genesis 38,7). Onan's sin which is held responsible for the destruction of the second Temple, i.e. "senseless hatred" as described in Yuma 9, was that he hated his deceased brother and did not want that his name should be perpetuated through his impregnating his brother's widow (compare Genesis 38,9). The word Onan is derived from the Hebrew אונאה which also describes mutual harassment, i.e. causeless hatred.

Second Temple

God's cursing of the serpent in Genesis is compared to God slaying Er without a formal charge, symbolizing the body as a corpse and the soul as the bearer of the corpse, showing the strength of the soul (Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III, Introduction 26; Book III 22:1).

Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III 22:1

[69] For this reason in the case of Er also God knows him to be wicked and puts him to death without bringing an open charge against him (Gen. 38:7). For He is well aware that the body, our “leathern” bulk (“leathern” is the meaning of “Er”), is wicked and a plotter against the soul, and is even a corpse and a dead thing. For you must make up your mind that we are each of us nothing but corpse-bearers, the soul raising up and carrying without toil the body which of itself is a corpse. And note, if you will, how strong the soul is.

Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III, Introduction 26

God cursing the serpent (viz. Pleasure), without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, is paralleled with God slaying Er (Gen. 38:7), without bringing an open charge against him. Slain Er is the Body, a corpse from the first, and the soul knows itself best to be a corpse-bearer when perfected (65 ff.).

Talmud

Masturbation is equated with forfeiting one's life, causing an erection is considered a transgression, and not fulfilling vows, neglecting the mezuzah, ẓiẓith, or Torah study can result in a man's children dying young. To ensure children grow rich and flourish, a man should fulfill God's will by giving to the poor and also fulfill his wife's wishes. (Tractate Kallah 4:6)

Tractate Kallah 4:6

Another interpretation of Ye that inflame yourselves among the terebinths: Whoever arouses himself and masturbates forfeits his life, as it is stated, And Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. (Gen. 38, 7. His sin was that he prevented pregnancy; cf. Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, LXXXV, 4 (Sonc. ed., p. 792).) And whoever deliberately causes an erection is a transgressor, as it is stated, And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of the Lord. (ibid. 10; cf. the preceding verse.) Even children meet the Divine Presence, as it is stated, A seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation. (Ps. 22, 31; cf. Sanh. 110b (Sonc. ed., p. 761). It shall be told indicates that when God’s glory can be related by a person, i.e. even a child when he is able to speak, he earns his right to a share in the World to Come.) For what sin do a man’s children die [young]? (Shab. 32b (Sonc. ed., p. 148); cf. Midrash Ecclesiastes 4, 1 (Sonc. ed., p. 110).) R. Eliezer said: For the sin of [unfulfilled] vows, as it is said, Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt … and destroy the work of thy hands. (Eccl. 5, 5.) R. Nathan said: For the sin of [neglecting] the mezuzah, as it is written, And thou shalt write them upon the doorposts of thy house, and upon thy gates which is followed by that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children. (The prolonged life of the children is made conditional in Deut. 11, 20f., on the fulfilment of the preceding commandment.) R. Nehorai said: For the sin of [neglecting] the ẓiẓith, as it is written, Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the innocent poor. (Jer. 2, 34; skirts refers to the precept of ẓiẓith.) R. Joshua (GRA. emends to ‘R. Judah the Prince’.) said: For the sin of [neglecting the study of] the Torah children die young, as it is stated, Seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children. (Hos. 4, 6. The parallel in Shab. 32b (Sonc. ed., p. 148) cites Jer. 2, 30.) R. ‘Aḳiba said: Whoever does not occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah causes poverty to come upon his children. What should a man do so that his children shall grow rich and flourish? (Reading with GRA ויתקיימו.) Let him fulfil the will of God and the wishes of his wife. This is the will of God: Let him freely distribute his money to the poor, as it is stated, He hath scattered abroad, he hath given to the needy; his righteousness endureth for ever. (Ps. 112, 9.)

Tanakh

In I Chronicles 2:3, Judah had three sons with a Canaanite woman, but the first-born, Er, was displeasing to the LORD and his life was taken. In II Chronicles 2:3, King Solomon plans to build a House for the name of the LORD to make incense offerings, rows of bread, and burnt offerings on sabbaths, new moons, and festivals.

I Chronicles 2:3

The sons of Judah: Er, Onan, and Shelah; these three, Bath-shua the Canaanite woman bore to him. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was displeasing to the LORD, and He took his life.

II Chronicles 2:3

see, I intend to build a House for the name of the LORD my God; I will dedicate it to Him for making incense offering of sweet spices in His honor, for the regular rows of bread, and for the morning and evening burnt offerings on sabbaths, new moons, and festivals, as is Israel’s eternal duty.

Targum

Er, Yehudah's firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of Adonoy because he did not give his seed to his wife, and as a result, Adonoy put him to death (Onkelos Genesis 38:7; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:7).

Onkelos Genesis 38:7

Er, Yehudah’s firstborn was wicked in the eyes of [before] Adonoy, and Adonoy put him to death.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:7

But Er the firstborn of Jehuda was evil before the Lord because he had not given his seed unto his wife, and the anger of the Lord prevailed against him, and the Lord slew him.

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוּדָה֙ לְאוֹנָ֔ן בֹּ֛א אֶל־אֵ֥שֶׁת אָחִ֖יךָ וְיַבֵּ֣ם אֹתָ֑הּ וְהָקֵ֥ם זֶ֖רַע לְאָחִֽיךָ׃ 8 J Then Judah said to Onan, “Join with your brother’s wife and do your duty (duty Cf. Deut. 25.5.) by her as a brother-in-law, and provide offspring for your brother.”
Levirate marriage is a practice commanded in the Torah to perpetuate the deceased brother's memory and lineage by marrying his childless widow, with exceptions outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5. Various righteous figures, such as Judah, fulfilled this commandment even before the Torah was given, symbolizing the deceased brother as the father of the child. The Talmud discusses the concept of reincarnation through levirate marriage, with the duty of ensuring reincarnation hinted at in the lighting of one light for the family during Chanukah. Additionally, the Targum and Tanakh both emphasize the importance of the levirate marriage custom in preserving the deceased brother's lineage and inheritance.

Commentary

The commentary discusses the concept of levirate marriage, where a brother is commanded to marry his deceased brother's wife in order to raise seed for his brother. The text explores the idea that the child born from this union is considered the child of the deceased brother, and not the biological father. The practice of levirate marriage was accepted before the giving of the Torah, and the Torah made exceptions in the laws of incest to permit such marriages. The naming of the child after the deceased brother is symbolic of the deceased being considered the father of the child.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:8:1

ויבם אותה, “he performed a levirate marriage ceremony on her.” This is one of the expressions which can be used positively as well as negatively, i.e. constructively and destructively. Other expressions that are similar are;,פארות, תפאר or מסעף פארה, בסעיפות קננו, in this instance it means he lifted marriage restrictions from her so that she could remarry. The same applies to the expression: ויבמה, “he preformed the levirate ritual of marriage for her.”

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:8:1

AND PERFORM THE DUTY OF A HUSBAND’S BROTHER UNTO HER. This means, since you are her husband’s brother, show yourself to be a husband’s brother (The verse reads, ve-yabbem (and perform the duty of a husband’s brother). A brother-in-law is called a yavam. Yabbem is its verbal form. It does not make sense to translate ve-yabbem, and be a husband’s brother, when in fact he is a husband’s brother. Thus ve-yabbem has to be rendered, show yourself to be a husband’s brother (Filwarg).) by going unto thy brother’s wife. I will expound a little on levirate marriage when I come to the portion, If brethren dwell together (Deut. 25:5), if God prolongs my life till then.

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 38:1

Cf. Deut. 25.5.

Radak on Genesis 38:8:1

ויבם אותה, it appears that the practice of the levirate marriage, yibbum, was something accepted long before the Torah was given to the Jewish people.

Ramban on Genesis 38:8:1

AND MARRY HER AS BROTHER-IN-LAW, AND RAISE SEED TO THY BROTHER. The son will be called by the name of the deceased. This is Rashi’s language. But this is not true, for in the same commandment of the Torah it likewise says, And it shall be, that the firstborn that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel, (Deuteronomy 25:6.) and yet the brother-in-law is not commanded to call his son by the name of his dead brother. (Yebamoth 24a.) In the case of Boaz it says, Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Machlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place, (Ruth 4:10.) and yet she called him Obed, (Ibid., Verse 21.) not Machlon. Moreover, it says here, And Onan knew that the seed would not be his. (Verse 9 here.) Now what misfortune would have befallen him — to the point that he wasted his seed from before her — if his son was to be called by the name of his dead brother? Most people even desire to do so. Again, Scripture does not say, “And Onan said,” but instead it says, And Onan ‘knew’ that the seed would not be his. (Verse 9 here.) This would indicate that Onan had some definite kind of knowledge in this matter which made him certain that the seed would not be his. (Verse 9 here.) The subject is indeed one of the great secrets of the Torah, (Ramban here hints to the mystic doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Onan “knew” that when he married his brother’s wife his brother’s soul would become incarnate in his son. Therefore Onan did not consider the child to be his own. See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 214-5.) concerning human reproduction, and it is evident to those observers who have eyes to see, and ears to hear. (Deuteronomy 29:3.) The ancient wise men who were prior to the Torah knew of the great benefit in marrying a childless dead brother’s wife, and that it was proper for the brother to take precedence in the matter, and upon his failure to do so, his next of kin would come after him, for any kinsman who was related to him, who would inherit his legacy, would derive a benefit from such a marriage. And it was customary for the dead man’s wife to be wed by the brother or father or the next of kin in the family. We do not know whether this was an ancient custom preceding Judah’s era. In Bereshith Rabbah (85:6.) they say that Judah was the one who inaugurated the commandment of marrying a childless person’s widow, for since he had received the secret (Ramban here hints to the mystic doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Onan “knew” that when he married his brother’s wife his brother’s soul would become incarnate in his son. Therefore Onan did not consider the child to be his own. See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 214-5.) from his ancestors he was quick to fulfill it. Now when the Torah came and prohibited marrying former wives of certain relatives, it was the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, to abrogate the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife in case he dies childless, but it was not His will that the prohibition against marrying a father’s brother’s wife or a son’s wife or similar wives of relatives be set aside. It was only in the case of a brother that the custom had established itself, (Prior to the giving of the Torah.) and the benefit is likely with him and not with the others, (Ramban’s intent is that when two brothers come from one father, the soul of the dead one finds closer identification with the child that his brother will beget rather than with that of any of the other relatives. (Abarbanel; see my Hebrew commentary, p. 215).) as I have mentioned. Now it was considered a matter of great cruelty when a brother did not want to marry his dead brother’s wife, and they would call it the house of him that had his shoe loosed, (Deuteronomy 25:10.) for [after his dead brother’s wife had performed Chalitzah (the loosening of the shoe) of the brother-in-law], he (The soul of the dead brother. The Cabala has considered the subject of Chalitzah, as one of profound mystery.) was now removed from them, and it is fitting that this commandment be fulfilled through the loosening of the shoe. Now the ancient wise men of Israel, having knowledge of this important matter, established it as a custom to be practised among all those inheriting the legacy, providing there is no prohibition against the marriage, and they called it Ge’ulah (Redemption). (Ruth 4:7.) This was the matter concerning Boaz, and the meaning of the words of Naomi and the women neighbors. (Reference is to what the neighbors said; There is a son born to Naomi (Ruth 4:17), meaning that she was thereby given back the son Machlon whom she had lost. This explains why the women did not say, “There is a son born to Ruth or Boaz.”) The man of insight (A term denoting the student of the Cabala, the mystic doctrine of the Torah.) will understand.

Rashi on Genesis 38:8:1

והקם זרע AND RAISE SEED — The son will be called by the name of him who is dead.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:8:1

The son will be called by the name of the one who is dead. Nachalas Yaakov extensively contradicts Ramban and Re’m, [who explain that the son would literally be named after the deceased]; see there. Nachalas Yaakov rather explains that calling the son after the deceased means that it is considered as if the deceased were his father. That is why the verse says, “Establish seed for your brother,” and not, “Establish a name for your brother,” for the name is not the issue. See there.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:8

Judah said to Onan: Engage in intercourse with your brother’s wife, and consummate levirate marriage with her. Establish offspring for your brother. The children born from this levirate marriage will be considered the children of the deceased brother. Although the surviving brother is certainly the biological father of these children, he is merely a substitute for his deceased bother. 21

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:8:1

ויבם אותה, “and perform a levirate marriage with her.” According to Nachmanides this was an accepted custom in earlier times, long before the Torah had been given when it was legislated to perform such levirate marriages and the scope of who was qualified to enter into such levirate marriages was greatly reduced at that time. The Torah made an exception in the laws of incest, permitting a brother to marry the widow of another brother who had died without offspring, although there was an overriding law not to marry the one time wife of a brother under all other circumstances.

Halakhah

The positive commandment of Levirate marriage, as outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5, requires a man to marry the childless widow of his paternal brother to perpetuate the deceased's memory and virtue. This rite is not to be performed with the widow of one's maternal brother, and Scriptural law does not require the man to consecrate his yevamah, only to cohabit with her. The deceased husband's estate is responsible for her marriage contract.

Mishneh Torah, Levirate Marriage and Release 1:1

It is a positive commandment (Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 216) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 598) include this mitzvah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In his Guide for the Perplexed, the Rambam explains that marriage of this nature was a custom carried out before the giving of the Torah (as reflected by Genesis 38:8 , and the Torah allowed this rite to be perpetuated. Sefer HaChinuch explains that the closeness shared with the deceased by both his widow and his brother enjoins them to come together and produce a child who will perpetuate the deceased's memory and virtue. As Sefer HaChinuch mentions, there are also profound mystic concepts associated with this mitzvah.) of Scriptural law for a man to marry the widow of his paternal (Implied is an exclusion. One should not perform this rite with the widow of one's maternal brother (Yevamot 17b; Halachah 7 below).) brother if he died without leaving children, as [Deuteronomy 25:5] states: "[And one of them dies] childless,... her husband's brother should cohabit with her." [This applies to a widow] from nisu'in, or from erusin. [The childless widow is referred to as a yevamah; the rite through which they marry, yibbum.] Scriptural law does not require a man to consecrate his yevamah, for she is his wife that heaven acquired for him. [All that is necessary] is that he cohabit with her. Her deceased husband's estate is responsible for her marriage contract. (See Hilchot Ishut 22:10-14.)

Midrash

The text from Vayikra Rabbah 2:10 discusses how various righteous figures fulfilled Torah commandments even before they were given, earning God's love. Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:2:5 uses a metaphor of a king distributing provisions to his son directly to explain how God gave the Torah to Israel. In Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Pinchas 8:1, women advocated for their inheritance rights, and in Bereshit Rabbah 85:5, Judah initiated the mitzva of levirate marriage, with Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥalafta as an example of fulfilling this commandment.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:5

“Judah said to Onan: Consort with your brother’s wife, and consummate levirate marriage with her, and establish offspring for your brother” (Genesis 38:8). “Judah said to Onan…” – Judah was the first to initiate the mitzva of levirate marriage. It is taught: Any matter that was in the category of permitted, became prohibited, and then became permitted again, it does not return to its initial permitted state, but rather, to a second permitted state. A yevama, (A yevama is a woman whose husband died without children. She is tied in a levirate bond to his brother, who is called the yavam.) because she was in the category of permitted, became prohibited, and was then permitted, (Before she married, she was permitted to marry the brother of her eventual husband. Once she married, she became forbidden to her husband’s brother. When her husband died, she became permitted to him once again.) does she, perhaps, return to her initial permitted state? The verse states: “Her husband’s brother shall consort with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5) – mitzva. (This view accords with that of Abba Shaul (Yevamot 39b), who holds that levirate marriage may be performed only if the intent in doing so is to perform the mitzva, and not if the intent is simply because they would like to be married. This is different from the permitted status of the yevama to her eventual yavam before she had been married. At that time they could have married for any reason they wanted (Yefe To’ar). ) Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥalafta entered into levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He engaged in relations five times, (He had five brothers who died without children. He did not remain married to these women, but after he fulfilled the mitzva he divorced them.) he engaged in relations through a sheet, (This was in order to minimize his pleasure, so he would ensure that the act was purely for the sake of the mitzva.) and planted five saplings in Israel. (Five sons were born from these acts of levirate marriage. ) Who were they? Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Menaḥem ben Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Avdimos ben Rabbi Yosei. He had red eyes and resembled his mother. (Rabbi Avdimos had red eyes, as did his mother. This was considered unattractive, and underscores that Rabbi Yosei was interested only in fulfilling the mitzva of levirate marriage, and therefore he did so even in this case, where the woman was not attractive.) “Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, and it was when he consorted with his brother’s wife, that he spilled on the ground, so as not to give offspring for his brother” (Genesis 38:9). “Onan knew” – he would penetrate inside but spill outside. “Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law: Remain a widow in your father’s house, until Shela my son matures; for he said: Lest he too die, like his brothers. Tamar went and lived in her father’s house” (Genesis 38:11). “Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law” – Rabbi Elazar said: Although there is no divination, there is a portent – “lest he too die, like his brothers.” The Rabbis say: [With regard to a] house, baby, and wife, (When a person builds a house, has a child, or marries, and then experiences a period of good or bad fortune, the experience can be seen as a portent for that fortune continuing. Viewing it in this way would not violate the prohibition against divination.) although there is no divination, there is a portent.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Pinchas 8:1

Another interpretation (of Numb. 27:1): THEN CAME FORWARD an honor to them. an honor to their father, an honor to Machir, and an honor to Joseph that such righteous and wise women had issued from him. (Numb. R. 21:11.) But what was their wisdom? They spoke up at the proper time, when Moses was busy with the parashah on inheritance (in accordance with Numb. 26:53): TO THESE SHALL THE LAND BE APPORTIONED . They said to him: If we are like a son, let us inherit; but if not, let our mother marry her husband's brother. (His duty would be to rear children in the name of the deceased father. On levirate marriage generally, see Deut. 25:5-6: also Gen. 38:8-9; Ruth 4:5.) Immediately (in Numb. 27:5): MOSES BROUGHT THEIR CAUSE BEFORE THE LORD. They were righteous, in that they had not been married. (Cf. the parallels in Tanh., Numb. 8:7 and Numb. R. 21:11: “In that they had never been married to someone unworthy of them.”) Then why did they meet with Moses? So that he would not put on airs over having abstained from his wife for forty years. (Since Moses regularly stood in the Divine Presence, he needed to preserve an unbroken state of purity.) The Holy One informed him through these women, saying: Here are women who without being commanded remained for forty years until they were married to someone worthy of them.

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:2:5

Rabbi Azarya, and some say Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina, and the Rabbis, Rabbi Elazar says: This is analogous to a king who had a wine cellar. One came, the first guest; he poured him a cup and gave it to him. The second came, and he poured him a cup and gave it to him. When the king’s son came, he gave him the entire cellar. So too, Adam, the first man, was commanded with seven commandments. (The commentaries write that the text should state “six commandments,” as the midrash goes on to list only six. This is also consistent with the text of Bereshit Rabba 16:6 (see Matnot Kehuna).) That is what is written: “The Lord God commanded the man, saying: From all the trees in the Garden you shall eat” (Genesis 2:16). “He commanded [vaytzav],” this is [the prohibition against] idol worship, just as you say: “Because he willingly followed an order [tzav]” (Hosea 5:11). (In this verse, the prophet is expressing that the kingdom of Israel is oppressed because of the sin of idolatry.) “The Lord,” this is [the prohibition against] blaspheming the name, as it is stated: “One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely die” (Leviticus 24:16). “God [Elohim],” this is [the commandment to appoint] judges, as it is stated: “The statement of the two of them shall come to the judges [elohim]” (Exodus 22:8). “The man,” this is [the prohibition against] bloodshed, as it is written: “One who spills the blood of the man [by man shall his blood be shed]” (Genesis 9:6). “Saying,” these are forbidden sexual relations, as it is stated: “Saying: If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him [and becomes another man’s wife, may he return to her again?]” (Jeremiah 3:1). “From all the trees in the Garden,” this is robbery, as it is written: “[Did you eat] from the tree that I commanded you [not to eat?]” (Genesis 3:11). Noah, [the prohibition against eating] a limb [detached] from a living animal was added for him, as it is written: “But flesh with its life, its blood [you shall not eat]” (Genesis 9:4). Abraham was commanded regarding circumcision. Isaac inaugurated it on the eighth day. (Isaac was the first to have been circumcised on the eighth day of his life (see Genesis 21:4).) Jacob [was commanded] regarding the [prohibition against eating the] sciatic nerve, as it is stated: “Therefore, the children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33). Judah [was commanded] regarding [levirate marriage with] a childless sister-in-law, as it is stated: “Judah said to Onan: Consort with your brother's wife, and consummate levirate marriage with her” (Genesis 38:8). [The children of] Israel [were commanded] regarding all the positive commandments and the negative commandments. Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina and the Rabbis say: This is analogous to a king who would distribute provisions to his troops by means of dukes, governors, and commanders. When his son came, he gave it to him directly. (Similarly, God gave the commandments to Adam and Noah without direct and public Divine revelation, but He gave the Torah to Israel with direct and public Divine revelation.) Rabbi Yitzḥak says: This is analogous to a king who was partaking of fine pastry; when his son came, he gave it to him directly. (He shared the fine royal pastry with his son, and gave it to him directly. So too, God gave Israel the Divine Torah, and did so through direct revelation.) The Rabbis say: This is analogous to a king who was partaking of slices [of food]; when his son came, he gave it to him directly. (The king gave his son a slice of food from his own plate.) Some say that he took it from his mouth and gave it to him, as it is stated: “For the Lord grants wisdom; from His mouth are knowledge and understanding” (Proverbs 2:6). Rabbi Abahu, and some say Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Neḥemya, Rabbi Neḥemya said: [This is analogous to] two friends who were engaged in a halakhic matter. This one says the source of the halakha and that one says the source of the halakha. (Each one provided a source for his opinion as to the halakhic conclusion in the matter under discussion.) The Holy One blessed be He says: ‘Their passion comes from Me.’ (Their commitment to arrive at the true halakha is for the sake of Heaven, and therefore, are the words of the living God (see Eiruvin 13b). Rabbi Neḥemya explains the meaning of the phrase: “Let him kiss me [yishakeni] with the kisses of his mouth” as related to “their passion” [shukeyotehon]. ) Rabbi Yehuda said: Even the vanity that emerges from his mouth, (Even if those discussing the halakhic matter are mistaken in their analysis and claims.) as it is stated: “Job opens his mouth in vanity” (Job 35:16), the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘His passion is from Me.’ The Rabbis say: The souls of these are destined to be taken with a kiss. Rabbi Azarya said: We find that the soul of Aaron was taken only with a kiss; that is what is written: “Aaron the priest ascended Mount Hor at the command of [al pi] God and he died there” (Numbers 33:38). (The midrash interprets the phrase al pi according to its literal meaning, such that the verse states “with the mouth of God,” meaning with a Divine kiss.) From where is it derived that the soul of Moses [also departed with a kiss]? As it is stated: “Moses, servant of the Lord, died there…at the command of [al pi] God” (Deuteronomy 34:5). From where is it derived that [the soul of] Miriam [departed with a kiss]? As it is written: “Miriam died there” (Numbers 20:1). Just as “there” that is written below, was with the mouth of God, so, too, here, it is the same, but it is improper to state it explicitly. (Since the word “there” appears regarding the death of Moses, who died with a kiss, the use of the term “there” regarding the death of Miriam implies that she died in the same manner. However, the verse did not state this explicitly regarding Miriam because it would have been improper to indicate the kiss regarding a woman (see Bava Batra 17a).) The rest of the righteous, from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “Let him kiss me from the kisses of his mouth.” If you engaged in matters of Torah that kiss your lips, ultimately, everyone will kiss you on the mouth. (So too, God will collect your soul with a Divine kiss (Midrash HaMevoar).) Another matter, “let him kiss me [yishakeni] with the kisses”—He will arm me, He will purify me, He will cleave to me. (All of these are connoted by the word yishakeni, as the midrash will explain.) Yishakeni, He will arm me, from what is written: “Armed [noshekei] with bows, right-handed and left-handed” (I Chronicles 12:2). Rabbi Shimon bar Naḥman said: Matters of Torah were likened to weapons. Just as these weapons serve their owners in times of war, so, too, matters of Torah serve one who exerts sufficient effort in their study. Rabbi Ḥana bar Aḥa cites it from here: “Exaltation of God [is in their throats, and a double-edged [pifiyot] sword is in their hand]” (Psalms 149:6); just as this sword cuts with both its edges, (It can thereby save the life of its owner on two planes.) so too, Torah provides life in this world and life in the World to Come. Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Torah that was stated by one mouth [peh] is stated by many mouths [piyot]. (This is based on the verse from Psalms cited above, which compares Torah to a double-edged [pifiyot] sword. Originally it was stated to Israel by Moses, and then all of the children of Israel spoke about it. Similarly, throughout the generations, when a scholar teaches a Torah insight, it is later repeated by his students (Maharzu).) Rabbi Neḥemya said: Two Torahs were stated, one oral and one written. (This is a continuation of the previous statement. The written Torah is stated in one matter, compared to one mouth, whereas the oral Torah, which was not given with one exact text, is communicated in different forms by different people. This is comparable to a plurality of mouths (Maharzu).) The Rabbis say: They decree on the supernal, and they perform, on the earthly, and they perform. (The Sages have multiple mouths in the sense of multiple audiences, as the angels and human beings both observe their decrees.) Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: The reason of the Rabbis is as it is written: “As there were princes of sanctity and princes of God” (I Chronicles 24:5). “Princes of sanctity,” these are the ministering angels, as it is written: “I profaned the princes of sanctity” (Isaiah 43:28). “Princes of God, these are Israel, as it is written in their regard: “I said: You are divine” (Psalms 82:6), as they decree on the heavenly, and they perform, on the earthly, and they perform, when they conduct themselves in purity. Another matter, “let him kiss me [yishakeni] with the kisses of his mouth”—let him purify me, like a person who causes two pools to meet [mashik] each other and unites them, (If there is not enough water in one or both of the pools to serve as a ritual bath, which purifies, joining them together can allow them to serve in this capacity.) as it is stated: “Like the meeting [mashak] of cascading pools he joins it” (Isaiah 33:4). Another matter, “let him kiss me [yishakeni] with the kisses of his mouth”—yishakeni, He will cleave to me, as it is stated: “The sound of the wings of the creatures would touch [mashikot] one another” (Ezekiel 3:13). Alternatively, “let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth,” He will put forth for me the sound of kisses (He will speak to me lovingly.) from His mouth.

Vayikra Rabbah 2:10

“From the herd or from the flock” – blessed is the Omnipresent who reckoned Himself with the first righteous ones. Adam sacrificed a bull upon the altar, as it is stated: “It will please the Lord more than a bull” (Psalms 69:32). (This verse is understood to refer to an offering by Adam, as above, Vayikra Rabba 2:7. ) Noah fulfilled what is written in the Torah, as it is stated: “Noah built an altar to the Lord” (Genesis 8:20). Abraham fulfilled the entire Torah, as it is stated: “Because Abraham heeded [My voice, and observed…My Torah]” (Genesis 26:5), as he prepared an offering and sacrificed a ram. Isaac fulfilled what is written in the Torah and cast himself before his father like a lamb to slaughter. Jacob fulfilled what is written in the Torah, as it is stated: “They gave to Jacob all the foreign gods [that were in their possession…and Jacob buried them]” (Genesis 35:4). Judah fulfilled what is written in the Torah, as it is stated: “Consort with your brother's wife, [and consummate levirate marriage with her]” (Genesis 38:8). Joseph fulfilled what is written in the Torah: “Honor your father…you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear [false witness], you shall not covet” (Exodus 20:12–13). They did so before the Torah was given to them, and they performed it at their own initiative. That is why the Holy One blessed be He loved them with an absolute love and paralleled their name to His great name. In their regard it says: “Happy are those whose path is flawless, [who follow the Torah of the Lord]” (Psalms 119:1), and it says: “The Rock, His actions are flawless” (Deuteronomy 32:4), and it says: “God’s way is flawless” (Psalms 18:31).

Musar

The Talmud did not identify who said what in the views of the two Rabbis Yossi, indicating they did not disagree but cited different reasons. Souls are represented by lights, with most souls being reincarnations of past individuals. The best reincarnation occurs when a soul is related to its former incarnation, as seen in the case of Peretz and Zerach being reincarnations of Er and Onan. The duty of ensuring reincarnation through levirate marriage is alluded to in the Talmud's statement about lighting one light for the family during Chanukah.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 151

The true reason is that the Talmud, when giving the views of the two Rabbis Yossi, stated: "One said this and the other said that." The fact that the Talmud did not identify who said what means that the two Rabbis did not disagree. Each only cited one possible reason for the different opinions. The lights allude to the souls, as we know from Proverbs 20,27: נר ה' נשמת אדם, "The soul of man is the light of the Lord." We know that nowadays most of the souls inhabiting bodies are re-incarnations of people who have lived in earlier times. The best of such kind of re-incarnation one can experience is if the soul is allotted to someone who is related to the former incarnation, as has been explained by the Rekanati in connection with the legislation of the levirate marriage. When Yehudah said to his son Onan that he should marry the widow of his brother Er (38,8), he meant that the first child to be produced from such union would become the re-incarnation of Er. Later on his intention of having Er re-incarnated became fulfilled through his own union with Tamar. When Peretz and Zerach were born by Tamar, they were the respective reincarnations of both Er and Onan (Onan also having died in the meantime). The Rekanati explains this at length. When the Talmud said that the essence of the Chanukah light is that a person should light one light for his house- read: "family"- this is an allusion to the duty of ensuring re-incarnation by means of the levirate marriage.

Quoting Commentary

Ramban discusses the connection between stripes and negative commandments in civil cases, as well as the justification of the righteous through plotting witnesses. Ibn Ezra interprets the term "brethren" in Deuteronomy as referring to actual brothers and not just relatives. Ramban also explains the significance of the term "Jubilee" in Leviticus and the concept of transmigration of souls in the context of levirate marriage. Additionally, Ramban delves into the meaning of visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children in Exodus. Da'at Zekenim debates whether Jacob's daughters were twin sisters or wives of Canaanite origin. Lastly, Ezra ben Solomon discusses the righteousness of Jacob's twelve sons and their observance of the commandments. The notion that patriarchs observed the entire Torah before it was given at Sinai is also explored in various commentaries.

Covenant and Conversation; Deuteronomy; Renewal of the Sinai Covenant, Ki Teitzei, Love Is Not Enough 18

How are we to resolve this? It may be that, despite the rabbinic principle that the patriarchs observed the whole Torah before it was given, this is only an approximation. Not every law was precisely the same before and after the covenant at Sinai. For instance, Nahmanides notes that the story of Judah and Tamar seems to describe a slightly different form of levirate marriage from the one set out in Deuteronomy (commentary to Gen. 38:8).

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:35:1

וכל בנותיו, “and all of his daughters;” according to Rabbi Yehudah, twin sisters had been born for Yaakov with the birth of all of his sons. These had been married by their respective half-brothers, sons of different mothers. According to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah, all the sons married wives of Canaanite origin. If he were correct, why does the Torah in our verse not speak of “all his daughter-in-law?“ Rabbi Nechemyah, aware of this, would reply, that in the whole world daughters-in-law are referred to as daughters. (B‘reshit Rabbah 84,21) [Naomi, in the Book of Ruth, certainly is not described as calling her daughters-in-law, “daughters.” Ed.] It is difficult to understand Rabbi Nechemyah, as we all know to what length Avraham had gone to prevent Yitzchok from marrying a wife of Canaanite descent. Yitzchok too had commanded Yaakov not to marry a woman of Canaanite descent and had sent him all the way to Charan to avoid such a union. (Genesis 28,1) Nonetheless, Yehudah married a woman of Canaanite descent. (Genesis 38,2 ברת גבר תגרא, (daughter of a business man, according to Onkelos איש כנעני means business man, traveling salesman) Onkelos therefore accepts the view of Rabbi Yehudah, who said that twin daughters were born with all of Yaakov’s sons.) This is also how we have to understand Genesis 46,10: ושאול בן הכנענית, “and Sha-ul, son of a female merchant.” According to Rabbi Nechemyah’s approach to the subject, there is no need for what sound like far fetched solutions to our problem. The word כנעני or כנענית in either of the verses that bothered us, are simply understood as elsewhere in the Bible, as people of Canaanite descent. We do have a problem if we accept Rabbi Yehudah’s interpretation, an interpretation lacking specific sources in the written text. The Talmud, tractate Yumah folio 28, states that Avaraham had voluntarily observed all the commandments in the written and oral Torah, even including the rabbinic commandment known as eyruv tavshilin, a method of how to prepare food when the day after a festival is a Sabbath, and preparation of food on the festival for the Sabbath is not admissible. He is also supposed to have observed the law of yibbum, marrying the widow of a brother who died without having ever had any children. (Compare Genesis 38,8) where Yehudah, Er’s father, gave Er’s widow Tamar to Onan, his brother, as a wife, in order for him to become posthumously and vicariously a father. If these laws were operative prior to the Torah having been revealed at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people, how could Yaakov have married two sisters while the first sister had still been alive? Also, how could any of the sons of Yaakov have married their sisters? We could answer that although these laws were already known by tradition since Avraham’s time, they had not become obligatory until after revealed at Mount Sinai. Our forefathers were free to choose the parts of the commandments they wished to observe voluntarily even they had been privy to them through the Holy Spirit. When the Talmud in Pessachim, folio 119, tells us that in the future (afterlife) at the meal prepared by G–d for the righteous, that when Yaakov was being honoured presiding over the grace after the meal, he declined the honour, saying that seeing he had wed two sisters while both were alive, he was not worthy of that honour. Clearly he considered what he had done as having been improper. It is possible to argue that having been aware that what he had done would qualify for a penalty if he would do so after the revelation at Mount Sinai, he felt that he deserved at least a minor penalty. If he decided in favour of committing an act deserving of a minor penalty, he did so because he wished to marry only wives who were personally righteous, and these were hard to find, especially considering the age at which he had a chance to get married. As it turned out, even one of these two sisters who was a righteous woman did not by herself bore for him all the twelve tribes.

Ezra ben Solomon on Song of Songs, Introduction 5

Twelve sons were engendered by Jacob, righteous and good, who recognized the Creator, be He blessed, and knew Him as they had learned from their father Jacob. From their knowledge and perceptions of the Creator, they too observed the commandments: “Judah said to Onan: ‘Join with your brother’s wife and perform your levirate duty with her, and provide offspring for your brother’” [Gen. 38:8]. So matters unfolded until our father Jacob’s descent to Egypt, engendering offspring, twelve tribes in the likeness of that which is on high, the tribes of Yah, the community of Israel, whose numbers came to fulfillment at seventy.

Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 25:5:1

IF BRETHREN (Hebrew, achim (brothers).) DWELL TOGETHER. The deniers also say that these brethren (The brothers spoken of in our verse.) are not actual brothers, (For Scripture explicitly prohibits a man from marrying his sister-inlaw. See Lev. 18:6.) but are relatives. They brought proof from Boaz. (Boaz married Ruth, who was the wife of his deceased relative, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance (Ruth 4:5).) However, they contribute nothing, for there is no mention of levirate marriage, (In the Book of Ruth.) only of redemption. (Boaz married Ruth so that her husband’s field would not pass into the hands of a stranger. He thus “redeemed” the said field. See Ruth 4:1-6.) Why mention the word together? (In our verse.) Does it matter if they were in one state or in one courtyard, or if they loved each other? (According to the Rabbinic tradition the word brethren means brothers and together means alive at the same time. However, if we accept the Karaitic interpretation then we do not know what Scripture means by the word together.) They say, (So Vat. Ebr. 38. Mikra’ot Gedolot reads: He says.) look, the verse says ve-yibbemah (and shall perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her). (The word yavam means a brother-in-law.) This shows that he is her brother-in-law in name only. (The Karaites interpret ve-yibbemah as, and be a brother-in-law to her. Now if the true brother-in-law was being addressed Scripture would not say, and be a brother-in-law to her. Hence we must interpret ve-yibbemah as meaning “act as a brother-in-law to her.” The upshot of all this is that a true brother-in-law is not being addressed.) It is like thy sister-in-law (yevimtekh) (Yevimtekh is the word yevamah (sister-in-law) plus the second person personal pronoun. Orpah was the wife of Ruth’s brother-in-law (yavam). She is referred to as a yevamah because she took her husband’s place. We thus see that the term yavam in its various forms can refer to one who acts like one’s brother-in-law.) is gone back (Ruth 1:15). Now observe that they have become foolish and stupid, for Scripture states, with regard to the sons of Judah, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother (ve-yabbem) unto her (Tamar, the widow of Er the son of Judah.) (Gen. 38:8). (Judah told his son Onan to go and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto your sister-in-law Tamar.) Now he (Onan the brother of Er.) was her (Tamar’s.) brother-in-law. (It is thus clear that levirate marriage was performed by the actual brother-in-law.) Also, the term yevimtekh (thy sister-in-law) (Ruth 1:15) was used because they were married to two brothers. (In other words, the term yevamah was not employed figuratively in Ruth.) All intelligent people know that the negative commandments given to Moses (Excluding the Noahide laws, which were given to Adam and Noah (see Meijler).) were not previously prohibited. (There was thus no prohibition before the revelation at Sinai against a man to marrying his sister-in-law.) However, it would not have been evil in the eyes of God if someone abstained from them (That is, from those negative commandments from which reason tells us to abstain.) before the law was given to Moses. (In other words, God would have been pleased with a person who abstained from practices which He would later prohibit. If the law prohibiting intercourse with a sister-in-law was based on reason, i.e., it was an abomination, then Scripture would not have condemned Onan for not wanting to impregnate his sister-in-law.) The fact that Scripture states, for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you (Lev. 18:27), shows that this is certainly the case. We do not find a prophet who warned them. (From engaging in the practices that Lev. 18:27 refers to, for Scripture believes that one ought to know not to engage in these practices by employing one’s rationality. See Yesod Mora 5: “The fundamental commandments are those precepts that are implanted in the heart. They…were known by reason before the Torah was given through the agency of Moses” (Strickman translation, p. 75).) Look, Scripture says of Onan, who did not give seed to his brother, the thing which he did was evil in the sight of God (Gen. 38:10). (God thus wants a brother to marry the childless widow of his biological brother.) We will therefore rely on the tradition that they are actual brothers.

Megillat Ruth; From Chaos to Kingship, Perek 3 19:2

Ramban — Yibbum Ramban (Bereishit 38:8) understands the concept of geulah in the context of this perek as an expansion of yibbum. Yibbum involves a man marrying the widow of his brother who died without children. Geulah expands yibbum to relatives besides the brother. According to Ramban, Rut asked Boaz to follow the accepted protocol of “geulah/expanded yibbum,” since he was a close relative of her deceased husband. Boaz responded that this should first be given to the closer relative; the closer the relative, the more “effective” the yibbum and geulah. This is because there is a preference for yibbum to be facilitated by one who is most biologically similar to the deceased husband. According to Ramban, the child born from yibbum is a gilgul (transmigration of the soul) of the man who died without children. Thus, ideally, it should be the brother of the deceased husband that marries the widow. If not him, then the closest relative to the deceased should marry her.

Ramban on Deuteronomy 25:1:1

IF THERE BE A QUARREL BETWEEN MEN. According to the tradition of our Rabbis that stripes are administered to those who are guilty of having violated negative commandments (Makkoth 13b.) [and not in civil cases, the question arises] what is its [the stripes’] connection with a quarrel between two people? He who eats n’veilah (carrion) in his home is liable to stripes! So also he who sows his field or his vineyard with diverse seeds, or he who cohabits with any of the women forbidden by a plain prohibitive law [i.e., one not involving the court-imposed death-penalty], and all the rest of the negative commandments [are all typical of the transgressions punishable by stripes. All involve negative commandments, not civil suits as is the case in the verse before us.] Additionally, what is the meaning of the phrase and they shall justify the righteous (In Verse 1 before us.) [since a civil case does not involve questions of wickedness and righteousness]? Therefore, the Rabbis have interpreted (Makkoth 2b.) the verse as referring to plotting witnesses. Scripture says: “In case, If there be a quarrel between two men, and they come high unto judgment and they will judge them through the testimony of two witnesses, as we have been commanded. (Above, 19:15.) [Afterwards, two other witnesses came to court and testified that the first pair of witnesses were elsewhere at the time when the event they testified about allegedly took place. Thus the person found guilty as a result of the original testimony is shown to be ‘righteous’ while the plotting witnesses have been proven ‘wicked.’] Then the judges will justify the righteous [through the second pair of witnesses] and condemn the wicked contrary to the first judgment; then it shall be if the wicked man [i.e., the first pair of witnesses] deserve to be beaten. ” (Verse 2.) This applies to where the command and ye shall do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother (Above, 19:19. There are cases, however, as the text continues, where this law cannot be applied, for example if they testified that a priest is the son of a divorcee, thus disqualifying him from the priesthood. If the witnesses were non-priests, that punishment is obviously inapplicable. And even if they were priests the punishment cannot be inflicted because their intent was to disqualify not only the priest himself but his offspring as well, but Scripture implicitly excludes the offspring from liability [for it says, and ye shall do unto him, but not to his offspring] as he had ‘purposed to do unto his brother.’ Therefore the witnesses are scourged for their false testimony (Makkoth 2 a-b).) cannot be carried out upon them — such being the case if they testified [against a priest] that he is the son of a divorced woman [and therefore not qualified to be a ministering priest in the Sanctuary], or that he is a slave or a bastard [who is prohibited from the priesthood or from marriage to a Jew], or if they testified against someone that he transgressed one of the negative commandments [which are punishable by stripes] — in all these cases they [the plotting witnesses] are punishable by stripes. It is possible that there be a quarrel between men resulting in stripes — such as where someone assaulted his fellow [causing a damage of] less than a perutah, (If the assault did result in a significant damage, he is liable on five counts: for injury, for pain, for medical expenses, for loss of wages, and for humiliation. The rule is that wherever the damages have a monetary value greater than a prutah [a small coin], there are no stripes. But if the damages are less than a prutah, he is punishable by stripes. (Kethuboth 32b).) or that he cursed his fellow with the Name of G-d, (Shebuoth 36a.) or that someone exacted a utensil necessary for the preparation of food as security for a loan, and similar cases. Scripture speaks of the common occurrence that the party to a dispute [with his fellow] will bring him to court and he will be punished with stripes because of him. Now, the reason for the forty stripes, according to the Midrash, (Tanchuma (Buber), Bamidbar 28.) is because he transgressed against the Torah which was given in forty days and he caused death upon himself who was formed in the forty days following conception; let him, therefore, be given forty stripes, and be freed of his punishment [of death]. I have already mentioned the subject of levirate marriage and the secret thereof, as well as of Chalitzah (the loosening of the shoe) and its reason. (Genesis 38:8 (Vol. I pp. 469-470).)

Ramban on Exodus 20:5:1

POKEID’ (VISITING) THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN UNTO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION OF THEM THAT HATE ME. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the meaning of the term p’kidah is similar to that of z’chirah (remembrance), just as in the verse, And the Eternal ‘pakad’ Sarah, (Genesis 21:1.) which is like: “and the Eternal remembered her.” The purport [of the verse here, according to Ibn Ezra], is that G-d will postpone [punishment] of the wicked person because perhaps he will repent and beget a righteous son. But if the son walks in his father’s ways, as also the third and fourth generations, their memories will be destroyed, for G-d will ‘remember’ [to visit punishment upon them for] what the parents have done, and He will no longer postpone their punishment. All the commentators have similarly interpreted [the above Scriptural expression]. But if this be so, the sins of the fathers will not be visited upon their children nor upon the third generation, but only on the fourth. It would have been proper then for Scripture to say that He will visit the iniquity of the fathers and their sons and of the third generation upon the fourth generation! Perhaps these commentators will say that the sense of the verse is that He remembers the iniquity of the fathers upon their sons, saying [to them], “You and your fathers have sinned.” He does thus with the third and fourth generations, and then takes vengeance upon them, and never again does He visit it upon them, for He destroys them all in their iniquity. But their explanation is not correct. Scripture mentions G-d’s remembrance of all of them equally, and it does not specify that the vengeance is exacted [only] in the end, i.e., on the fourth generation. Besides, the term p’kidah in conjunction with the word al — [as it occurs here: ‘pokeid’ avon avoth ‘al’ banim] — is not used in connection with remembrance, but rather signifies vengeance [or punishment]. Thus: And on the day ‘pokdi upakad’ti’ (that I do punish, I will punish) them for their sin; (Further, 32:34.) In that day ‘yiphkod hashem’ (the Eternal will punish) with his sore and great and strong sword leviathan the slant serpent, and leviathan the tortuous serpent, and He will slay the dragon that is in the sea; (Isaiah 27:1.) ‘yiphkod hashem’ (the Eternal will punish) the host of the high heaven on high. (Ibid., 24:21.) All of these are expression of vengeance and punishment. The correct interpretation thus appears to me to be that Scripture is stating that He visits the iniquity, which the father perpetrated, upon his children, and excises them on account of the iniquity of their father, something like it is said, Prepare ye slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers. (Ibid., 14:21.) Similarly, He visits it upon the third generation if the sin of the two generations is not yet full, something like [it is said], for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full. (Genesis 15:16.) Sometimes He visits the iniquity of all three generations upon the fourth one when their measure [of iniquity] is filled and then he excises them. But in the fifth generation, no one is punished for the iniquity of his ancestor in the first generation. Now in the Book of Deuteronomy, [where the Ten Commandments are restated], He added a vav [to the expression ‘al shileishim’ (unto the third generation), thus making it] ‘v’al’ shileishim v’al ribei’im l’sonai. (Deuteronomy 5:9.) But the meaning of the vav [there is not the usual “and”] but “or” — [” ‘or’ unto the third generation ‘or’ unto the fourth generation of them that hate me” — as explained above]. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that children’s children are called “children.” This is why He used the briefer term. (Ibn Ezra tried to answer this question: Since Scripture uses the terms shileishim and ribei’im to signify the third and fourth generations, why does it not say shni’im for the second generation instead of using the term banim (children)? For this reason, Ibn Ezra interpreted banim as meaning “children and children’s children,” for they are both called banim. Hence, Scripture could not use the term shni’im, for that would have meant only the second generation after the sinner, who is the first generation. However, in fact the second and third generations also need to be included here. For this reason, Scripture used banim, which includes the children’s children as well, i.e., the third generation after the sinner. Accordingly, in Ibn Ezra’s opinion, shileishim will mean the children of the third generation, who are the fourth generation after the sinner, and ribei’im will mean the children of the fourth generation, who constitute the fifth generation. Ramban will differ with this entire interpretation.) You can understand this from the terms shileishim (the third generation) and ribei’im (the fourth generation). (Ibn Ezra’s intent is that when you consider the words shileishim and ribei’im, this question will occur: Why does Scripture not use the term shni’im instead of banim? You must then conclude as explained in the preceding note.) But this is not so. Shileishim means the third generation in that sin. [Hence, it includes only the father, his children, and his children’s children.] Likewise, ribei’im means the fourth generation in that sin, totalling four sinners. And the verse stated in connection with the thirteen attributes of G-d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third generation and unto the fourth generation, (Further, 34:7.) is to be explained (The Hebrew text possibly lends itself to this translation: “He — [i.e., G-d, Who is proclaiming these thirteen attributes] — is explaining that al b’nei banim (upon the children’s children) is the shileishim (the third generation) and ribei’im (the fourth generation).” In other words, al b’nei banim is in apposition to al shileishim v’al ribei’im.) as “the children’s children, who are the third and fourth generations.” It is for this reason that Moses, [when invoking the thirteen attributes] in the case of the spies, turned back [to this specific attribute as expressed here in the Ten Commandments] and said, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation. (Numbers 14:18.) He did not mention “children’s children,” for it is all one, [i.e., “children’s children” is the same as shileishim]. Now Scripture states [that this attribute of punishment applies only to] those that hate Me. That is, if the children hate G-d. If the sinner begot a righteous son, he does not bear the iniquity of the father, as [the prophet] Ezekiel has explained. (Ezekiel 18:20.) From the words of our Rabbis, (Tosephta Sotah 4:1.) there appears a proof to the explanation I have presented above, [i.e., that ‘pokeid’ the sins of the fathers, etc., is to be understood in the sense of “visiting” or “punishing”]. From here, they have derived the principle that the [Divine] measure of good is greater than the measure of punishment, for the measure of punishment is for four generations [while that of reward is for thousands]. But if it were as the first explanation has it, [namely, that of Ibn Ezra, that pokeid means “remembers,” thus signifying that He postpones the punishment of the sinner until the fourth generation in the hope that perhaps he will beget a righteous son], then “the measure of good” would have been greater if He postponed punishment even to the tenth generation! (According to Ibn Ezra, the phrase in question represents a measure of G-d’s mercy. He does not punish the sinner immediately but “remembers” it until the third and fourth generations because perhaps he will repent and beget a righteous son. But, asks Ramban, if that were the interpretation, “the measure of Divine good” would be increased if such “punishment” were withheld even to the tenth generation! Why then did the Rabbis in the above-mentioned text speak of the Divine measure of good being manifested in punishment only to four generations when that Divine manifestation would apply even if it were extended to the tenth generation? But according to Ramban, who asserts that this verse represents a measure of G-d’s judgment — for pokeid means “punishing,” and the verse declares that the effects of the punishment are felt up to and including the fourth generation — that question cannot be asked. If punishment were extended to the tenth generation, it would no longer represent “a measure of good.” On the contrary, it would be a harsher judgment.) It is possible that this strict measure [of punishment that is imposed on a sinner and which is felt up to the fourth generation] applies only to idolatry, for it is with regard to this prohibition that He is warning here. However, in the rest of the commandments, [the rule applies that] every one shall die of his iniquity. (Jeremiah 31:30.) You will find the hidden secret of visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children in the Book of Ecclesiastes. (The allusion is to the verse, One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh (Ecclesiastes 1:4), upon which the Sefer Habahir commented: “that hath come already.” This means that the generation that passes away had come into the sins of the father “that had come already” in a previous generation, and the sins of the father are now visited upon the son, etc. (Ma’or V’shamesh). The mystic doctrine of the transmigration of souls is thus alluded to here.) I have already written concerning it. (Genesis 38:8 (Vol. I, pp. 469-470).)

Ramban on Genesis 46:2:1

AND HE SAID, JACOB, JACOB. After G-d had told him, Thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name, (Above, 35:10.) it would be proper that He call him by this glorious name, and so he is indeed mentioned three times in this section. (In Verses 1, 2 and 5.) However, He called him Jacob in order to hint that now he will not contend with G-d and men and prevail, [as the name Israel indicates], (Above, 32:29.) but he will be in a house of bondage until He will also bring him up again, since the exile now begins with him. This is the meaning of the verse, And these are the names of the children of Israel who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons, (Verse 8 here.) for they would come there with the appellation, “children of Israel,” since the children would multiply and increase there and their name and glory would extend. However, he is “Jacob” when descending thereto. The reason why Scripture mentions Er and Onan (Verse 12 here.) together with the children of Israel who came into Egypt, (See Ramban above, 38:8.) [although they had already died, as clearly stated in Verse 12]; is due to a secret which can be known from the words we have already written. (See Ramban above, 38:8.) The learned student [of the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand this, as well as the meaning of the entire Verse [12]. Scripture likewise mentioned them among those numbered (The intent of the Hebrew text may also be that Scripture likewise mentions them “in the book of Numbers,” thus giving this sentence the same format as Ramban’s next sentence, “And in the book of Chronicles….”) in the desert: The sons of Judah: Er and Onan; and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Judah after their families were, etc. (Numbers 26:19-20.) And there, in the book of Chronicles, Scripture enumerates them in another count: The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan and Shelah; which were born unto him of Bath-shua the Canaanitess…And Tamar his daughter-in-law bore him Perez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five. (I Chronicles 2:3-4. This is difficult to understand. Since two of his sons died prior to the birth of the youngest two, how does Scripture conclude that they totalled five? Thus there is here also an allusion to that which was referred to above.)

Ramban on Leviticus 18:6:1

NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH TO ANY THAT IS NEAR OF KIN TO HIM, TO UNCOVER THEIR NAKEDNESS. The reason for the prohibition of sexual relationships with one’s near of kin is not expressly written [in the Torah]. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim (Guide of the Perplexed III, 49.) that [this law seeks to inculcate the lessons that] we should limit sexual intercourse, hold it in contempt, and perform it rarely. Now these women which Scripture has forbidden amongst the relatives of one’s wife are forbidden because they are constantly together with him in his house, (“For as a rule, the mother of the wife, her grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, and sister-in-law are often with her; the husband meets them always when he goes out, when he comes in, and when he is at his work” (ibid., Friedlander’s translation). Now “if we were allowed to marry any of them, and were only precluded from sexual intercourse with them without marriage, most people would constantly become guilty of misconduct with them. But as they are entirely forbidden to us … there is reason to expect that people will not seek it, and will not think of it” (ibid.).) and the same applies to one’s own relatives [sisters, aunts, and the wife of one’s uncle], who are frequently with him and he is closeted together with them. A similar reason the Rabbi states for all forbidden relations. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already written (In the verse before us.) likewise that since the passion of man’s heart is like that of the animals, it was impossible for Scripture to forbid all females, and therefore it prohibited only those that are available to him at all times. But this is a very weak reason, that Scripture should make a person liable to the punishment of excision in the case of these forbidden relations, just because they are sometimes found together with him, and at the same time permit a man to marry many women, even in the hundreds and thousands! And what harm would there be if a man would marry only his daughter, just as was permitted to the Noachides, (Sanhedrin 58 b.) or marry two sisters as did our patriarch Jacob? A person also could not do better than to give his daughter in marriage to his elder son, and they would inherit his possessions and multiply and increase in his house, for He created not the earth a waste, He formed it to be inhabited! (Isaiah 45:18.) We have no tradition as to [the reason of] this prohibition of forbidden relationships, but logically it would appear that there is in this matter one of the secrets of creation, which attaches to the soul and is part of the secret of the transmigration [of souls], to which we have already alluded. (Genesis 38:8 (Vol. I, pp. 469-470).) Know that sexual intercourse is held distant and in contempt in the Torah unless it is for the preservation of the human species, and therefore where there can be no offspring [such as in pederasty or carnal intercourse with beasts], it is forbidden. Similarly, where [the union is such that] the child born therefrom will not have a healthy existence, nor succeed from it, the Torah prohibited such a union. This is the sense of the expressions: el kol ‘sh’eir’ b’saro [literally: to any ‘flesh’ next to his flesh]; for he hath made naked ‘eth sh’eiro’ (Further, 29:19. See Ramban on Exodus 21:9 (Vol. II, pp. 356-7), where he elaborates on the meaning of this word sh’eir.) [literally: his flesh]. Thus the Torah forbade these marriages on account of sh’eir [i.e., because the forbidden relations constitute “flesh” next to one’s own], the term sh’eir being derived from the expression [in the verse], ‘hanish’ar’ (he that is left) in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem. (Isaiah 4:3. The term sh’eir denoting “flesh” or “relative” is something which “remains” with a person, as it is his own or next to his flesh.) Hence Scripture states, they are ‘sha’arah’ (near kinswomen); it is lewdness, (Further, Verse 17.) meaning to say, “these are not marriages, nor fit for such a relationship, for they will not succeed [in having healthy offspring, as explained above]; rather it is lewdness, mere thoughts of indecency.” Thus the forbidden relationships are included in “the statutes,” the laws which constitute “the decrees of the King.” Now a decree is an ordinance which originates in the knowledge of the King, Who is wise in the management of His kingdom, and it is He Who knows the need for and the benefit of the command that He ordained, and He does not tell it to anyone except to His wise counsellors.

Ramban on Leviticus 25:10:1

YOVEIL HI’ (IT IS A JUBILEE). “This [the fiftieth] year is distinguished from all other years by being given a special name. And what is that name? Its name is yoveil [literally: ‘the ram’s horn’] on account of the blowing of the Shofar.” This is Rashi’s language, and such also is the opinion of the commentators (R’dak in Sefer Hashorashim (Book of Roots), under the root yoveil.) that [the word yoveil here] is of the roots: ‘b’keren hayoveil’ (with the ram’s horn); (Joshua 6:5.) ‘shofroth ha’yovlim’ (the rams’ horns). (Ibid., Verse 4.) But I do not find this acceptable, because of [the expression here] shall be unto you [it shall be a Jubilee unto you]; for what sense is there in saying of a year that “it shall be ‘a blowing’ unto you” (For since Rashi explained that the term yoveil means “blowing the Shofar,” then it follows that ‘yoveil hi’ the fiftieth year shall be unto you means that “the fiftieth year shall be blowing the Shofar to you.” But how can this be said of a year? Mizrachi in defense of Rashi writes that Rashi means that “the year in which every man returns to his possession and to his family, is called yoveil (Jubilee) on account of the blowing of the Shofar,” but not that the word yoveil means “blowing.”) and you shall return [every man unto his possession etc.]? Perhaps Scripture is stating: “It is a Jubilee distinguishable by that name which I have called it, and it shall be unto all of you known by the blowing of the Shofar which you will do thereon, reminding you of the purport [of the Jubilee year], that in it every man shall return unto his possession, and every man unto his family.” Similarly, A Jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you (Verse 11.) means that it shall be a Jubilee unto you, that ye shall not sow, neither reap, that is to say, it is known by its name that it is to be so. But all this appears to me to be incorrect. For the meaning of shofroth ha’yovlim (Ibid., Verse 4.) is “the horns of the rams,” and Yonathan [ben Uziel] also translated there: “shofroth [made] of rams’ horns.” It is also so stated in the Gemara: (Rosh Hashanah 26 a.) “What intimation is there that the term yoveil is an expression for a ram? In Arabic they call a ram yovlo.” Now the Shofar used on the Day of Atonement [in the Jubilee year] does not necessarily need to be a ram’s horn, for all shofroth (horns) are valid on it, and in the opinion of our Mishnah (Ibid., 26 b.) and all the Tannaim (Sages of the Mishnah), the commandment is [preferably to be performed in the year of the Jubilee] with the horn of wild goats. If so, why then would the [Jubilee] year be called “the year of the ram?” Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the meaning of yoveil is like “sending forth.” In my opinion, Scripture does not call the year yoveil with reference to the blowing [of the Shofar], but with reference to “the liberty” [that it brings to the inhabitants of the Land]; for this term is not mentioned in the first verse which states, Then shalt thou make proclamation with the blast of the horn. (Above, Verse 9.) But when He stated [in the verse before us] and ye shall proclaim liberty throughout the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof, meaning that they shall all be free to reside wherever they please, He continued by saying ‘yoveil hi,’ that it is a year in which every man is “carried away” to his possession, and his feet “transport him” to his family afar off to sojourn. (Isaiah 23:7.) This term [yoveil] is used in connection with many subjects. Thus: ‘yuval’ (there shall be brought) a present unto the Eternal of hosts, (Ibid., 18:7.) and it is further stated: and on ‘yuval’ it spreadeth out its roots; (Jeremiah 17:8.) streams and ‘yivlei mayim’, (Isaiah 30:25.) which mean “channels through which water is conveyed.” And the Land shall yield ‘yevulah'; (Further, 26:4.) and neither shall ‘yevul’ be in the vines (Habakkuk 3:17.) also signify a kind of “bringing” [of produce or fruits], just as they are called t’vuah [“produce,” which is of the root “bringing”]. Similarly in Aramaic [as will be explained]. Thus: and carry it quickly (Numbers 17:11.) the Targum renders: “v’ovil quickly.” Thus the meaning of it shall be ‘yoveil’ unto you is “it is a year which ‘brings’ [liberty] and it shall be so to all of you, that you shall come and return every man unto his possession, and every man unto his family.” And He stated again [in the following verse], A ‘yoveil’ shall that fiftieth year be unto you (Verse 11.) meaning that the fiftieth year shall be to you only for yoveil [“bringing” liberty], and not for anything else, and ye shall not sow, neither reap, (Verse 11.) but instead it shall be holy (Verse 12.) and every man shall return unto his possession, (Verse 13.) so that the year shall be for all of you a yoveil [bringing everyone back to his possession and family], as its name indicates. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the term d’ror (liberty) is related to the expression, ‘dor’ (a generation) passeth away, ‘v’dor’ (and a generation) cometh. (Ecclesiastes 1:4. See Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 186, where in his sermon on Ecclesiastes Ramban alludes to a text from the Sefer Habahir which asks: “But does not a generation first ‘come’ and then ‘pass away,’ so why then does the verse change the order? It is to allude to the fact that a generation cometh means that ‘it had already come beforetime.’” See also in Genesis 38:8, Vol. I, p. 469, Note 155.) Similarly, yoveil means that everyone will return to the yoveil (source) whence his roots are, and this shall be unto you, [until that time]. (Abusaula.)

Studies in Spirituality; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Ki Tetzeh; The Limits of Love 19

How are we to resolve this? It may be that, despite the rabbinic principle that the patriarchs observed the whole Torah before it was given, this is only an approximation. Not every law was precisely the same before and after the covenant at Sinai. For instance, Nahmanides notes that the story of Judah and Tamar seems to describe a slightly different form of levirate marriage from the one set out in Deuteronomy. (See Nahmanides on Genesis 38:8.)

Tanakh

If a man dies without offspring, his brother must marry the widow to continue the deceased brother's lineage and inheritance, following the levirate marriage custom. The widow cannot marry outside the family to ensure the deceased brother's lineage and inheritance are preserved (Deuteronomy 25:5).

Deuteronomy 25:5

When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no offspring, (offspring Lit. “son,” but daughters are also in view; cf. Num. 27.1–11.) the wife of the deceased (Apparently a type of widow whose late husband had a share in his lineage’s patrimony, and whose access to support from that patrimony is now stymied by her lack of offspring; cf. Ruth 4.5.) shall not become that of another party, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty.

Targum

Yehudah instructs Onan to marry his brother's wife and fulfill the yibum rite to establish seed for his brother [Onkelos Genesis 38:8; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:8].

Onkelos Genesis 38:8

Yehudah said to Onan, Consummate marriage with your brother’s wife, and fulfill the yibum rite with her, and establish seed for your brother.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:8

And Jehuda said unto Onan, Enter thou to thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed unto the name of thy brother.

וַיֵּ֣דַע אוֹנָ֔ן כִּ֛י לֹּ֥א ל֖וֹ יִהְיֶ֣ה הַזָּ֑רַע וְהָיָ֞ה אִם־בָּ֨א אֶל־אֵ֤שֶׁת אָחִיו֙ וְשִׁחֵ֣ת אַ֔רְצָה לְבִלְתִּ֥י נְתׇן־זֶ֖רַע לְאָחִֽיו׃ 9 J But Onan, knowing that the offspring would not count as his, let [the semen] go to waste (let [the semen] go to waste Heb. shiḥet arṣah; lit. “spoil [it] groundward.” NJPS “let it go to waste,” with “offspring” as the implausible co-referent of “it.” See the Dictionary under “seed.”) whenever he joined with his brother’s wife, so as not to provide offspring for his brother.
Onan's refusal to impregnate his brother's wife was due to not wanting to share the child's merit with his deceased brother, as seen in Halakhah interpretations. The daughters of Zelophehad stood against their husbands and were honored for their wisdom and righteousness, highlighting the importance of marrying wisely. The severe sin of wasting seed is emphasized in Musar, with Rabbi Eliezer and the Zohar stressing the grave consequences of such actions. Oved, a descendant of Elimelech, became a leader of Am Yisrael, symbolizing a tikkun for his ancestors' self-centered behavior. The Talmud discusses Onan's actions, including engaging in anal intercourse to avoid impregnating his brother's widow and the consequences of masturbation. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan explain that Onan's actions were to avoid giving offspring to his brother.

Commentary

Onan's seed would not be named after him, as the child would be called the son of Er. Onan destroyed his semen by pouring it on the ground, not wanting to give offspring for his brother. Ibn Ezra and Sforno explain the reasoning behind Onan's actions, with Sforno emphasizing that Onan preferred to have no children rather than have children who would be regarded as his brother's. Rashbam and Chizkuni provide linguistic and contextual analysis of the text, while Rashi compares Onan's actions to threshing and winnowing.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:9:1

וידע אונן, “Onan realised;” [the author’s problem with this expression is that the term ידע, normally refers to something in the past which was known as a fact. Ed.] The author quotes הידוע נדע, “how were we to know,” in Genesis 43,7 as proof that the term can also be used here.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:9:2

כי לא לו יהיה הזרע, “for the child would not be named after him;” according to the plain meaning of the text, זרע is used with the production of a crop in the field, not a human being.'והיה אם בא וגו, “and whenever he would engage in marital relations, etc;” he reasoned that if he were to impregnate his wife (the widow of his brother) the result would be that he would at the same time destroy his own ancestral share of the land. For who would then do the plowing and all the other work needed to be performed in the field?

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:9:3

לבלתי נתן זרע לאחיו, “not to provide semen for his brother;” we find similar considerations in the Book of Ruth 4,6 when a potential redeemer declined to perform a levirate marriage with Ruth;” [as the latter had not been a Jewess, and a Moabite even, his consideration was not sinful. Ed.] Besides, there was another redeemer willing and anxious to perform such a ritual for her.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:9:1

THAT THE SEED WOULD NOT BE HIS. The seed would not be called by his name, (The child would be called the son of Er (Krinsky).) as we find in And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead (Deut. 25:6).

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:9:2

THAT HE SPILLED IT ON THE GROUND. He destroyed (The Hebrew literally reads: ve-shichet (and he destroyed) artzah (to the ground). I.E. interprets this to mean he destroyed his semen by pouring it on the ground.) the seed of his semen by pouring it outside of the vagina, on the ground. I am shocked by Ben Tamim Ha-Mizrachi (Adoniyahu ben Tamim Ha-Mizrachi, a grammarian and Bible commentator who lived in Iraq. He is also mentioned by I.E. in Eccles. 12:5.) who interpreted ve-shichet artzah (that he spilled it on the ground) to mean that Onan had unnatural intercourse with Tamar so that she would not conceive. (He had anal intercourse with her.) Onan thus shichet artzah (corrupted her ground), (Ben Tamim renders, ve-shichet artzah, he dealt corruptly with her ground.) i.e., the place upon which she sits on the ground. (Ground is a euphemism for anus (Weiser).) This interpretation is sheer madness. (Artzah means toward the ground. If there was a mappik in the heh it would mean her ground. But there is no such mappik in the heh (Krinsky).) Heaven forbid that the holy seed become defiled with such filth.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:9:3

GIVE SEED. Neton (give) is here conjugated according to the paradigm of a regular verb. (The root of neton is nun, tav, nun. In the infinitive the first and last nuns are usually dropped; i.e., the infinitive of this root is tet, as in Gen. 4:12. However, in neton the nuns are present. Hence in this case the root nun, tav, nun is conjugated as a shelamim, a regular verb.)

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 38:2

Lit. “spoil on the ground.”

Radak on Genesis 38:9:1

וידע אונן, he realised this only when his father said to him that it was his task to see that his brother’s seed would be perpetuated.

Radak on Genesis 38:9:2

ושחת ארצה, he ejaculated outside her vagina, just as we explained in connection with Er.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:9:1

כי לא לו יהיה הזרע, people in those days were extremely fussy about this point.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:9:2

נתן זרע, the vowel kametz here is in fact a chataf kametz, as every word spelled plene, i.e. with the vowel cholem as the letter ו when it appears in construct form such as here has this vowel shortened to a chataf kametz. The result is that the stress will be on the last syllable, whereas the word following immediately afterwards will have its stress on the first syllable. In effect this makes the words נתן זרע in our verse as if they had been connected by the hyphen, makkif. Other examples of similar constructions are Psalms 145,8 ארך אפים וגדל חסד [where the word גדל is a shortened version of גדול with the ו as the vowel cholem. Ed.] Another example is found in Exodus 21,11 ואם שלש אלה לא יעשה לה, “if he will do none of these three things for her, etc.” Yet another such construction is found in Numbers 35,14 אבל את שלש הערים, “however the three cities, etc.”

Rashi on Genesis 38:9:1

ושחת ארצה AND HE DESTROYED ONTO THE GROUND — He 'threshed inside and winnowed outside' (Genesis Rabbah 85:5).

Sforno on Genesis 38:9:1

כי לא לו יהיה הזרע, he knew that not he alone would get the credit for performing this act of love for his deceased brother, seeing that part of the merit would go to his older brother seeing he had first fulfilled the commandment of marrying, so that he would share in the merit of having a son sired posthumously through a levirate union with his widow by his younger brother. [I fail to understand how someone who married in order to use sex only as an act of self-gratification can be described as having acquired a merit by the act of marrying. Perhaps gratifying the sex urge only with someone to whom one is married is by itself a מצוה, and this is what Seforno had in mind. Ed.]

Sforno on Genesis 38:9:2

לבלתי נתן זרע לאחיו, for not having given his seed for the use (perpetuation on earth) of his deceased brother.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:9

Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, and that any children born from this marriage would not be called by his name, but by the name of his deceased brother. Therefore, it was when he engaged in intercourse with his brother’s wife; he would spill it on the ground, practiced coitus interruptus, so as not to give offspring for his brother . Out of envy, Onan preferred to have no children rather than have children who would be regarded as his brother’s.

Halakhah

The verse in Genesis 38:9 regarding Onan's refusal to impregnate his brother's wife is interpreted as Onan not wanting to share the merit of the child with his deceased brother. The commandment of levirate marriage is seen as a way to memorialize the deceased brother and give him a portion and merit in the physical world, according to the Kabbalists. The Sefer HaChinukh encourages questioning and discussion of these commandments to uncover the truth.

Sefer HaChinukh 598:3

And according to that which we mentioned, when the verse states (Genesis 38:9), “But Onan, knowing that the seed would not be his,” its sense [in terms] of the simple meaning is to say that not all of the merit of the seed would be his, as his brother would take a part in it; and he was not [interested] in partial merit. And also because maybe the main merit is to the dead brother, since he is like the owner of the field and the living brother is like a sharecropper — and like the well-known matter about sharecroppers, that there are some that provide their own seed. And this is what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 22b) that any time that his brother has any memory in the world — a son or a daughter or grandchildren from another woman, and even an illegitimate son (mamzer) or daughter — that they exempt his wife from levirate marriage; [such] that it appears from this that the matter is only to memorialize his name and to give him a portion and merit in this physical world. (See Guide for the Perplexed 3:49.) And behold, with my knowing that there is a major principle and a correct explanation about this commandment with the Kabbalists, I will rely upon what I wrote at the beginning of my book. And there I penned my apology, that I do not silence myself from writing my thoughts about the simple understanding of the explanations of the commandments, in order to stimulate the spirit of the children to ask questions about them to their elders and their teachers. By [their] dealing with them, perhaps, a merit will come through me in the revelation of the truth of their matters, and I will merit with them in my place.

Liturgy

The text connects recitation of the ten chapters of Tehilim to all true Tzaddikim in the current generation and those who have passed, specifically mentioning Rabbi Nachman ben Feiga as the one who revealed Tikkun HaKlali and asking for his protection over all of Yisrael.

Tikkun HaKlali 1

I am connecting myself in saying the ten chapters of Tehilim to all the true Tzaddikim that are in our generation, and to all the true Tzaddikim resting in dust; especially to our Holy Rabbi, Tzadik Yesod Olam, The “Flowing Brook, a Fountain of Wisdom” (Prov. 18:4) our Rabbi Nachman ben Feiga who revealed this Tikkun. May his merit protect us and all Yisrael, Amen.

Midrash

The daughters of Zelophehad took a stand against their husbands and did not participate in making the golden calf or the spies' slander. They spoke up for their inheritance at the right time, showing wisdom and righteousness. They were honored for their actions, and their story highlights the importance of marrying someone suitable. Moses brought their case before the Lord, and they were commended for waiting for worthy husbands. The women's actions served as a counterbalance to the men's failings, demonstrating the importance of upholding the law and acting with wisdom.

Bamidbar Rabbah 21:11

Another matter: “The daughters of Tzelofḥad…approached…” – greatness for them, greatness for their father, greatness for Makhir, and greatness for Joseph that such wise and righteous women descended from him. What was their wisdom? It is that they spoke at that moment when Moses was engaged in the portion of the inheritances: “To these the land shall be distributed” (Numbers 26:53). They said to him: If we are like a son, let us inherit. If not, let our mother be subject to levirate marriage. (See Deuteronomy 25:5. A widow is subject to levirate marriage only if she and her husband had no children at all, whether sons or daughters.) Immediately, “Moses brought their case before the Lord” (Numbers 27:5). They were righteous, as they married only those suitable for them. Why did the Holy One blessed be He arrange for them to come to Moses at the end? It was so Moses would not be impressed with himself that he withdrew from his wife for forty years. The Holy One blessed be He informed him with these, saying: These were not commanded, (They were not commanded to withdraw from relations with men, unlike Moses, who had been so commanded regarding his wife. Nevertheless they delayed marriage for many years until they found suitable husbands (see Bava Batra 119b).) but they married only those suitable for them.

Bereshit Rabbah 41:7

“Lot raised his eyes and saw the entire plain of the Jordan, that it was all watered, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Tzoar” (Genesis 13:10). “Lot raised his eyes and saw the entire plain of the Jordan” – Rabbi Naḥman bar Ḥanin said: Anyone who has a voracious appetite for sexual immorality will ultimately be fed from his own flesh and blood. (He will end up committing incest. See Genesis 19:32.) Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: This entire verse is comprised of expressions of sexual immorality. [“Lot raised his eyes”] – just as it says: “His master's wife raised her eyes [toward Joseph and she said: Lie with me]” (Genesis 39:7). “And saw the entire plain [kikar] of the Jordan, that it was all watered” – just as it says: “For due to a licentious woman, one is brought to a loaf [kikar] of bread” (Proverbs 6:26). “That it was all watered [mashke]” – just as it says: “He shall give the woman to drink [hishka] the bitter water that causes a curse” (Numbers 5:24). “Before the Lord destroyed [shaḥet]” – just as it says: “It was when he consorted with his brother's wife, he would spill [veshiḥet] on to the ground” (Genesis 38:9). “Like the garden of the Lord” – for trees; “like the land of Egypt” – for seeds. “Lot chose for himself all the plain of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed from the east, and each parted from his brother” (Genesis 13:11). “Abram lived in the land of Canaan, and Lot lived in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent as far as Sodom” (Genesis 13:12). “And the men of Sodom were extremely wicked and sinful to the Lord” (Genesis 13:13). “Lot chose for himself” – Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra said: Like a person selecting his mother’s marriage contract. (When a man marries several women, each of the women brings property into the marriage as part of the marriage contract. When the husband dies after the wives, each of the sons inherits the property that his mother had introduced into the marriage. Lot chose Sodom as if it were his ordained legacy.) “Lot journeyed from the east [mikedem]” – he moved himself away from the One who preceded [kadmono] the world. He said: ‘I desire neither Abram nor his God.’ “Each parted from his brother. Abram lived [in the land of Canaan]” – Rabbi Meir says: You do not have among the cities any as evil as Sodom, as when a person is wicked, they refer to him as a person ofSodom. (And yet Lot chose that place to live in.) You do not have any among the peoples as tough as the Emorites, as when a person is tough, they refer to him as an Emorite. Rabbi Yosei said: You do not have among the cities any as beautiful as Sodom, as Lot circulated among all the cities of the plain and did not find a place as fine as Sodom, and these [the people of Sodom] were the most distinguished among them (According to Rabbi Yosei, the people of Sodom were better than those of the other cities in the area, and that is why Lot chose it to live in. Yet, despite their relative eminence, the Torah testifies that they “were extremely wicked.”) – “and the men of Sodom were extremely wicked and sinful to the Lord” (Genesis 13:13). “Wicked” – towards one another; “sinful” – through sexual immorality; “to the Lord” – through idolatry; “extremely” – through bloodshed.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:5

“Judah said to Onan: Consort with your brother’s wife, and consummate levirate marriage with her, and establish offspring for your brother” (Genesis 38:8). “Judah said to Onan…” – Judah was the first to initiate the mitzva of levirate marriage. It is taught: Any matter that was in the category of permitted, became prohibited, and then became permitted again, it does not return to its initial permitted state, but rather, to a second permitted state. A yevama, (A yevama is a woman whose husband died without children. She is tied in a levirate bond to his brother, who is called the yavam.) because she was in the category of permitted, became prohibited, and was then permitted, (Before she married, she was permitted to marry the brother of her eventual husband. Once she married, she became forbidden to her husband’s brother. When her husband died, she became permitted to him once again.) does she, perhaps, return to her initial permitted state? The verse states: “Her husband’s brother shall consort with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5) – mitzva. (This view accords with that of Abba Shaul (Yevamot 39b), who holds that levirate marriage may be performed only if the intent in doing so is to perform the mitzva, and not if the intent is simply because they would like to be married. This is different from the permitted status of the yevama to her eventual yavam before she had been married. At that time they could have married for any reason they wanted (Yefe To’ar). ) Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥalafta entered into levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He engaged in relations five times, (He had five brothers who died without children. He did not remain married to these women, but after he fulfilled the mitzva he divorced them.) he engaged in relations through a sheet, (This was in order to minimize his pleasure, so he would ensure that the act was purely for the sake of the mitzva.) and planted five saplings in Israel. (Five sons were born from these acts of levirate marriage. ) Who were they? Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Menaḥem ben Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Avdimos ben Rabbi Yosei. He had red eyes and resembled his mother. (Rabbi Avdimos had red eyes, as did his mother. This was considered unattractive, and underscores that Rabbi Yosei was interested only in fulfilling the mitzva of levirate marriage, and therefore he did so even in this case, where the woman was not attractive.) “Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, and it was when he consorted with his brother’s wife, that he spilled on the ground, so as not to give offspring for his brother” (Genesis 38:9). “Onan knew” – he would penetrate inside but spill outside. “Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law: Remain a widow in your father’s house, until Shela my son matures; for he said: Lest he too die, like his brothers. Tamar went and lived in her father’s house” (Genesis 38:11). “Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law” – Rabbi Elazar said: Although there is no divination, there is a portent – “lest he too die, like his brothers.” The Rabbis say: [With regard to a] house, baby, and wife, (When a person builds a house, has a child, or marries, and then experiences a period of good or bad fortune, the experience can be seen as a portent for that fortune continuing. Viewing it in this way would not violate the prohibition against divination.) although there is no divination, there is a portent.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Bava Kama 8:9

Raba said again unto Rabba bar Mari: "Wherefrom the following people's saying: 'Although the wine belongs to the owner, thanks is nevertheless due to the waiter?'" He answered: "From (Num. 27, 19) And thou shalt lay thy hand upon him; and also (Deut. 34, 9) And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him," etc. (The whole credit is given to Moses). Raba said again to Rabba bar Mari: "Wherefrom the following people's saying: 'The bad palm will travel to meet a barren can (like meets like)?'" He answered: "This is written in the Pentateuch, repeated in the Prophets, mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, also learned in a Mishnah and taught in a Baraitha: Pentateuch, the following passage (Gen. 38, 9) And Esau went unto Ishmael; Prophets (Jud. 11, 3) And then gathered themsleves to Yiphthach idle men, and they went out with him; Hagiographa (Ben Sira, 13) Every fowl associates with its kind and man with his equal; Mishnah, "All that is attached to an unclean article is unclean and all that is attached to a clean article is clean." Baraitha: R. Eliezer said: "Not in vain did the gladiator go to the raven, because it is of its kind."

Midrash Aggadah, Genesis 6:12:1

"That all flesh had corrupted." That they would have intercourse with every animal, and pull out to spill their seed upon the ground, as it is stated, "let [the semen] go to waste upon the ground." (Genesis 38:9)

Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 4:1

(Deut. 25:17:) “Remember what Amalek (Esau's grandson) did to you.” This verse is related (to Ps.109:14), “May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord […].” Were the fathers of Esau wicked? (PRK 3:1; cf. 12:4; PR 12:4. In note 16 on PR 12:4, W. G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati (“Yale Judaica Series”; New Haven; Yale, 1968) p. 221, n. 16, suggests that the verse was understood as referring to Esau, because vs. 17 in the psalm identifies him as one who DID NOT FIND PLEASURE IN A BLESSING.) And were they not righteous? His grandfather was Abraham. His father was Isaac. Yet are you saying (in Ps. 109:14), “May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered?” [The verse is] simply [referring to] a sin that he sinned against his fathers. (The Hebrew of Ps. 109:14 can also be understood in this sense.) And how? (Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 6:3; Gen. R. 63:12.) You find that Isaac got his vitality from Abraham; yet he lived a hundred and eighty years, while Abraham only lived a hundred and seventy-five years. Why so? So he would not see Esau’s shame. Abraham had [Isaac] when he was a hundred years [old]. (Gen. 25:26-27:) “And Isaac was sixty years old when they were born. And the lads grew.” Both of them went to the elementary school, and both of them were equal until the age of fifteen. R. Levi said, “To what were they comparable? To a myrtle and a thorny plant. As long as they are small, no one [can] distinguish one from the other. After they have grown up, the one gives off its pleasant smell, but the other brings forth its thorns. Thus, so long as Esau and Jacob were small, no one distinguished between them. After they were grown up (in Gen. 25:26, cont.), ’Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the outdoors; but Jacob was a mild man who stayed in camp.’” And Esau would go out and rob and extort, and people would maledict him. And during the five years [that were withheld from Abraham's life], Esau committed two serious transgressions: He violated a betrothed maiden, and he took a life. The one is what is written about (in Gen. 25:29), “then Esau came from the field, and he was exhausted.” Now field can only be a reference to a betrothed maiden [of whom it is stated (in Deut. 22:25), “If in the field the man finds [a maiden who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her…].” Moreover, exhausted can only be a reference to a murderer, of whom it is stated (in Jer. 4:31), “woe to me, now; for my life is exhausted before those who kill.” Rabbi Zakkay said, “He also stole, as stated (in Obad. 1:5), ‘If thieves have come to you.’” (The Midrash, of course, is identifying the Edom of Obadiah with Esau.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “I had already promised my beloved Abraham (in Gen. 15:15), ‘And you shall go unto your ancestors in peace; [you shall be buried at a good old age].’ But now he would see his grandson go to bad culture and hear what people say about his grandson; [that he was] transgressing sexual prohibitions and shedding blood. He would [then] wonder and say, ‘Are these the stipulations that the Holy One, blessed be He, being fulfilled with me?’ And he would voice a complaint, ‘And this is not “a good old age.”’ What should I do for him?” [So] He gathered him from the world. It is better for the righteous man to be gathered (to his ancestors) in peace, as stated in Ps. 63:4), “For Your steadfast love is better than life.” Behold, he [thus] sinned against his grandfather. He sinned against his father, as he caused his eyes to become dim during his lifetime. Hence they have said, “Whoever produces a wicked son or a wicked disciple causes his [own] eyes to grow dim during his lifetime.” From where [in Scripture] do you learn [this]? A wicked son, from Isaac, as stated (in (Gen. 27:1), “And it came to pass that when Isaac was old [and his eyes were too dim to see].” [In regard to] a wicked disciple, [we learn] from Ahijah, as it is written (in I Kings 14:4), “now Ahijah could not see, because his eyes were dim from old age.” Why? Because he produced a wicked disciple in Jeroboam. [(Ps. 109:14:) “And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.”] But how had he sinned against his mother? R. Judah, R. Nehemiah, and [our] masters [differ]. R. Judah says, “When he left his mother's belly, he severed her uterus, (Metrin: Gk.: metra; cf. Lat.: matrix.) with the result that she would not bear [any more children]. This is what is written (in Amos 1:11), ‘because he (i.e., Edom, which is Esau) pursued his brother with the sword and repressed his pity (rachamiv),’ as it is written, ‘his uterus (rechemo).’” (I.e., the womb from which he had been born. The Masoretic text here reads WOMB in the plural. As such, an idiomatic reading of the text would be rendered: BECAUSE HE PURSUED HIS BROTHER WITH THE SWORD AND REPRESSED HIS PITY.) Moreover, R. Berekhyah says, “You should not say [this] in reference to when he had left [his mother's uterus]. (Gen. R. 63:6.) Rather, as he was leaving his mother's uterus, his zerta' (The Aramaic word means “fist” or “hand,” as the bracketed explanation correctly translates. The reason for this rather unusual word here is to play on the word zoru from Ps. 58:4, which he is about to cite.) [i.e., fist] was stretched out against him (i.e., against his brother Jacob).” What is the reasoning? (Ps. 58:4:) “The wicked go astray (zoru) from the womb.” R. Nehemiah says, “He was the cause of her not producing twelve tribes.” As Rav Huna has said, “Rebekah was worthy of producing twelve tribes, as stated (in Gen. 25:23), ‘And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are [in your womb].” (See above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 12:16.) Here are two. (Ibid., cont.:) “and two peoples.” Here are four. (Ibid., cont.:) “And one people shall be stronger than the other.” Here are six. (Ibid., cont.:) “And the elder shall serve the younger.”’ Here are eight. (Vs. 24:) ‘And behold there were twins in her womb.’ Here are ten. (Vs. 25:) ‘The first came out ruddy.’ That is eleven. (Vs. 26:) ‘And afterward his brother came out.’ Here are twelve.” And there are some who bring this [idea] from here (vs. 22); “and she said, ‘If so, why am I here (zh)?’” By gematria (Gk.: geometria.) z (=7) + h (=5) [for a total of] twelve. But [our] masters have said, “He caused her bier to not go forth publicly [to her funeral]. You find that when Rebekah died, they were saying, ‘Who will go before her? Abraham is dead. Isaac's eyes are dim, and he is sitting at home. Jacob has gone to Paddan-Aram. Should Esau the wicked go before her? Then people would say [in Aramaic], (Much of this paragraph is in Aramaic.) “Cursed be her breasts for suckling this man.”’ What did they do? They brought out her bier at night, so that Esau not go out in front of her, and all say, ‘Cursed are the breasts suckled this evil man.’” R. Jose bar R. Hanina said, “Because they brought out her bier at night, the text only explained about her obliquely. Thus it is written (in Gen. 35:8), ‘Then Rebekah's nurse, Deborah, died [and she was buried under the oak below Bethel] and its name was called Weeping Oak (Allon-Bacuth)],’ as they wept two weepings (bekhiot).” (Bacuth, of course, means “weeping,” and allon can be understood as a Greek adjective in the neuter that means “other” or “another.” Thus the name can be read as “another weeping” and imply a second weeping. So PRK 3:1; Gen. R. 81:5; cf. Eccl. R. 7:2:3.) While Jacob was seated in observance [of mourning] for her nurse, the news about his mother came to him, as stated (to Gen. 35:9), “Now God appeared unto Jacob again […,] and blessed him.” With what blessing did He bless him? He blessed him with the blessing of [consolation given to] mourners. (The blessing informed Jacob that his mother was dead.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Did his father pay him (i.e. Esau) back with evil? Did his mother pay him back with evil? Did his brother pay him back with evil? Did his grandfather pay him back with evil? Did you pay him back with evil? I shall pay him back with evil, as his children destroyed My house. You and I shall rise against him, as stated (Obad. 1:1), “Rise, and we shall rise up against her for war.” Israel said to him, “Master of the world, we cannot [overcome] him.” [So] the Holy One, blessed be He, says to them, “You mention his name below, and I shall blot out his name above, as stated (Ps. 109:15) ‘Let them (the iniquity against his fathers and the sin against his mother) always be before (neged) the Lord.’ Whatever he has done, he has done against (neged) Me.” [Therefore] (ibid., cont.), “and may He have their memory cut off from the earth.” Ergo (in Deut. 25:17), “Remember what Amalek (Esau's grandson) did to you.”

Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 7:1

(Numb. 27:1:) “Then came forward the daughters of Zelophehad.” In that generation the women were fencing (On raising a fence about the Law, see Avot 1:1.) that which the men were breaching. (Numb. R. 21:10.) Accordingly you find that Aaron said to them (i.e., the men in Exod. 32:2), “Take off the gold rings [that are in the ears of your wives…]”; but the women were unwilling and protested against their husbands. Thus it is stated (in vs. 3), “So all the people took off the gold rings that were in their (Since “their” is masculine here, there is an implication that the men only took their own earrings.) ears.” Thus the women did not take part in making the [golden] calf. So also in the case of the spies who had spread slander (according to Numb. 14:36), “when they returned, they made [the whole congregation] murmur against him.” A decree was issued against them, because they had said (in Numb. 13:31), “We are unable to go up [against this people for they are stronger than us].” The women, however, were not with them in their counsel. What is written above the matter (in Numb. 26:65)? “Because the Lord had said to them, ‘They shall surely die in the wilderness,’ not a man of them remained.” [Note that Scripture speaks of] “a man,” and not of "a woman.” Because they (i.e., the men) did not want to enter the land, but the women came forward to ask for an inheritance [in the land]; (Numb. 27:1) “Then came forward the daughters of Zelophehad.” Therefore the parashah [about the death of that generation] was written next to this parashah, because what the men broke down the women fenced in. Another interpretation (of Numb. 27:1), “Then came forward [the daughters of Zelophehad ben Hepher ben Gilead ben Machir ben Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh ben Joseph”: [Their action was] an honor to them. [It was also] an honor to their father, an honor to Machir, an honor to Manasseh and an honor to Joseph that such righteous and wise women had issued from him. (Numb. R. 21:11.) But what was their wisdom? They [only] spoke up at the proper time, when Moses was busy with the parashah about inheritance (in accordance with Numb. 26:53), “To these shall you apportion the land [for an inheritance].” [So what was their wisdom? That] they said to him, “If we are like a son, let us inherit; but if not, let our mother perform levirate marriage (marry her husband's brother).” (His duty would be to rear children in the name of the deceased father. On levirate marriage generally, see Deut. 25:5-6: also Gen. 38:8-9; Ruth 4:5.) Immediately (in Numb. 27:5), “Moses brought their cause before the Lord.” They were righteous, In that they had never been married to someone unworthy of them. Then why did they meet with Moses now? So that he would not [put on airs] over having abstained from his wife for forty years. (Since Moses regularly stood in the Divine Presence, he needed to preserve an unbroken state of purity.) The Holy One, blessed be He, informed him through these [women], saying, “Here are women who without being commanded [remained unmarried] for forty years, until they were married to someone worthy of them.”

Shemot Rabbah 15:27

Another interpretation: “This month shall be for you” (Exodus 12:2) – that is what is written: “You shall say to Pharaoh: So said the Lord: Israel is My firstborn son. I have said to you: Let My son go, and he will serve Me; and you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your firstborn son.” (Exodus 4:22–23). May the name of the Holy One blessed be He be exalted, as He “declares the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10). Regarding Abraham it says: “Also that nation, whom they will serve, I will judge [dan]” (Genesis 15:14). What is dan? The plague of the firstborn, which is called an affliction [nega], as it is stated: “One further affliction [nega] [will I bring upon Pharaoh and Egypt; afterward he will send you forth from this]” (Exodus 11:1). What is: “I [anokhi] will judge?” (The question is about the use of the word anokhi for the first person singular.) The Holy One blessed be He said: “I will exact retribution from them with the plague of the firstborn, as it is stated: “Behold, I [anokhi] will kill your firstborn son.” The Holy One blessed be He passed this sign to Abraham, and Abraham to Isaac, Isaac to Jacob, Jacob to Levi, Levi to Kehat, Kehat to Amram, and Amram to Moses. Moses kept it as he proceeded. What is: “Israel is My firstborn son?” Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Sons whose fathers blessed them with their actions. That is Abraham as it is stated: “Blessed is Abram to God the Most High” (Genesis 14:19). Alternatively: “Israel is My firstborn son” – sons of he who took the birthright. (A reference to Jacob, who bought the birthright from Esau. See Genesis 25:29–34.) Alternatively: “Israel is My firstborn son” – the Holy One blessed be He said to the wicked Pharaoh: ‘Do you not know how much I value the firstborn, as I wrote in My Torah: “Do not work your firstborn ox” (Deuteronomy 15:19). Anyone who works it is beaten, and you extended your hand against My firstborn; justice demands that you will be beaten.’ The Holy One blessed be He brought ten plagues upon him corresponding to the ten trials with which Abraham was tested and he withstood them all. He brought them through Moses and through Aaron and by Himself. This is analogous to a king against whom ten provinces rebelled. He took with him two generals and went and conquered them. The king said: If I record them [the victories] in my name, how can I accord them honor? If I record them in their names, I exclude myself. Rather, I will divide them into three, (Three provinces for each of them. ) and there is one extra, and I will divide it among the three of us. Thus, the plague of boils was performed by the three of them. What does it say regarding the boils: “Upon the magicians [baḥartumim]” (Exodus 9:11), is defective, (It is without a yod, as though baḥartumam is written, meaning their magician. ) meaning that it afflicted their angel on high, so they would have no ability to resist. He brought ten plagues upon them like a military campaign. (See Tanḥuma, Bo 4. ) The frogs were especially hard on them, as it is stated: “Frogs that destroyed them” (Psalms 78:45), as they wounded their bodies and castrated them [the Egyptians], as it is stated: “And into your bedchamber, and onto your bed” (Exodus 7:28). The frogs said to them: ‘The image of their God (The Egyptians had tried to prevent Israel from procreating, and having children is, as it were, reproducing the image of God.) is nullified, and yours [your ability to procreate] remains intact?’ Therefore: “That destroyed them [vatashḥitem],” as it says: “And he spilled it [veshiḥet] on the ground” (Genesis 38:9). (Referring to Onan, who spilled his seed on the ground rather than procreate with Tamar.) From where [is the proof] that they [the frogs] spoke [medabberot]: “Regarding [al devar] the frogs that He had brought upon Pharaoh” (Exodus 8:8). Moreover, He brought upon them the plague of wild beasts [arov], because they were all intermingled [me’urbavin]; one man consorted with ten women, and ten men consorted with one woman; therefore, He brought a mixture [irbuvya] (Irbuvya and me’urbavin are from the same root as arov.) upon them. When the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: “One further affliction [nega] will I bring upon Pharaoh” (Exodus 11:1), Moses said: The sign has arrived [higia]. “One was Abraham” (Ezekiel 33:24) – behold, it is the affliction of the “one”. (Abraham is described as one, and the fact that God said “one further affliction” rather than simply: A further affliction, alluded to the fact that it was the plague that Abraham had been told about. ) Since they [Israel] were firstborn, He therefore killed the firstborn, as it is stated: “Behold, I will kill your firstborn son” (Exodus 4:23). That is the sign to Abraham: “I will judge” (Genesis 15:14) Another matter: Why is Israel called “My firstborn son”? Because it is written in the Torah: “Rather, he shall acknowledge the firstborn son of the hated, giving him a double portion” (Deuteronomy 21:17); so too, Israel inherits two worlds, this world and the World to Come. That is why the Holy One blessed be He gave the secret of [calculating the waxing and waning of] the moon to Israel, that they should count on its basis, but the idolaters count on the basis of the sun; that is to say, just as the sun rules only during the day, so too, they rule only in this world, and just as the sun is made of fire, so, they are destined to be punished in it, as it is stated: “Behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace” (Malachi 3:19). And just as the moon is seen during the day and at night, so, Israel rules in this world and in the World to Come. And just as the moon is made of light, so, Israel inherits the light, as it is stated: “Light is sown for the righteous” (Psalms 97:11), and it says: “Arise, shine, for your light has arrived” (Isaiah 60:1). That is why it says: “This month shall be for you” (Exodus 12:2) – it shall be yours, because you are of the same type [as the moon].

Musar

The severe sin of wasting seed is emphasized in the commentary, with Rabbi Eliezer stating that even holding one's male organ while urinating is akin to bringing a flood upon the world. The Zohar further emphasizes the severity of this grave sin, stating that anyone who causes harm to himself or damages his own offspring is considered wicked, and that troubles resulting from this sin are more severe than any others. The commentary concludes that one who fails in this sin will be cast away from the Supernal Abode and is like a broken earthenware vessel without repair or purification.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Shaar HaOtiyot, Hilchot Biah 1:22

However, I came to explain further the anger and wrath over the severity of the great sin of wasting seed. It is stated in Tractate Niddah, beginning of Chapter 20 (13a): "It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who holds his male organ and urinates is considered as though he brought a flood upon the world." They said to Rabbi Eliezer: But doesn't seminal drops drip onto his feet, appearing like one who cuts off his own flesh? And it turns out that he speaks disparagingly about his children, who are mamzerim (illegitimate offspring). He said to them: It is better that he should speak disparagingly about his children, who are mamzerim, and not make himself wicked for even one moment before the Omnipresent. And we say: For what reason does the verse state this? Because he emits semen wastefully, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who emits semen wastefully is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “And it was evil in the eyes of the Lord that which he did; and he also died” (Genesis 38:10). Rabbi Yitzḥak and Rabbi Ami say: It is as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: “Who comfort you with idols under every leafy tree, slaying the children in the valleys” (Isaiah 57:5). Do not read it as slaying [shoḥtei], but rather as squeezing [soḥtei]. Rav Ashi says: It is as though he worshiped idols, as here it is written: “Under every leafy tree,” and there it is written: “Upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree” (Deuteronomy 12:2).

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Shaar HaOtiyot, Hilchot Biah 1:29

The Zohar indeed emphasizes the severity of this grave sin in Parshat Vayechi (1:219b). The verse in Isaiah 3:11 states, "Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, for what his hands have done shall be done to him." This is its language. Why does it say "what his hands have done"? Rabbi Yitzchak said that this includes anyone who causes harm to himself or damages his own offspring. He is called "wicked," and not "angry at My Divine Presence" (Shechina), as You are not a God Who desires wickedness (Psalms 5:5). Additionally, it is written, "And there was wickedness in Judah's firstborn" (Genesis 38:7). Here too, it says, "Woe to the wicked." Woe to that person who commits evil and brings harm upon himself. For what his hands have done shall be done to him, including anyone who harms himself or damages his own offspring. These troubles are more severe than any others. Look, for it is written, "Woe to the wicked." Why "wicked"? Rather, as we say, he brings harm upon himself. Yet it is written, "No evil shall befall you" (Psalms 91:10). All these [troubles] are eliminated, but this one is not. If you say it is due to other guilty parties who killed the sons of nobles, look, all of them are eliminated, yet this one is not. What is the reason? They killed the sons of nobles, whereas he killed his very own son, and their blood is greater. Look, regarding other guilty parties, it is not written, "He did evil in the eyes of the Lord," but here it is written, "He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, which he committed." What is the reason? Because it is written, "And He destroyed His land" (Genesis 38:9). We learn that Rabbi Yehuda said, "You have no debt in the world for which there is no repentance except for this one. And you have no sin for which the Divine Presence does not become angry except for this one, as it is written, 'No evil shall befall you.'" Rabbi Yitzchak said, "The righteous in this world and the World to Come are called 'your people,' as it is written, 'And your people, all of them righteous, shall inherit the land forever' (Isaiah 60:21)." This is the extent of its language. See how the Zohar emphasizes the severity of this sin more than any other sin in the entire Torah, and one who fails in this sin will weep and mourn, for he has been cast away from the Supernal Abode. He is like a broken earthenware vessel without repair or purification. Woe to him for being created in such a state.

Quoting Commentary

Elimelech missed out on a great lineage, but Oved, a descendant of a returning family, became a leader of Am Yisrael. Oved's name signifies a tikkun for the self-centered behavior of his ancestors, with some suggesting he was a reincarnation of Machlon. His destiny was to give to the community and revive his family's name.

Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 25:5:1

IF BRETHREN (Hebrew, achim (brothers).) DWELL TOGETHER. The deniers also say that these brethren (The brothers spoken of in our verse.) are not actual brothers, (For Scripture explicitly prohibits a man from marrying his sister-inlaw. See Lev. 18:6.) but are relatives. They brought proof from Boaz. (Boaz married Ruth, who was the wife of his deceased relative, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance (Ruth 4:5).) However, they contribute nothing, for there is no mention of levirate marriage, (In the Book of Ruth.) only of redemption. (Boaz married Ruth so that her husband’s field would not pass into the hands of a stranger. He thus “redeemed” the said field. See Ruth 4:1-6.) Why mention the word together? (In our verse.) Does it matter if they were in one state or in one courtyard, or if they loved each other? (According to the Rabbinic tradition the word brethren means brothers and together means alive at the same time. However, if we accept the Karaitic interpretation then we do not know what Scripture means by the word together.) They say, (So Vat. Ebr. 38. Mikra’ot Gedolot reads: He says.) look, the verse says ve-yibbemah (and shall perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her). (The word yavam means a brother-in-law.) This shows that he is her brother-in-law in name only. (The Karaites interpret ve-yibbemah as, and be a brother-in-law to her. Now if the true brother-in-law was being addressed Scripture would not say, and be a brother-in-law to her. Hence we must interpret ve-yibbemah as meaning “act as a brother-in-law to her.” The upshot of all this is that a true brother-in-law is not being addressed.) It is like thy sister-in-law (yevimtekh) (Yevimtekh is the word yevamah (sister-in-law) plus the second person personal pronoun. Orpah was the wife of Ruth’s brother-in-law (yavam). She is referred to as a yevamah because she took her husband’s place. We thus see that the term yavam in its various forms can refer to one who acts like one’s brother-in-law.) is gone back (Ruth 1:15). Now observe that they have become foolish and stupid, for Scripture states, with regard to the sons of Judah, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother (ve-yabbem) unto her (Tamar, the widow of Er the son of Judah.) (Gen. 38:8). (Judah told his son Onan to go and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto your sister-in-law Tamar.) Now he (Onan the brother of Er.) was her (Tamar’s.) brother-in-law. (It is thus clear that levirate marriage was performed by the actual brother-in-law.) Also, the term yevimtekh (thy sister-in-law) (Ruth 1:15) was used because they were married to two brothers. (In other words, the term yevamah was not employed figuratively in Ruth.) All intelligent people know that the negative commandments given to Moses (Excluding the Noahide laws, which were given to Adam and Noah (see Meijler).) were not previously prohibited. (There was thus no prohibition before the revelation at Sinai against a man to marrying his sister-in-law.) However, it would not have been evil in the eyes of God if someone abstained from them (That is, from those negative commandments from which reason tells us to abstain.) before the law was given to Moses. (In other words, God would have been pleased with a person who abstained from practices which He would later prohibit. If the law prohibiting intercourse with a sister-in-law was based on reason, i.e., it was an abomination, then Scripture would not have condemned Onan for not wanting to impregnate his sister-in-law.) The fact that Scripture states, for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you (Lev. 18:27), shows that this is certainly the case. We do not find a prophet who warned them. (From engaging in the practices that Lev. 18:27 refers to, for Scripture believes that one ought to know not to engage in these practices by employing one’s rationality. See Yesod Mora 5: “The fundamental commandments are those precepts that are implanted in the heart. They…were known by reason before the Torah was given through the agency of Moses” (Strickman translation, p. 75).) Look, Scripture says of Onan, who did not give seed to his brother, the thing which he did was evil in the sight of God (Gen. 38:10). (God thus wants a brother to marry the childless widow of his biological brother.) We will therefore rely on the tradition that they are actual brothers.

Marbeh Lesaper on Pesach Haggadah, Magid, The Ten Plagues 8:1

Tzfardeah - Frogs: Tz’fardeah, frogs, is written in the singular while kinim, lice, is written in the plural because there was one giant frog that attacked Egypt; when the Egyptians struck it, it broke up into many small frogs. A simpler explanation is that the word tzfardeah, though written in the singular, it refers to many frogs. We find this disagreement between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Akiva. (Exodus Rabbah 10:4) It is also possible that kinim, lice is written in the plural because it refers to many different species of lice but there was only one type of frog that attacked Egypt so it is written in the singular. The Midrash says much more about this plague. We learn that frogs were the most deadly plague since they found their way into the Egyptians beds, attacked them, and mocked the them by saying their gods were destroyed! (Ha, Ha! Not only giant but talking frogs! This explanation, though fanciful, is based on statements in the Torah and a passage interpreting them in Exodus Rabbah, 15:27. See Exodus 8:8. The plague of frogs - the word, d’var, ‘plague’ can also mean ‘word.’ And Genesis 38:9) The Torah says, “The frogs shall come among you and your people;” (Exodus &:29) literally this verse says, “in you and your people.” Rabbi Aha explained that Pharaoh drank a bit of water – it entered his heart and became a frog and burst forth there. Rabbi Yohanan said that where there was dust and water, it turned into a frog. (Exodus Rabbah 10:3) There are many other explanations as well.

Megillat Ruth; From Chaos to Kingship, Perek 4 35:13

Sadly, Elimelech opted out of this grand lineage, but עוֹבֵד was a child of a family that returned and raised the greatest leader of Am Yisrael. Oved’s destiny of giving to the community, as declared by the women of Beit Lechem who named him, signifies his tikkun of the self-centered behavior of Elimelech, Machlon and Kilyon (This is noted by TABC talmid Yaakov Saks.) , (This idea fits with Ramban’s (Bereishit 38:8-9) and Malbim’s approach that Oved was a gilgul, reincarnation, of Machlon. The role of a gilgul is to do a tikkun of the misdeeds of the earlier gilgul. ) . Additionally, when they called him Oved, they may also have meant that he would work to sustain his family, to revive the family name and renew their tarnished image. (This suggestion is from TABC talmid Yehuda Mazin.)

Or HaChaim on Numbers 26:19:2

The Torah goes on to say that Er and Onan died, a reference to the destruction of both Temples. Departure of the שכינה, G'd's Presence, from the Temple, is described as death. Just as death of a body is the departure of the soul, so the departure of the Holy Presence of G'd is the death of the Temple. The cause, of course, were the sins committed by the Jewish people. Instead of being filled with G'd's Presence, the respective Temples became filled with the negative spiritual forces created through the sins committed. There is also an opinion according to which the specific sins which the original Er and Onan had been guilty of became the cause of the destruction of both Temples (compare Shabbat 62). The Talmud there states that the Jews were causing their bedsteads to become evil-smelling with semen (which was not theirs), committing the same sin as Er who is reported as being "evil" i.e. wasting his semen, in the eyes of G'd (Genesis 38,7). Onan's sin which is held responsible for the destruction of the second Temple, i.e. "senseless hatred" as described in Yuma 9, was that he hated his deceased brother and did not want that his name should be perpetuated through his impregnating his brother's widow (compare Genesis 38,9). The word Onan is derived from the Hebrew אונאה which also describes mutual harassment, i.e. causeless hatred.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:26:1

צדקה ממני, “she is correct; it stems from me.” Rashi interprets this statement as referring to Tamar’s statement, (words) that she was pregnant by Yehudah, (Though the words were never articulated by her) Nachmanides understands Yehudah as referring to Tamar’s deeds rather than to her words. She was right, whereas he was wrong in not giving her as a wife to Shelah, seeing that she had a claim on him. Shelah’s father would rank second behind his son only if his son had refused to carry out his obligation to marry Tamar. Some commentators feel that the words צדקה ממני, were spoken by Yehudah when he became aware that it had been he who had impregnated Tamar, and had found out in the process that she had been a virgin, and that the unnatural deaths of his two older sons had been the punishment for their failing to fulfill their duties as husbands of Tamar, and their wasting their semen. In the event that someone would claim that according to accepted norms a virgin never conceives from her first sexual experience, so how could Yehudah have impregnated her as virgin, this principle is valid only if the hymen had not previously been weakened, such as by an almost but not quite penetration, as is described as having been performed by Onan. (Genesis 38,9)

Second Temple

Onan, a representative of the doctrine of self-love, disobeyed God's command by spilling his seed, leading to his own destruction as a consequence of his love of self and pleasure, as described in Genesis 38:9. This act ultimately resulted in his demise, highlighting the consequences of self-love and disobedience to God.

On the Posterity of Cain and his Exile 53:1

[180] The chief representative of this doctrine is Onan, kinsman of the leathern Er. For it says “this man knowing that the seed should not be for him, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled it on the ground” (Gen. 38:9), going beyond all bounds in love of self and love of pleasure.

On the Unchangeableness of God 4:1

[16] Some there are who through self-love have brought upon themselves not only defeat but death. Thus Onan “perceiving that the seed will not be his” (Gen. 38:9), ceased not to destroy the reasoning principle, which in kind is the best of all existing things, till he himself underwent utter destruction. And right just and fitting was his fate.

Talmud

The Talmud discusses the actions of Er and Onan, noting that Onan engaged in anal intercourse to avoid impregnating his brother's widow, while Er engaged in unnatural intercourse to prevent her from becoming less beautiful. The text also discusses the consequences of masturbation, citing the story of Onan as an example, and mentions that the generation of the Flood also practiced masturbation. Additionally, the Talmud addresses the issue of whether a rape victim can conceive before reaching adulthood, with a baraita permitting contraceptive measures for minors to prevent pregnancy.

Ketubot 39a:1

Rava’s dilemma is based on the assumption that a rape victim is able to conceive before she is a grown woman. The Gemara asks: And can a minor conceive? But didn’t Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Naḥman: It is permitted for three women to engage in relations with a contraceptive resorbent. These are they: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman. The baraita elaborates: A minor may do so lest she conceive and die; a pregnant woman, lest her existing fetus be crushed by another fetus and assume the shape of a sandal fish if she conceives a second time; and a nursing woman, lest she conceive, causing her milk to spoil, which will lead her to wean her son prematurely, endangering his health.

Tractate Kallah Rabbati 2:7

BARAITHA. (K 19.) Of him Scripture declares, Who knoweth the spirit of man whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth. Who knoweth the spirit of man: these are the righteous who do not arouse themselves to masturbate. And the spirit of the beast: these are the wicked who arouse themselves and masturbate. Whoever arouses himself and masturbates forfeits his life, as it is stated, And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of the Lord; and He slew him also. GEMARA. It has been taught: All the men of the generation of the Flood practised masturbation. There were astrologers among them who declared, ‘The world will last for not less than six thousand years. We will not beget children and will live [the whole duration of] the world’. Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, ‘You consider yourselves the principal [creatures of the universe]; behold I will uproot ((44a) There is a play on words, ‘principal’ being עיקר and ‘uproot’ עוקר.) your name so that you will not be included in the reckoning of the world’. Whence do we derive this? (That the generation of the Flood practised masturbation.) Of Onan it is written, And it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled [shiḥeth] it on the ground, (Gen. 38, 9.) that is, he excited himself by lustful thoughts and masturbated. And of the generation of the Flood it is written, For all flesh had corrupted [hishḥith] their way upon the earth. (ibid. VI, 12. The inference is drawn from the identity of the verbal root. Hence the corruption of that generation consisted in that evil practice.) What did Er do? (That God slew him (ibid. XXXVIII, 7).) [He acted] like Onan, and that is why it is written, and He slew him also. (The word also implies that he merited death for the same sin as his brother.) It has been taught: The name ‘Er read backwards has the meaning of ‘evil’ [ra‘]; similarly the name Noah read backwards has the meaning of ‘grace’ [ḥen].

Yevamot 34b:3

The Gemara answers: The Tosefta actually means that what they did was similar to the act of Er and Onan in some ways, but not similar to the act of Er and Onan in other ways. The Gemara elaborates: It was similar to the act of Er and Onan in that there was a spilling of semen, as it is written: “And it came to pass when he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground” (Genesis 38:9). Yet it was not similar to the act of Er and Onan, as there Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, while here the Tosefta is referring to sexual intercourse in a typical manner.

Yevamot 34b:4

The Gemara continues to clarify what took place: Granted, Onan engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse with her, as it is written with regard to his act: “That he spilled it on the ground” (Genesis 38:9). However, from where do we derive that Er engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse with her? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: As it is written with regard to Onan: “And He slew him also” (Genesis 38:10). This indicates that he, too, died the same death for performing the same transgression as his brother. The Gemara asks: Granted, Onan engaged in anal intercourse because he did not want Tamar to give birth as “he knew that the seed would not be his” (Genesis 38:9). However, with regard to Er, what is the reason he acted in this way? The Gemara responds: He did so in order that she not become pregnant and become less beautiful as a result of her pregnancy.

Targum

Onkelos Genesis 38:9 and Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:9 both explain that Onan did not want to give offspring to his brother by spilling his seed on the ground instead of impregnating his brother's wife.

Onkelos Genesis 38:9

Onan knew that the descendants would not be his [called by his name]. Whenever he cohabited with his brother’s wife, he let it go to waste [destroyed his way] on the ground, in order not to give [establish] progeny to his brother.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:9

And Onan knew that they would not call the children after his name, and it was, when he entered to the wife of his brother, that he corrupted his work upon the earth, that he might not raise up children to his brother's name.

וַיֵּ֛רַע בְּעֵינֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה וַיָּ֖מֶת גַּם־אֹתֽוֹ׃ 10 J What he did was displeasing to יהוה, who took his life also.
Mussar literature describes fasts and mortifications for excision and capital sins like wasteful emissions of semen, with Er and Onan dying for this sin, considered evil in the eyes of the Lord, leading to their deaths at a young age. Masturbation is against the mitzva of procreation, with coitus interruptus forbidden, as seen in the story of Er and Onan in the Torah. Wasteful seminal emissions are equated to murder, idol worship, and deserving of death in Kabbalah, with repentance difficult and severe consequences. Judah's actions were considered evil by the Lord in the Tanakh, leading to his death, and Rabbi Eliezer emphasized the gravity of wasting seed, likening it to shedding blood and worshiping idols. The Talmud discusses Onan's punishment for spilling semen, emphasizing that emitting semen for no purpose is a serious offense.

Chasidut

Mussar literature describes fasts and mortifications for excision and capital sins, such as wasteful emissions of semen, to avoid divine punishment and expedite soul atonement, possibly leading to a return to God out of fear rather than love (Tanya, Part III; Iggeret HaTeshuvah 1:12).

Tanya, Part III; Iggeret HaTeshuvah 1:12

There are descriptions in the Mussar literature, (For a description of the approaches of Musar (ethical teachings), Chakirah (philosophical speculation), and Chasidut, see On the Teachings of Chassidus.) particularly the Rokeach and Sefer Chassidim, of numerous fasts and mortifications for excision and capital sins. The same is true of sins punished by death by divine agency, (Exodus 21:29 and Rashi for an example.) like wasteful emissions of semen, as the Torah recounts of Er and Onan. (Genesis 38:7-10.) In this sense their judgment is identical. These fasts and mortifications are intended to avoid the punishment of suffering at the hand of Heaven, G–d forbid, and also to urge on and expedite the conclusion of his soul’s atonement. Also, perhaps he does not return to G–d with all his heart and soul out of love, but only out of fear.

Commentary

Er and Onan both died for the sin of deliberately wasting their semen to prevent their wives from becoming pregnant, with Er wanting to preserve his wife's beauty and Onan disobeying his father's instructions to marry Tamar. This act is considered evil in the eyes of the Lord, leading to their deaths at a young age.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:10:1

וימת גם אותו, “He killed him also.” The word גם is proof that Er and Onan died for the same sin. Our sages in Yevamot 34 say that it is easy to understand why Onan should have died for this sin seeing he had violated his father’s instructions to marry Tamar and to have children by her (verse 8). He thought that these children would not be accounted as his own but as his deceased brother’s Er, hence he deliberately wasted his semen. The question is why did Er act in such a fashion? Why did he not want children? The Talmud answers that he did not want Tamar to become disfigured through a pregnancy. He wanted to preserve her beauty, i.e. to treat her as a sex object rather than as the mother of his children. This explains why Yehudah had stressed to Onan (verse 8) “and maintain seed for your brother.” Seeing that Yehudah did not add the word המת, “the deceased,” when instructing Onan to have children with Tamar, Onan realised that when Tamar would have children these would not even be considered as his children but as his late brother’s. In other words, he would not even be compensated for Tamar losing her youthful beauty. The meaning of the letter ל in the word לאחיך in verse 8 may be understood as similar to אמרי לי אחי הוא, “say concerning me he is my brother” (Genesis 20,13). The verse teaches us the lesson that if someone deliberately wastes his semen, i.e. שחת ארצה, this was the sin of the generation which perished during the deluge. We find the word כי השחית כל בשר על הארץ in connection with that generation, i.e. the same word as we find describing Onan’s sin (Nidah 12). The reason the Torah calls the firstborn of Yehudah ער was because these letters are the same as רע, “evil” in G’d’s eyes [same letters in a different sequence. Ed.] Seeing the Torah mentions the word רע in connection with both Er, Onan, and the people of Sodom (Genesis 13,13), it stands to reason that all of these people were guilty of the sin of letting their semen go to waste deliberately.

Radak on Genesis 38:10:1

גם אותו, both brothers had been guilty of the same sin.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:10:1

גם אותו. According to our sages Er also died for this same type of sin, as he deliberately wasted his semen by ejaculating prematurely to prevent his wife from becoming pregnant. He wanted to preserve her physical beauty.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:10

That which he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord. Unlike his brother, Onan’s transgression is explicitly stated by the verse. And He put him to death too, and Onan died at a young age.

Halakhah

Masturbation is against the mitzva of procreation, as seen in the story of Er and Onan in the Torah. Coitus interruptus is forbidden, even if done for non-conceptive reasons. There is disagreement among poskim regarding the severity of the prohibition, with some saying it is biblical and others saying it is rabbinic, but all agree that it goes against the Torah's goals in the mitzvot of ona and procreation.

Peninei Halakhah, Simchat Habayit U'Virkhato 4:1:6

Masturbation is also antithetical to the mitzva of procreation. We know that it displeases God from the story in which Er and Onan wasted their seed to ensure that Tamar would not get pregnant. The Torah states, “But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was displeasing to the Lord, and the Lord took his life” (Bereishit 38:7), and shortly afterwards states about Onan, “What he did was displeasing to the Lord, and He took his life also” (ibid. v. 10). Therefore, coitus interruptus is forbidden. Even if a man does so when his wife cannot conceive in any case, such as when she is pregnant, nursing, or menopausal, he transgresses this prohibition (Yevamot 34b). (em>Poskim disagree as to whether a couple may have relations in which the husband ejaculates somewhere other than the vagina, if they find it pleasurable (as discussed by Rema, EH 25:2; see above, ch. 2 n. 19). However, if the motive for doing so is contraceptive, even those who are normally permissive prohibit it (Derisha, EH 23:1). Yet even according to those who forbid, when a man ejaculates during non-vaginal intercourse or during foreplay, the prohibition is less severe than if he were to masturbate, since he is still being intimate with his wife and giving her some pleasure (Sefer Ḥaredim ch. 63; Avnei Nezer, EH 83). According to Tosafot (Sanhedrin 59b s.v “ve-ha”), the prohibition of wasting seed is an extension of the mitzva of procreation. Some say that the prohibition is derived from the biblical story of Er and Onan (Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham 3:14; Ben Yehoyada, Nidda 13a). Others explain that the act is forbidden because of the prohibition of bal tashḥit (wasteful destruction) (R. Yaakov Ettlinger in Arukh La-ner, Nidda 13b and in Binyan Tziyon §137). Or Zaru’a 1:124 and Smak §292 include it in the prohibition of “Do not commit adultery,” based on the extrapolation of the Sages in Nidda 13b. Finally, Baḥ (3:6) sees the source of the prohibition in the verse, “Stay away from every evil thing” (Devarim 23:10), which the Sages explain to mean that “a man mustn’t entertain thoughts during the day that will cause him to become impure at night” (AZ 20b). Aḥaronim are divided regarding the severity of the prohibition. Many say that it is biblical (R. Shneur Zalman Fradkin of Lublin, Torat Ḥesed, EH 43:1-2; Pri Megadim; R. Ḥayim Palachi, Ḥayim Ve-shalom, 2:18; Ezrat Kohen §32; Igrot Moshe, EH 3:14). Others maintain that it is rabbinic (Responsa Pnei Yehoshua 2:44; Meshivat Nefesh §18; Ezer Mi-kodesh 23:2; R. Shlomo Kluger, Mei Nidda, Kuntres Aḥaron 195:7; Torot Emet, EH 23). It seems that even according to those poskim who believe that the transgression is only rabbinic, its basis is from the Torah, because it is contrary to the Torah’s goals in the mitzvot of ona and procreation. For a more extensive discussion of this topic, see R. Tzadok Ha-Kohen of Lublin, Takanat Ha-shavin §15.)

Jewish Thought

The text discusses whether the purpose of observing Torah is solely to achieve partnership with the Divine or if other benefits can be considered. It explores arguments for and against the idea that performance of mitzvot should be solely for the purpose of serving God, with references to various sources such as Antignos, Ben Azzai, Maimonides, and Talmudic texts. The text ultimately suggests that while personal objectives can be considered while performing mitzvot, the purity of motivation is essential, and success in the form of visible rewards can result from serving God with love. The goal is to become a partner of the Almighty through the performance of mitzvot.

Akeidat Yitzchak 44:4:2

In considering that the purpose of observing Torah is to acquire the aforementioned level of partnership with the Divine, the question arises whether this is an exclusive objective, or whether one may have other more mundane benefits in mind which accrue to one in the process of fulfilling G-d’s commandments. If the former, the chances are that most people would not be able to take the long term view in order to live a life devoted to the performance of the mitzvot. The argument that mundane side benefits through the observance of mitzvot are not permissible, could be sustained by the following two considerations. 1) The more highly placed a worker or servant, the more lofty are the tasks that he is entrusted to perform. Man, as the most sophisticated creature on earth, would naturally only be concerned with the loftiest endeavours and objectives. 2) If we were to postulate that carrying out G-d’s will would have as its purpose merely human objectives, this would contradict the maxim that the objective is primary. If the prophet Isaiah 44,6, proclaims in the name of G-d "I am first and I am last," this clearly implies that the only considerations in all our endeavours must be centred around G-d and His purpose. Antignos, who has said in Avot,1 "do not be like the servant who serves the master for the sake of the reward," surely had this thought in mind. Also the saying of Ben Azzai "the reward for performing one mitzvah is another mitzvah, may be understood in a similar vein. In other words, performance of the commandments is an end in itself, not a means to an end. The Sifrey in Parshat Eykev says "a man might say to himself I'll perform the commandments in order to gain riches, or to acquire the title of Rabbi, or even in order to acquire a share in the hereafter; therefore the Torah says (Deut. 11,13) "in order to love the Lord your G-d." Your purpose in obeying should be to demonstrate your love for G-d. The Talmud in Avodah Zarah 19, quotes Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi as interpreting Psalms 112,1, "hail to the man who fears the Lord and is very desirous of His commandments,” as referring to people who perform the commandments for their own sake, not for the reward associated with them. Maimonides, at the end of his sefer hamitzvot pursues this line of reasoning also. However, one can also argue the reverse, again using two lines of reasoning. 1) It is natural for all creatures to be concerned first and foremost with their own physical needs. Although it is a fact that each type of creature serves as a means to sustain a higher category of life, i.e. plants to sustain animals, animals to sustain man etc., we nonetheless observe that they all concentrate on their own needs, their service to a higher category of life being merely incidental. 2) It is a psychological fact that man loses interest, in the pursuit of any task that does not promise tangible rewards within a time frame he considers reasonable. Even an Onan, (Genesis 38,10) was not punished for failing to have issue with Tamar, but only for taking active steps to prevent the fulfilment of the objective of the levirate marriage to provide issue for his deceased brother. Antignos' statement is revised to read "do not make service to the Lord conditional on the receipt of a reward," not as in the version of "make it conditional on being independent of a reward." Also the Talmud in Pessachim 8, states that if someone says he will give charity in order that his children will live, or in order that he himself may enjoy life in the hereafter, he is considered a perfect tzaddik. This seems to contradict the Sifrey in Parshat Eykev that he who studies the Torah in order to be called rabbi is wrong, since the Torah demands love of G-d as one's motivation. Clearly these examples indicate that having in mind personal objectives while performing mitzvot, is permissible. In fact, the Torah promises the attainment of personal objectives such as "so that you will be well off, will live long." (Deut. 22,7) There are many similar statements in the Torah. G-d Himself is quoted as wishing that the Jewish people should revere Him as they did at the time when they received the Torah, in order that He could treat them and their children well. (Deut 10,13) If G-d Himself wishes that our serving Him will result in benefits to us in this world, how can we say that all our mitzvah performance must be aimed exclusively at our being elevated to the status of becoming His partner, and that other material considerations would negate the moral value of the mitzvah performance? We must therefore believe that as a result of performing mitzvot sufficient benefit will accrue to us to make their performance worthwhile. This is the meaning of the saying in Makkot 23, "because the Lord wished to let us amass many advantages, He provided us with an abundance of mitzvot and good deeds to perform," as is written in Isaiah 42,21, "the Lord was pleased because of His righteousness to render the Torah increasingly great and glorious." Since both the aforementioned approaches have equally much to recommend them and are in accord with many sayings of our sages, we have to endeavour to reconcile the apparent contradictions. If we consider the word "prass" as referring to the remuneration received for services rendered, then the saying of Antignos becomes clear. Since all our deeds cannot provide G-d with anything that He does not already have, Antignos says " make sure your relationship with G-d is not based on the mistaken belief that there is reciprocity. Rather, remember that whatever you receive as reward for service of the Lord is in fact chessed, a kindness, since your service does not do anything for Him. However, it is a fact that your service will confer upon yourself both physical and spiritual benefits. "By observing them, the consequences, the benefits are numerous. (Psalms 19,12 ) This lesson had been misunderstood by Tzadok and Bayssus who believed that their teacher denied the theory of reward and punishment, and who, in postulating their concept of doing good merely for the sake of doing good, became heretics, strange as it may seem. The doctrine of reward as an act of grace, not as a condition for performing the mitzvot, is the true expression of Jewish attitudes then. Any other attitude smacks of an effort to manipulate G-d, of bartering with Him to do your will rather than the reverse, i.e. your doing His will. The Bible as well as our sages have carefully refrained from the use of the term "prass," and have used the term sachar instead. The latter in all its connotations simply means the reverse of hefsed, loss. If Antignos concludes by saying "in order that the fear of heaven be upon you," he warns his students not to relate to other deities which are not even able to confer any benefits upon them, be they prass or sachar. The language employed by the sayings that prohibits performing mitzvot for the sake of, is usually kedey, in order to. The distinction shows already that only when the purpose is reward is such servivce unacceptable. If, however, the service is not conditional, then the reward element is perfectly acceptable as a by- product. Once we accept that what matters is the purity of motivation of the performance, it is easy to argue that the deed itself is irrelevant as long as the intention to perform it existed. This could be the point raised by the rasha, the wicked son's question in the Haggadah. But the truth is that both deed and motivation are essential. Whenever observances are demanded, the Torah urges that it must be motivated by love for G-d, and if so, success in the form of visible reward will be the result of such service of G-d. When the Sifrey described a service that has reward as its objective as inadmissible, the reference is only to the objective of obtaining the reward in this life. If the desire is to ensure one's life in the world to come, such an objective is praiseworthy. Also the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 31, which interpreted the words "for His commandments and not for the reward of His commandments," refers only to these worldly rewards as being taboo. This was also Antignos' meaning concerning the words "today to carry out (the commandments) and not today to receive their rewards. The considerations mentioned, also help us understand the statement in Kiddushin 31, that he who performs a mitzvah because he has been commanded to do this by G-d, has done something greater than he who has performed the same deed voluntarily. One cannot achieve the ultimate tachlit, objective of the commandment unless one performs it as such. Only in this way does one become a shutaph, partner of the Almighty, a goal we have described as the ultimate purpose of mitzvah performance. This is another aspect of the saying that "the reward of the mitzvah is the mitzvah, that the achievement of the mitzvah is predicated on the very fact that it is a commandment.

Akeidat Yitzchak 44:4:3

Some difficulties in the text of the Parshah.

Kabbalah

Wasteful seminal emissions are considered worse than spilling the blood of others, as it is seen as spilling the blood of future generations without end, leading to severe consequences such as death at the hands of Heaven and the destruction of all creatures, even if only commanded a few mitzvot. The act is equated to murder, idol worship, and deserving of death, with those who commit it being called renegades and not allowed to enter the division of the Holy One. Repentance is said to be difficult for this sin, and those who commit it are considered evil and defiled, unable to behold the face of the Shechinah. The Zohar emphasizes the severity of this sin, stating that it is punished more severely than any other transgression and that those who commit it will not ascend in the world of truth.

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:152

All of these are specific aspects that relate to the attribute of Tzadik, but one needs to correct all the aspects of the attributes in all its stature, since the damage of the Brit reaches the entire stature, since the Brit includes Yud-Kei-Vav-Kei which includes the entire stature, as we explained above. This is said by Rabbi Shimon in the Zohar in Vayakhel, and we wrote down its text above in regards to the damage of the Brit: 388. This is true only for those who did not repent completely, enough to wipe their misdeeds. 389. For there is not a graver offense before the Holy One, blessed be He, than that of lying and impairing the holy sign of the covenant. That person may not see the face of the Shechinah, if he thus sins, as is written: “And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of Hashem” (Beresheet 38:7) and also “nor shall evil dwell with You” (Tehilim 5:5), FOR THIS OFFENSE IS CALLED ‘EVIL’.

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:17

The Zohar in Vayechi was also very strict about this sin when talking about the verse “Woe to the wicked, it shall be ill with him, for according to the deserving of his hands shall be done to him” (Yeshayah 3:11): 191. What is “the deserving of his hands”? Rabbi Yitzchak said: It includes him who defiles with his hands by spilling his semen in vain. 192. For we have learned that he who spills his semen in vain is called evil (Heb. ra), and cannot behold the face of the Shechinah, as it is written: “For You are not an El that has pleasure in wickedness: nor shall evil dwell with You” (Tehilim 5:5) and also “And Er, Yehuda’s firstborn, was evil (Heb. ra)” (Beresheet 38:7). Here too, “Woe to the wicked...ill (Heb. ra)” ALLUDES TO HIM WHO SPILLS HIS SEMEN IN VAIN. Woe to the wicked who is evil and made himself evil (Heb. ra), “for according to the deserving of his hands shall be done to him.” This means that whoever whores himself by letting his semen spill in vain is punished in the world of truth more than any OTHER TRANSGRESSION. 193. Come and see it is written: “Woe to the wicked.” Since it says, “Woe to the wicked (Heb. rasha),” why add ‘evil (ra)’ SEEING THAT THE WICKED IS EVIL? This is as I said: that he has made himself evil, ESPECIALLY HE WHO SPILLED HIS SEMEN IN VAIN. ALSO: “...nor shall evil dwell with You.” Everyone ascends FROM GEHENOM save this one, who does not. HE ASKS: Would you say that other evil - doers who killed people ARE BETTER THAN HE, AND WILL ASCEND WHILE HE SHALL NOT? HE ANSWERS, Come and behold: everyone rises but he does not, because they killed other people, yet he killed his own children, and spilled much blood. Come and behold: it is not written of any other wicked man in the world that he “displeased Hashem” (Beresheet 38:10), only in this case where it says, “And the thing which he did displeased Hashem.” Why? Because, the verse says, “He spilled it on the ground” (Ibid. 9).

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:3

And why all these precautions? — Because otherwise one might emit semen in vain, and Rabbi Yochanan stated: Whosoever emits semen in vain deserves death, since it says (Genesis 38:10) “What he did was unfavorable in the eyes of God and He killed him as well (referring to Onan).” Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Ami said it’s as if he murders, since it says “enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying (Shochtei) the children in the valleys under the clefts of the rocks?” (Isaiah 57:5), do not read Shochtei but rather Sochtei (squeeze out).” Rav Asi said: He is like an idol-worshipper; for here it is written, 'Under every green tree' and elsewhere it is written, ‘You shall utterly destroy from all the places where the nations, that you shall possess, worshipped their gods, upon the lofty mountains and upon the hills, and under every green tree.’

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:4

Rav stated: 'A man who willfully causes erection should be placed under the ban'. But why did he not say, 'This is forbidden'? Because the man merely incites his evil inclination against himself. Rav Ami, however, stated: He is called a renegade, because such is the art of the evil inclination: today it incites man to do one wrong thing, and tomorrow it incites him to worship idols and he proceeds to worship them. There are others who say that Rav Ami stated, He who excites himself by lustful thoughts will not be allowed to enter the division of the Holy One, blessed be He. For here it is written, “was evil in the eyes of Hashem" (Genesis 38:7), and elsewhere it is written, “For You are not El who has pleasure in wickedness; nor shall evil dwell with you” (Tehilim 5:5). Rav Elazar stated: Who are referred to in the Scriptural text, “Your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15)? Those that commit masturbation with their hands. It was taught at the school of Rabbi Yishmael, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ implies, Thou shalt not practice masturbation either with hand or with foot. Our Rabbis taught: 'proselytes and those that play with children delay the advent of the Messiah', meaning: Those that marry minors who are not capable of bearing children, for Rav Yosi stated: The Son of David will not come until all the souls in Guf (Lit. 'Body' the region inhabited by the souls of the unborn) will have been disposed of, since it says, “For the spirit that humbles itself is from Me, and the souls which I have made” (Isaiah 57:16).

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:5

In Tractate Kalah (Bride) its says: Rebbi says “’enflaming yourselves with idols’ (Isaiah 57:5), whoever enflames himself to emit semen in vain is considered to be like an animal. Just like an animal does not calculate its actions, has no knowledge of what can cause it death, and does not have a share in the World to Come, so too is he. About him, Solomon said in his wisdom, ‘Who knows the spirit of man whether it goes upward’ (Ecclesiastes 3:21) this alludes to the souls of the Righteous who do not enflame themselves and emit semen in vain. ‘and the spirit of the beast whether it goes downward to the earth?’ (ibid.), this alludes to the souls of the wicked who enflame themselves and emit semen in vain. And whoever enflames himself deserves death, and whoever arouses himself is a renegade, as it says ‘And what he did was evil in the eyes of Hashem" (Genesis 38:7).”

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:6

In the Zohar they were very stringent about this sin, and this is what it says: (Zohar with Sulam commentary, Beresheet B) 393. Of the verse, "For You are not El who has pleasure in wickedness; nor shall evil dwell with you" (Tehilim 5:5), Rabbi Yehuda said: This verse has been discussed and explained, yet come and behold: he who cleaves to and is led by the Evil Inclination is defiled and will be led further into defilement, as we have learned. 394. "The wickedness of man was great," because men committed all sorts of sins and their guilt was complete when they spilled blood in vain upon the ground. This refers to those who pollute their ways upon the earth, THAT IS, THEY SPILL THEIR SPERM IN VAIN. Thus, it is written: "Only evil (Heb. ra) all day." In another place it is written: "And Er, the son of Judah, was evil (Heb. ra) in the eyes of Hashem" (Beresheet 38:7), BECAUSE HE SPILLED HIS SEED UPON THE EARTH. THIS INDICATES THAT THE WORD RA REFERS TO THE WASTE OF SEED.

Sha'arei Kedusha, Part 2 6:10

Wasteful seminal emissions are worse than spilling the blood of others, (Since in this case he is spilling the blood of his own offspring (Zohar I 219b). ) for in doing so, he is spilling not only their blood, but the blood of all their future generations without end. (Talmud Bavli, Niddah 13a; Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Issurei Biyah 21:18; Shulachan Aruch, Even HaEzer, Siman 23) In Zohar to Parshat Vayechi it states, (Zohar I 219b ibid.) “One is able to repent for all transgressions except for this.” Moreover, when it comes to all other transgressions, a minor is exempt from punishment, except for this. For, Er and Onan were minors who were only about seven years old, (Seder HaDorot, Year 2217) and yet they died at the hands of Heaven on account of this sin, (Genesis 38:7-10; Yevamot 34b; Midrash Bereishit Rabba 85:5; Tractate Kallah 4:6) even though they were not yet commanded regarding the mitzvot. The same is likewise true of the generation of the flood, about which it states, (Genesis 6:12 – The words “For all flesh destroyed its ways upon the earth” refers to their wasteful seminal emissions (Zohar I 62a).) “For all flesh destroyed its ways upon the earth.” Because of this sin, all creatures were blotted out, everything from man to beast, birds of the sky and insects, (Genesis 7:23) and even the first three handsbreadths of the earth were destroyed (Midrash Bereishit Rabba 31:7) – something that had not occurred from the beginning of creation until that point, and which shall not occur again. (Genesis 8:21) Moreover, this took place even though they were commanded only a mere seven mitzvot. (Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 56a; Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim u’Milchamot 8:11)

Midrash

Judah took a Canaanite wife, prompting God to cause her to engage in improper conduct and have a son, who would later marry Tamar, the daughter of Shem. The son born from this union, Perez, was chosen by God to be the ancestor of the Messiah, despite his brother Zerah initially attempting to be born first. Ultimately, Perez is identified as the Messiah, fulfilling the prophecy that "the breaker is come up before them."

Aggadat Bereshit 64:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Judah went down, etc., and he saw there a daughter of a Canaanite man and took her. Once he took her, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'The Messiah is destined to issue from Judah, and he went and took a Canaanite wife! What then shall I do? I will cause that she engage in improper conduct and have a son from her, and the son will marry my daughter Tamar, who is the daughter of the great Shem.' Said the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Let her die as a Canaanite,' as it is said, 'And the days were multiplied and she died, daughter of Shua, the wife of Judah' (Genesis 38:12). And her sons died, as it is said, 'And Er and Onan died' (Genesis 38:7)[from Onan: Genesis 38:10], so that Judah should cling to Tamar, who was the priestly daughter of Shem son of Noah, as it is said, 'And Melchizedek king of Salem' (Genesis 14:18). And it came to pass, as she was giving birth, that one put out a hand; and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, “This one came out first.” But it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out; and she said, “How hast thou broken forth? [i.e., breached the womb].” Therefore his name was called Perez. And afterward his brother came out that had the scarlet thread upon his hand; and his name was called Zerah (Genesis 38:27-30). At the time of Tamar's childbirth, Zerah sought to come out first. God said, "The Messiah will come from Perez." Zerah then emerged first, but later returned to his mother's womb, and Perez emerged first. The Messiah comes from Perez, as it is written, "And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, 'How hast thou broken forth?' Therefore his name was called Perez." This Perez is the Messiah, as it is written, "The breaker is come up before them" (Micah 2:13).

Musar

Masturbation, wasting seed, and improper sexual practices are considered severe sins in Judaism, with punishments likened to those of the generation of the flood. Wasting seed is equated to shedding blood and worshiping idols, with references from Genesis and Isaiah used to emphasize the seriousness of the offense. Rabbi Eliezer even goes as far as to say that holding one's male organ while urinating is akin to bringing a flood upon the world, highlighting the gravity of the sin.

Sha'arei Teshuvah 3:113

And one who plays with children and [masturbates] whether with the hand or the foot is liable. And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Niddah 13b) that his punishment is like the punishment of the generation of the flood, that had corrupted their ways. And likewise one who does like the act of Er and Onan - to thresh (the penis) inside (the vagina) and winnow outside, to destroy the seed - is liable, as it is stated (Genesis 38:10), “And what he did was displeasing to the Lord, and He killed him as well.” And it is stated about those that waste seed (Isaiah 57:5), “You who inflame yourselves among the terebinths, under every verdant tree; who slaughter children, etc.”

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Shaar HaOtiyot, Hilchot Biah 1:22

However, I came to explain further the anger and wrath over the severity of the great sin of wasting seed. It is stated in Tractate Niddah, beginning of Chapter 20 (13a): "It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who holds his male organ and urinates is considered as though he brought a flood upon the world." They said to Rabbi Eliezer: But doesn't seminal drops drip onto his feet, appearing like one who cuts off his own flesh? And it turns out that he speaks disparagingly about his children, who are mamzerim (illegitimate offspring). He said to them: It is better that he should speak disparagingly about his children, who are mamzerim, and not make himself wicked for even one moment before the Omnipresent. And we say: For what reason does the verse state this? Because he emits semen wastefully, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who emits semen wastefully is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “And it was evil in the eyes of the Lord that which he did; and he also died” (Genesis 38:10). Rabbi Yitzḥak and Rabbi Ami say: It is as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: “Who comfort you with idols under every leafy tree, slaying the children in the valleys” (Isaiah 57:5). Do not read it as slaying [shoḥtei], but rather as squeezing [soḥtei]. Rav Ashi says: It is as though he worshiped idols, as here it is written: “Under every leafy tree,” and there it is written: “Upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree” (Deuteronomy 12:2).

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra discusses the concept of brothers dwelling together in levirate marriage, arguing that they must be actual brothers, not just relatives, based on the story of Boaz and Ruth. Siftei Chakhamim explains the concept of strangulation as a death penalty, comparing it to other unspecified death penalties in the Bible. Haamek Sheilah analyzes Isaiah's reproach on the lack of Torah study and teaching among the chosen ones of Israel, leading to their downfall and captivity.

Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 11:14

[Following these introductory remarks], Isaiah begins the main body of his reproach: “The Lord desired, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the teaching great and glorious.” (It is certainly clear that at the time of Isaiah, many other prophets received prophecy from God to increase the Torah in quantity and quality; to sharpen the sword of Torah through deep penetration and teaching. The reason that we possess no record of their writings is because matters irrelevant to the later generations were included in much of their prophecy, [similar] to what is stated in the first chapter of Tractate Megillah. (14a.) In reality, earlier in chapter 32, (I found it in chapter 28.) Isaiah chastises the prophets “tottering in judgment,” (A term used by the Prophet in Isa. 28:7.) because they used minimal oversight and analysis and because they did not want to listen, as explained earlier. (See Part 2, chapter 6.) Pertaining to this Isaiah states that it was “for His righteousness’s sake” that He has taught you the way to be saved from the sword of Sanheriv). “But this is a people robbed and plundered” (where “robbed” refers to one who is not taken captive himself, but whose possessions are taken as plunder, whereas “plundered” refers to who is actually taken captive). “For their chosen ones are swollen”; (the reason [that such a fate] has befallen them is because the special ones of Israel are in a position to wage the battle of Torah with the assistance of their students, as advised [by Koheles]. (12:12.) However, they did not do so, and their wisdom and analysis remained within them, as one stricken with a swollen throat, where his air remains inside and cannot be exhaled [i.e., he cannot talk]. Thus the chosen ones have become too lazy to toil with the students in order to clarify the matters that are within their capacity for breath [i.e., his potential to teach]). “They are hidden in prison-houses”: (they did not go to the study halls to supervise the students so that they should study the Torah diligently, rather they sat by themselves and studied in isolation, as if they lived in prison). “They are marked as prey, and there is no savior” (as a result, this evil has befallen some of the communities, their possessions becoming spoil, with none to save them). “For [they are] plunder and none says, ‘Restore them’” (they have been taken captive and no one can protest by saying, “Restore them”). “Who among you will listen to this? Who will heed? They hear from the rear.” ([That is, they do not listen attentively]. Who among the giants of Israel will listen to this reproach that I have uttered, acting as if they were hidden in the prison-houses, uninvolved in promoting diligent study by the students – “they [the giants of Israel] hear from the rear.” For Isaiah stated that [these calamities befell] because the special ones acted as though they had swollen throats, not uttering words of Torah to their students, continuing [to remain in isolation] like one in prison, by not going to the study halls at all. Yet they, [the giants of Israel] say the opposite, that they are forced to remain in the “prison-houses,” for they cannot burden the students with such difficult labor – apply pilpul and deep analysis at a time of crisis. Therefore, even they have reached such a level that every special one [acts as if he] possesses a swollen throat, such that there is no longer found a single [student] before whom a scholar can communicate the deep analysis of the halachah residing within him). “Who gave up Jacob as plunder” (the multitudes were taken captive due to the lack of the merit of the students’ “voice of Jacob”) “and Israel to the robbers?” (Although the giants of Israel (See Ha’amek Davar on Gen. 38:10, in which “Israel” refers to the exceptional ones, while “Jacob” represents the masses.) possessed merit [of Torah study] sufficient to save themselves (as I wrote in chapter 9), nevertheless their possessions became plunder [of war]).

Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 25:5:1

IF BRETHREN (Hebrew, achim (brothers).) DWELL TOGETHER. The deniers also say that these brethren (The brothers spoken of in our verse.) are not actual brothers, (For Scripture explicitly prohibits a man from marrying his sister-inlaw. See Lev. 18:6.) but are relatives. They brought proof from Boaz. (Boaz married Ruth, who was the wife of his deceased relative, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance (Ruth 4:5).) However, they contribute nothing, for there is no mention of levirate marriage, (In the Book of Ruth.) only of redemption. (Boaz married Ruth so that her husband’s field would not pass into the hands of a stranger. He thus “redeemed” the said field. See Ruth 4:1-6.) Why mention the word together? (In our verse.) Does it matter if they were in one state or in one courtyard, or if they loved each other? (According to the Rabbinic tradition the word brethren means brothers and together means alive at the same time. However, if we accept the Karaitic interpretation then we do not know what Scripture means by the word together.) They say, (So Vat. Ebr. 38. Mikra’ot Gedolot reads: He says.) look, the verse says ve-yibbemah (and shall perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her). (The word yavam means a brother-in-law.) This shows that he is her brother-in-law in name only. (The Karaites interpret ve-yibbemah as, and be a brother-in-law to her. Now if the true brother-in-law was being addressed Scripture would not say, and be a brother-in-law to her. Hence we must interpret ve-yibbemah as meaning “act as a brother-in-law to her.” The upshot of all this is that a true brother-in-law is not being addressed.) It is like thy sister-in-law (yevimtekh) (Yevimtekh is the word yevamah (sister-in-law) plus the second person personal pronoun. Orpah was the wife of Ruth’s brother-in-law (yavam). She is referred to as a yevamah because she took her husband’s place. We thus see that the term yavam in its various forms can refer to one who acts like one’s brother-in-law.) is gone back (Ruth 1:15). Now observe that they have become foolish and stupid, for Scripture states, with regard to the sons of Judah, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother (ve-yabbem) unto her (Tamar, the widow of Er the son of Judah.) (Gen. 38:8). (Judah told his son Onan to go and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto your sister-in-law Tamar.) Now he (Onan the brother of Er.) was her (Tamar’s.) brother-in-law. (It is thus clear that levirate marriage was performed by the actual brother-in-law.) Also, the term yevimtekh (thy sister-in-law) (Ruth 1:15) was used because they were married to two brothers. (In other words, the term yevamah was not employed figuratively in Ruth.) All intelligent people know that the negative commandments given to Moses (Excluding the Noahide laws, which were given to Adam and Noah (see Meijler).) were not previously prohibited. (There was thus no prohibition before the revelation at Sinai against a man to marrying his sister-in-law.) However, it would not have been evil in the eyes of God if someone abstained from them (That is, from those negative commandments from which reason tells us to abstain.) before the law was given to Moses. (In other words, God would have been pleased with a person who abstained from practices which He would later prohibit. If the law prohibiting intercourse with a sister-in-law was based on reason, i.e., it was an abomination, then Scripture would not have condemned Onan for not wanting to impregnate his sister-in-law.) The fact that Scripture states, for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you (Lev. 18:27), shows that this is certainly the case. We do not find a prophet who warned them. (From engaging in the practices that Lev. 18:27 refers to, for Scripture believes that one ought to know not to engage in these practices by employing one’s rationality. See Yesod Mora 5: “The fundamental commandments are those precepts that are implanted in the heart. They…were known by reason before the Torah was given through the agency of Moses” (Strickman translation, p. 75).) Look, Scripture says of Onan, who did not give seed to his brother, the thing which he did was evil in the sight of God (Gen. 38:10). (God thus wants a brother to marry the childless widow of his biological brother.) We will therefore rely on the tradition that they are actual brothers.

Siftei Chakhamim, Leviticus 20:10:3

Strangulation. Because it is written “shall be... put to death” without specifying [which death penalty], and this [case here is] a death administered by man. And we also find “death” mentioned without specifying [which death penalty], regarding a death administered by heaven, by [the deaths of] Er and Onan where it is written (Bereishis 38:10), “And He also put him to death.” [Therefore, we say that] just as a [an unspecified] death administered by heaven leaves no mark, so too, the death administered by man is one that leaves no mark. See all this in Sanhedrin (52b).

Talmud

The Talmud discusses the story of Onan, who was punished for spilling his semen on the ground during intercourse with his brother's wife, leading to his death as a result of his actions. It is emphasized that emitting semen for no purpose is considered a serious offense, as demonstrated by Onan's fate. Additionally, it is mentioned that causing oneself to become aroused is also viewed negatively in the eyes of God, as seen in the case of Onan.

Niddah 13a:17

The Gemara asks: And why must one refrain to that extent from holding his penis? Because as the result of holding his penis he might emit semen for naught. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who emits semen for naught is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, as it is stated with regard to Onan, son of Judah: “And it came to pass, when he engaged in intercourse with his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. And the thing that he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and He slew him also” (Genesis 38:9–10).

Niddah 13b:3

Some say that Rabbi Ami says: With regard to anyone who brings himself into a state of arousal, they do not bring him within the boundary of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The proof is that it is written here, with regard to Onan, son of Judah: “And the thing that he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and He slew him also” (Genesis 38:10), and it is written there: “For You are not a God who has pleasure in wickedness; evil shall not sojourn with You. The boasters shall not stand in Your sight…But as for me, in the abundance of Your kindness will I come into Your house; I will bow down toward Your holy Temple in fear of You” (Psalms 5:5–8). This demonstrates that whoever does evil, like Onan, shall not sojourn with God.

Yevamot 34b:4

The Gemara continues to clarify what took place: Granted, Onan engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse with her, as it is written with regard to his act: “That he spilled it on the ground” (Genesis 38:9). However, from where do we derive that Er engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse with her? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: As it is written with regard to Onan: “And He slew him also” (Genesis 38:10). This indicates that he, too, died the same death for performing the same transgression as his brother. The Gemara asks: Granted, Onan engaged in anal intercourse because he did not want Tamar to give birth as “he knew that the seed would not be his” (Genesis 38:9). However, with regard to Er, what is the reason he acted in this way? The Gemara responds: He did so in order that she not become pregnant and become less beautiful as a result of her pregnancy.

Tanakh

Judah had two sons, Er and Onan, who died in the land of Canaan [Numbers 26:19].

Numbers 26:19

Born to Judah: Er and Onan. Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan.

Targum

Both Targums agree that Judah's actions were considered evil by the Lord, resulting in his death.

Onkelos Genesis 38:10

What he did was evil in the eyes of [before] Adonoy, and He also put him to death.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:10

And what he did was evil before the Lord and he cut off his days also.

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוּדָה֩ לְתָמָ֨ר כַּלָּת֜וֹ שְׁבִ֧י אַלְמָנָ֣ה בֵית־אָבִ֗יךְ עַד־יִגְדַּל֙ שֵׁלָ֣ה בְנִ֔י כִּ֣י אָמַ֔ר פֶּן־יָמ֥וּת גַּם־ה֖וּא כְּאֶחָ֑יו וַתֵּ֣לֶךְ תָּמָ֔ר וַתֵּ֖שֶׁב בֵּ֥ית אָבִֽיהָ׃ 11 J Then Judah said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Stay as a widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up”—for he thought, “He too might die like his brothers.” So Tamar went to live in her father’s house.
Judah did not intend for Tamar to marry his son Shelah due to fear of him dying like his brothers, leading Tamar to take matters into her own hands to secure offspring from the family of Yaakov/Yehudah. In the Talmud, the verse prohibits a High Priest from marrying any widow, clarified to include widows from both betrothal and marriage. Targum mentions Judah instructing Tamar to remain a widow until Shelah was grown up, following his directive to live in her father's house as instructed.

Commentary

Judah told Tamar to remain in mourning at her father's house until his son Shelah was grown up, indicating he did not intend for them to marry. He feared Shelah might die like his brothers due to Tamar's past husbands dying young. Yehudah did not want Shelah to marry Tamar while he was still young, as he was concerned he might commit the same sins as his brothers. Tamar, feeling rejected, took matters into her own hands to secure offspring from the family of Yaakov/Yehudah.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:11:1

; כי אמר פן ימות , “for he had said (to himself) ‘”lest he die too;”On this line Rashi comments that Yehudah felt that Tamar was one of those women who has a tendency to bring about the death of her husbands. We have a statement to this effect in the Talmud Yevamot 64 as well as in Ketuvot 43, that if two husbands of a woman have died, one risks one’s life if one marries her. Even according to the opinion that such conclusions cannot be drawn unless the same woman had lost three husbands, Yehudah was afraid for the life of his son. The Talmud forbids a potential suitor to marry a woman with such a record.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:11:2

עד יגדל שילה, “until Sheylah would have come of age.” Yehudah felt that once Sheylah would mature, he would be wise enough not to repeat the sins of his older brothers who had died. An alternate exegesis of this paragraph: Yehudah wanted to wait until Sheylah would grow up, in her father’s house by which time, hopefully, Sheylah would have married someone else and would have produced children from such a marriage. Once that had occurred, Yehudah was willing to let Tamar marry him as he would have no reason that his semen would given to Tamar in order to keep alive the name of his deceased brothers, would at the same time destroy his own future.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:11:1

REMAIN A WIDOW IN THY FATHER’S HOUSE. The prepositional bet has been omitted from before the bet of the word house. (Our verse literally reads: Remain a widow, your father’s house. I.E. points out that the prepositional bet is omitted from before the word bet (house) and has to be supplied by the reader. Thus bet (house of) had to be read as if written be-vet (in the house of).) We find the same type of omission in that was found in the house (bet) of the Lord (II Kings 18:15). (The verse literally reads: that was found house of the Lord. Here, too, the prepositional bet has to be supplied by the reader and the word to be read as if written be-vet.)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:11:1

עד יגדל שלה בני, “until my son Shelah becomes of age.” Seeing there was no brother older than Shelah for Tamar to marry, she would have to wait until Shelah was old enough. Had Shelah been of marriageable age already, Yehudah would not have asked Tamar to wait. This verse [the problems caused by Yehudah delaying the levirate marriage of Shelah, Ed.] prompted our sages in Yevamot 39 to say that if a brother evaded performing the levirate union until a younger, under-aged brother had come of age and would perform it in his stead, or if an older brother was overseas and a brother who was present wanted to wait until his older brother returns from overseas and marries this widow, that one does not accept such arguments. The brother who is present and of age must either perform the levirate marriage or release the widow by performing the rite of חליצה, the act of releasing her to marry an outsider, so hat she can get on with her life. In Ruth 1,11 Naomi says to her daughters-in-law: “turn back, my daughters! Why should you go with me? I am too old to be married. Even if I were to be married tonight and I also bore sons, should you wait for them till they grow up?” This suggests that there might be a point in waiting under less extreme circumstances. There are those who hold that Naomi meant that if she had been pregnant at the time she uttered these words she would have encouraged her daughters-in-law to wait till such sons had been old enough to marry. However, people who think along those lines are quite wrong. The Torah in Deut. 25,1 introduces the whole subject of the levirate marriage with the words כי ישבו אחים יחדיו, which the Talmud in Yevamot 17 interprets to mean ”when the brothers concerned are alive at the same time.” In other words, no unborn brother can qualify for observing this legislation for a brother who had died before he was born.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:11:2

כי אמר פן ימות גם הוא, “for he had said: ‘lest he die too.’” He felt that Tamar had demonstrated a tendency to cause the death of her husbands. There is an opinion in the Talmud according to which when something occurs successively even only twice we already consider this as an established pattern, i.e. חזקה. This is the way Rashi interprets our verse. Nachmanides questions this, writing that if indeed Yehudah’s fears were based on this consideration why would he not tell Tamar his reason and deceive her by making her think that he would give Shelah to her in due course? According to Rashi, Shelah would be forbidden to marry Tamar as she was a potential killer. This is why Nachmanides explains that actually Shelah would have been a suitable third husband for her under the levirate marriage legislation. Yehudah simply did not want Shelah to marry until he had matured more as otherwise he might become guilty of the same sin which had caused the death of his brothers. When Tamar noticed that although Shelah had matured in the interval her father-in-law had still not given him to her in marriage, she decided to take a different route to secure issue from the family of Yaakov/Yehudah.

Radak on Genesis 38:11:1

ויאמר... כי אמר פן ימות גם הוא כאחיו, in commenting on Yehudah’s reasoning, Bereshit Rabbah 85.5 quotes Rabbi Eleazar as saying [Rashi’s interpretation of his statement, Ed.] that although the Torah has enjoined us לא תנחשו, (Leviticus 19,26) not to be superstitious as for instance to allow a black cat crossing our path to determine our actions, there is such a thing as a סימן, a “hint from a higher domain,” to heed which is not idolatrous. Such a “hint” would be a catastrophe of the same kind three times repeated. This is what Yehudah was afraid of.

Ramban on Genesis 38:11:1

ABIDE A WIDOW AT THY FATHER’s HOUSE. The meaning thereof is that “you should conduct yourself there as a widow until Shelah be grown up.” He suggested to her: “Place yourself in mourning, put on mourning garments, do not anoint yourself with oil, as a woman girded with sack-cloth for the bridegroom of her youth, (Joel 1:8.) until Shelah be grown up and he will marry you.” Such was the custom of a widow waiting to be married: she who desires to be married to a stranger wears mourning garments only for a short period as is the custom, and then feigning comfort arrays herself in scarlet. And she covered herself with a veil, (Verse 14 here. Ramban thus interprets the verse; And she removed the garments of her widowhood, and covered herself with a veil, as an indication that she was no longer mourning. See Ramban further, Verse 16.) until she be married to a man.

Ramban on Genesis 38:11:2

FOR HE SAID, LEST HE ALSO DIE, LIKE HIS BRETHREN. That is to say, he dismissed her with a paltry reply because he never intended to give her to him in marriage. For he said, Lest he also die, like his brethren, for she has established herself as one whose husbands die young. This is Rashi’s Language. Now I do not know why Judah, a ruler of his generation, should be shy towards this woman and not tell her, “Go in peace from my house,” and why should he mislead her when she is even forbidden to Shelah, just as the Rabbis have said concerning a married woman: (Kethuboth 43:2.) “Twice establishes a presumption [that the woman is a katlanith — a woman whose husbands die].” However since Judah was angered by her harlotry to the extent of condemning her to be burned, it would appear that he originally did wish her to remain in his family. It is also unreasonable to say that Judah did not hear about how his children sinned against G-d, thus causing Him to deliver them into the hands of their fate, while Tamar was guiltless in their death. (Ramban thus raises two questions against Rashi’s interpretation. It is obvious that Judah did care to have Tamar in the family, and as for her part in the death of Er and Onan, did not Judah hear how his sons had sinned against G-d, and that Tamar was guiltless?) The correct view appears to me to be that Shelah was fit for the marriage, but his father did not want him to marry Tamar while he was still a youth, lest he commit some sin with her as had his brothers who died young, for they were boys, none of them having attained twelve years (Seder Olam 2. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 216.) of age. His intention was that when he would mature and would listen to the instruction of his father, he would then give her to him as a wife. But when she had waited a long time and it appeared to her that Shelah had grown up — although in the eyes of his father he was still a boy as he was not yet ten years old and therefore his father was bent on waiting longer — then Tamar, in her craving to give birth from the sacred race, hastened and did this deed.

Rashi on Genesis 38:11:1

‘כי אמר וגו FOR HE SAID etc. — that is to say, he pushed her off with a straw (i.e., he put her off with a lame excuse) because he never intended to give her to him in marriage

Rashi on Genesis 38:11:2

כי אמר פן ימות FOR HE SAID LEST PERADVENTURE HE DIE — She is a woman of whom it may be presumed that the men she marries will always die young (Genesis Rabbah 85:5).

Sforno on Genesis 38:11:1

שבי אלמנה, wait for a while in a state of widowhood. This expression also occurs in Hoseah 3,3 ימים רבים תשבי לי, “you will have to go a long time without marrying.”

Sforno on Genesis 38:11:2

פן ימות הוא כאחיו, so he would not be so preoccupied with Tamar’s beauty due to his immaturity which had deflected his brothers from the purpose of marriage, and he too would die as a result of this.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:11:1

Meaning, he pushed her off with a straw... Rashi is answering the question: Is the verse not self-contradictory? First it is written עד יגדל שלה בני, implying Yehudah intended to give her to Sheilah. Then it is written כי אמר פן ימות, implying Yehudah did not want to do so. Furthermore, when it says כי, how is this a reason for the preceding? If she is a woman whose husbands die, how could Yehudah give her to Sheilah when he comes of age? Therefore Rashi explains that Yehudah offered a pretense when he said עד יגדל שלה בני, for he did not intend that Sheilah should marry her. And when it says כי אמר פן ימות, this is giving the reason for [the verse’s implied statement] why he did not intend for them to marry.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:11

Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law: Do not remain in my house; rather, remain a widow, alone in your father’s house, until Shela my third son matures. It would appear that Shela had not yet reached marriageable age. Although Shela was supposed to perform levirate marriage when coming of age, Judah was not interested in allowing a marriage between Shela and Tamar, for he said: Lest he too die, like his brothers. He was concerned that Tamar was somehow a dangerous woman who caused the deaths of his first two sons. To protect his youngest son, Judah sent Tamar from his house. 22 So Tamar went and lived in her father’s house.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:11:1

שבי אלמנה בית אביך, “dwell as a widow in your father’s home, etc.” This was a rejection of Tamar as Shelah’s future wife; Yehudah had no intention of ever letting Shelah marry Tamar. Nachmanides writes that he does not understand why Yehudah had to reject her in such a round about fashion; he could have simply told her to go home and feel free to marry anyone else. Furthermore, seeing that Yehudah was so concerned about Tamar having had sexual relations with someone that he was prepared to convict her of death by burning, clearly he did expect her to marry Shelah, why else maintain the fiction that she was a levirate wife in limbo, and as such forbidden to be intimate with any other man? Moreover, it is most unlikely that Yehudah had not heard that the cause of his sons dying was not Tamar but their own sins. I believe therefore, that Shelah was perfectly suitable to be the husband of Tamar in a levirate marriage, but his father did not want him to marry Tamar while he was still young, (immature) so that he would not commit a sin similar to those committed by his brothers. They died in their youth precisely because they were too immature, neither of them being even 12 years of age. When Shelah would reach maturity and therefore be obedient to his father’s moral and ethical instructions, he would be quite prepared to have him marry Tamar. At the time of Onan’s death, he was not even 10 years old. Tamar, who was older and had an active libido, deserved to be remarried sooner, and when Yehudah did not give him to her she interpreted this as an outright refusal, not a temporary one.

Midrash

In Seder Olam Rabbah 2:2, it is mentioned that Jacob was 63 years old when he received his blessing, Ishmael died at that time and his sister was married off to Esau, Jacob hid in Israel for 14 years before going to Aram-Naharaim, where he stayed for 20 years. In Bereshit Rabbah 85:5, Judah initiated the mitzva of levirate marriage, Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥalafta fulfilled this mitzva with his brothers' wives and had five sons, including Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yosei. Onan spilled his seed to avoid impregnating his brother's wife, and Judah told Tamar to wait for his son to marry her, citing a portent.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:5

“Judah said to Onan: Consort with your brother’s wife, and consummate levirate marriage with her, and establish offspring for your brother” (Genesis 38:8). “Judah said to Onan…” – Judah was the first to initiate the mitzva of levirate marriage. It is taught: Any matter that was in the category of permitted, became prohibited, and then became permitted again, it does not return to its initial permitted state, but rather, to a second permitted state. A yevama, (A yevama is a woman whose husband died without children. She is tied in a levirate bond to his brother, who is called the yavam.) because she was in the category of permitted, became prohibited, and was then permitted, (Before she married, she was permitted to marry the brother of her eventual husband. Once she married, she became forbidden to her husband’s brother. When her husband died, she became permitted to him once again.) does she, perhaps, return to her initial permitted state? The verse states: “Her husband’s brother shall consort with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5) – mitzva. (This view accords with that of Abba Shaul (Yevamot 39b), who holds that levirate marriage may be performed only if the intent in doing so is to perform the mitzva, and not if the intent is simply because they would like to be married. This is different from the permitted status of the yevama to her eventual yavam before she had been married. At that time they could have married for any reason they wanted (Yefe To’ar). ) Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥalafta entered into levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He engaged in relations five times, (He had five brothers who died without children. He did not remain married to these women, but after he fulfilled the mitzva he divorced them.) he engaged in relations through a sheet, (This was in order to minimize his pleasure, so he would ensure that the act was purely for the sake of the mitzva.) and planted five saplings in Israel. (Five sons were born from these acts of levirate marriage. ) Who were they? Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Menaḥem ben Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Avdimos ben Rabbi Yosei. He had red eyes and resembled his mother. (Rabbi Avdimos had red eyes, as did his mother. This was considered unattractive, and underscores that Rabbi Yosei was interested only in fulfilling the mitzva of levirate marriage, and therefore he did so even in this case, where the woman was not attractive.) “Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, and it was when he consorted with his brother’s wife, that he spilled on the ground, so as not to give offspring for his brother” (Genesis 38:9). “Onan knew” – he would penetrate inside but spill outside. “Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law: Remain a widow in your father’s house, until Shela my son matures; for he said: Lest he too die, like his brothers. Tamar went and lived in her father’s house” (Genesis 38:11). “Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law” – Rabbi Elazar said: Although there is no divination, there is a portent – “lest he too die, like his brothers.” The Rabbis say: [With regard to a] house, baby, and wife, (When a person builds a house, has a child, or marries, and then experiences a period of good or bad fortune, the experience can be seen as a portent for that fortune continuing. Viewing it in this way would not violate the prohibition against divination.) although there is no divination, there is a portent.

Seder Olam Rabbah 2:2

Our forefather Jacob was 63 when he was blessed. Ishmael died at that time as is written, "Esau saw that Isaac had blessed...Jacob listened to his father...Esau saw [the Canaanite women] were bad [in the eyes of Isaac]...Esau went to Ishmael..."(Genesis 28:9). There seems no need for the verse to state "sister of Nebaioth." What do we learn from the fact that it says "sister of Nebaioth"? We learn that Ishmael died and Nebaioth [Ishmael's firstborn therefore] married off his sister to Esau. Jacob our forefather hid [from Esau] 14 years in the land of Israel and served Eber. Eber died two years after Jacob went to Aram-Naharaim. [Jacob] left and went to Aram-Naharaim and he was found by the well when he was 77 years old and he was in Laban's house for 20 years: 7 before he married any matriarchs, 7 from when he married in the Matriarchs and 6 years after the 11 tribes and Dinah were born. It comes out that all the tribes were born in seven years besides Benjamin. Each and every one each 7 months. He left Aram-Naharaim and came to Succoth and stayed there 18 months as is written "And Jacob went to Succoth" (Genesis 33:17). He left Succoth and went to Bet El and made 6 new encampments close to the place.

Quoting Commentary

Rashbam suggests that the names "Veayah" and "Veanah" may be more accurate than "Ayah" and "Anah" in Genesis 36:24, and challenges Rashi's interpretation of connective letters. Tur HaArokh explains that Moses prayed for the tribe of Reuven to not decline in numbers due to the sins of their ancestors. Tosafot discusses the conditions of a wife not returning to her father's house in Kiddushin 5a. Rashi explains the presence of G-d in Beth-El in Genesis 35:7. Da'at Zekenim explores the story of Tamar and Yehudah in Genesis 38, noting the lack of witnesses and the moral depravity of the time. Chizkuni discusses the burial restrictions for priests in Leviticus 21 and the manifestation of G-d's glory among the families of Israel in Numbers 10.

Chizkuni, Leviticus 21:4:1

לא יטמא בעל בעמיו, “a husband (who is a priest) may not defile himself for his wife corpse (of a wife who has been forbidden to him and disqualified him for priestly duties);” if there are other people available who can do this without delay. According to the Targum, there is a letter ב missing here at the beginning of the word בעל which should be understood as if it had been written בבעל. The reference then would be to the High Priest not being allowed to bury his wife as he is the highest ranking priest. According to our author, this construction is not unique, and he cites Genesis 38,11 שבי אלמנה בית אביך, where Yehudah tells his daughter-in-law to spend the period of her widowhood in her father’s house pending his son Shelah becoming of age so that he could marry her. In other words, the word בית there should really have been: בבית, “in the house.” Our author claims that there are numerous such constructions to be found elsewhere. According to Ibn Ezra, the verse speaks of an ordinary priest not being allowed to defile himself on his wife’s body, as she is not a blood relative.

Chizkuni, Numbers 10:36:3

רבבות אלפי ישראל, “unto the tens of thousands of families of Israel.” The expression means that Moses wished for the Presence of the glory of the Lord to be manifest in the midst of the tens of thousands of families comprising the Jewish people. רבבות, this is one of the words that loses the prefix letter ב, such as we find the first time already in Exodus 31,17: כי ששת ימים, which we would have expected to be: כי בששת ימים, “for during six days.” The author quotes a number of such examples, singling out: Genesis 38,11. An alternate interpretation: the meaning of the line: קומה ה' ויפוצו אויביך, “arise O Lord so that Your enemies will scatter,” is the standard prayer we ought to recite whenever engaging on a journey.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 38:24:2

הוציאהו ותשרף, “take her outside so that she may be burned.” Ephrayim from Kahse, (location) says that Tamar was the daughter of Shem who we heard was the priest of Shalem, and as such if she had committed adultery while still in her father’s house, if sentenced to death for harlotry would die by burning; (Leviticus 21,9) (compare also B’reshit Rabbah 85,10). Yehudah’s judgment is hard to understand as there had been no witnesses to the adultery Tamar had been accused of. Neither had she been warned not to commit such an act and been advised of the potential penalty, as is required by Jewish law. Rabbi Joseph, a resident of the land of Israel, answered this by saying that the generation in which Yehudah lived was morally deprived, and in such circumstances warnings and witnesses are dispensed with when her pregnancy was proof enough of how it had come about. In times like that, the Torah applies additional measures to counteract serious crimes as no one would commit such acts in the presence of acceptable witnesses and after being warned. Rabbi Joseph based himself on the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin folio 46, where we read as follows: “Rabbi Eliezer son of Yaakov said that the Jewish Court is authorized to decree death penalties not according to the legislation of the Torah when the circumstances demand it, in order to be deterrents to potential sinners.” The Talmud quotes several historical instances when this occurred, including the carrying out of a death penalty against 80 witches on a single day, in spite of the generally accepted rule not to carry out more than one such sentence per day. This happened already during the first hundred years of the period of the second Temple. Joshua’s executing Achan ben Karmi for stealing from the loot of Jericho, obviously without witnesses, why else had lots to be cast to find the guilty party, (Joshua chapter 7) is further proof of the authority of the leader appointed by G–d in circumstances that are not normal. We are still left with the problem that if Tamar was indeed the daughter of Shem, and according to the historical data given to us by the Torah for the time when her father died, this occurred long before the sons of Yehudah were born, how could Yehudah have told her to return to the house of her father and spend there the years of her widowhood there? (Genesis 38,11) [According to the chronology of the Torah, Shem was born about 1557 after Adam was created, and died at the age of 500, i.e. in .2007 after the creation of Adam. Avraham was born in the year 1949 after the creation of Adam, he sired Yitzchak 100 years later. Yitzchok was 60 years old when he fathered Yaakov and Esau, and Yaakov was at least 88 years old when he fathered Yehudah, Tamar’s father in law. You, the reader do not need a calculator to understand the problem created by Rabbi Joseph quoted by our author. Ed.] He must have meant that “her father’s house,” was not to be understood literally, but he meant the family from which she stemmed.

Rashbam on Genesis 36:24:1

ואיה וענה, I believe that the real names of these people were “Veayah” and “Veanah,” not “Ayah” and “Anah.” The same is true of Numbers 13,14 where the letter ו is part of the name itself, i.e. ופסי, just as it is in Esther where the letter ו is part of the name of Queen Vashti, i.e. ושתי. Even though these sons of Tzivon are also referred to by the names Ayah and Adah in Chronicles I 1,40, we need not attribute too much meaning to this, as there are numerous instances when such names are not accurately reported. (Examples of such inaccuracies are Genesis 10,23 where the letters ו in the words וחול וגתר (names) clearly are not part of the names themselves. The same is true of Chronicles I 1,17 where all four of these names are introduced with the letter ו. Clearly, the two versions cannot both be correct. Anyone who interprets the letter ו in the words (names) ואיה וענה to be connective letters ו, must surely answer the question of what prompted the Torah to write such connective letters ו here when it did not seem to be called for. Why would just these sons have been selected by the Torah to be linked to one another by the connective letter ו and not numerous other sons who appear in this chapter? [the author challenges his grandfather Rashi’s interpretation. Ed.] The proofs cited by such commentators for their interpretation are not convincing at all. The very letters ו whom these commentators quote as support for their thesis are themselves not connective letters For instance, in Samuel II 13,20 the line ותשב תמר ושוממה בית אבשלום אחיה, the word ושוממה means the same as שבי, as in שבי אלמנה בית אביך, (Genesis 38,11) where Yehudah tells his daughter-in-law (also) called Tamar to await Shelah’s growing up by remaining like a grieving widow in her father’s house. The word ותשב in Samuel II 13.20 has two meanings. It tells us that Tamar henceforth was isolated, lonely, an outcast. The word בודדה for “lonely,” is implied but not spelled out, and the whole line must be understood as if the prophet had written ותשב תמר בודדה ושוממה, “Tamar lived lonely and abandoned in the house of her brother Avshalom.” Psalms 76,7 מגערתך אלוקי יעקב נרדם ורכב וסוס, must be understood as מגערת אלוקי יעקב נרדם חיל שונאינו, at Your blast, O G’d of Yaakov, horse and chariot (with our enemies) lay stunned.” The reference is to the army mentioned in the preceding verses. The word אנשי חיל, “the soldiers,” which appears in verse 6 of that chapter is presumed as also applying to verse 7. If this were not so, the verse would make little sense. We find that a similar verse to that in Psalms 77,7 is found in Exodus 15,1, where the Torah includes the riders of the cavalry as having been tossed into the sea, as their survival would hardly have constituted an overwhelming victory by G’d.

Rashi on Ezekiel 23:43:3

of the one who had aged [in] adulteries like: [lit. to the one who had aged adulteries,] the one who had aged in adulteries, as you say (Gen. 38:11): “and she remained her father’s house,” is like “in her father’s house”; (Exod. 30:20), “they shall wash water,” is like “they shall wash with water.” [Likewise,] (ibid.): “And he shall go out freedom;” [and] (Num. 30:11): “But if she made a vow [in] her father’s house.” So did Dunash (p. 17) explain [this]. However, Menachem connected it (p. 45) to (Lev 20:12): “they committed a disgraceful act (תֶּבֶל),” but his words are impossible.

Rashi on Genesis 35:7:1

אל בית אל EL-BETH-EL — the Holy One, blessed be He, is in Beth-El; i.e. His Divine Presence has revealed itself in Bethel. Sometimes the prefix ב “in” is omitted from a word: e.g., (2 Samuel 9:4) “Behold, he is (בית) in the house of Muchir, the son of Ammiel”, which is the same as בבית in the house of Machir; (24:13) בית אביך is the same as בבית אביך ,‘in the house of thy father”.

Rashi on Isaiah 13:2:3

the gates Heb. פִּתְחֵי. As though it would say, בְּפִתְחֵי, into the gates. Comp. (Gen. 38:11) “Stay as a widow in your father’s house (בֵּית אָבִיךְ),” interpreted as בְּבֵית אָבִיךְ. Menachem ben Seruk (Machbereth Menachem p. 147) interpreted it as swords. Comp. (Psalms 55:22) “And they are drawn swords (פְּתִיחוֹת).”

Tosafot on Kiddushin 5a:10:1

"'With the understanding that you will not go to your father's house ever'—this is not a get". Rashi's explanation: "All her days she is bound to uphold this condition on his account". Problem: Why shouldn't it be a get since, if her father dies, then she is able to enter the house and she is no longer bound to him, since after the death of her father it is not considered "her father's house", as we say in Nedarim 46a: "[Someone says to their fellow:] 'Konam is your house that I will not enter it'—if he [the house owner] dies or sells it, he is permitted [to enter it]" [which should be the case for the condition that the husband made the wife swear about her father's house]! Solution: It is called her father's house by all of her father's offspring even though he died, as it is written about Tamar, "Return as a widow to your father's house" (Bereishit 38:11), even though her father died as the verses prove.

Tur HaArokh, Deuteronomy 33:6:3

ויהי מתיו מספר, “and may its numbers never shrink into insignificance.” Seeing that all things that are subject to count are also subject to a decline in number, Moses prayed that Reuven should not experience such a reduction in numbers. Nachmanides writes that in his view a better explanation of the above words is that of Rashi, i.e. that Moses prayed that Reuven should live on as a tribe of Israel in this world and not disappear as an entity in the world to come, either. The sin of his founding father should not be visited upon him and his descendants even in the hereafter. When reflecting on Yaakov’s comments on Reuven on his deathbed, Moses realized that it contained a great deal of anger that had been suppressed for a long time. Moses prays to protect the tribe against any fallout from this also in the future, beyond life on earth. The word מתיו, “his population,” is used to include all members of the tribe against such fallout. The word מספר “number,” is to be understood as if the Torah had written: במספר, ”in number,” a construction similar to בית אביה, ”her father’s house,” where what is meant is בבית אביה, “in her father’s house.” (Compare Genesis 38,11) It is also possible that the words מתיו מספר refer to the people of Israel who are to always look upon the tribe of Reuven as one looks on a firstborn son. Some commentators understand this blessing as being directed at the days of the conquest of the land of Canaan, Moses blessing the soldiers of the tribe of Reuven who would be in the vanguard with the members of the tribe of Gad, as agreed when they received their allocation of land on the east bank. Moses included the soldiers of the tribe of Gad in his prayer, asking Hashem not to let either of these two tribes sustain casualties during that campaign. Whereas this interpretation has much to commend it, the first interpretation is most likely the correct one.

Second Temple

Tamar remained a widow in her father's house, leaving behind human pleasures to receive divine impregnation and bear seeds of virtue, leading to victory over her adversaries and being symbolized by a palm.

On the Unchangeableness of God 29:2

[137] Tamar was bidden to remain a widow in the house of her father, her one and only saviour (Gen. 38:11), for whose sake she has left for ever the intercourse and society of mortals, and remained desolate and widowed of human pleasures. Thus she receives the divine impregnation, and, being filled with the seeds of virtue, bears them in her womb and is in travail with noble actions. And when she has brought them to the birth, she wins the meed of conquest over her adversaries, and is enrolled as victor with the palm as the symbol of her victory. For Tamar is by interpretation a palm.

Talmud

The verse prohibits a High Priest from marrying any widow, whether she is a widow from betrothal or marriage, as stated in Leviticus 21:14. The Gemara clarifies that this includes all widows, not just widows from marriage, as it may have been assumed based on a verbal analogy with the case of Tamar in Genesis 38:11.

Yevamot 59a:8

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: “A widow…he shall not take” (Leviticus 21:14), which prohibits him from marrying any widow, whether she is a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. The Gemara is surprised by this statement: This is obvious, as the verse is referring to a widow without further specification. The Gemara answers: It is necessary; lest you say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the words “widow” and “widow,” based upon the usage of that term in a verse with regard to Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law (Genesis 38:11), as follows: Just as there, Tamar was a widow from marriage, so too here the verse is referring only to a widow from marriage. The tanna therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

Targum

Yehudah instructed Tamar to live as a widow in her father's house until his son Sheilah was of age, fearing that Sheilah would also die like his brothers. Tamar followed this instruction and lived in her father's house as directed [Onkelos Genesis 38:11; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:11].

Onkelos Genesis 38:11

Yehudah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law, Live as a widow in your father’s house until my son Sheilah is of age. He said, Lest he also die like his brothers. Tamar went and lived in her father’s house.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:11

And Jehuda said to Tamar his daughter--in--law, Remain a widow in thy father's house, till Shela my son be grown up. For he said, Lest he also die as his brethren Tamar went and remained in her father's house.

וַיִּרְבּוּ֙ הַיָּמִ֔ים וַתָּ֖מׇת בַּת־שׁ֣וּעַ אֵֽשֶׁת־יְהוּדָ֑ה וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם יְהוּדָ֗ה וַיַּ֜עַל עַל־גֹּֽזְזֵ֤י צֹאנוֹ֙ ה֗וּא וְחִירָ֛ה רֵעֵ֥הוּ הָעֲדֻלָּמִ֖י תִּמְנָֽתָה׃ 12 J A long time afterward, Shua’s daughter, the wife of Judah, died. When his period of mourning was over, (his period of mourning was over Lit. “he was comforted.”) Judah went up to Timnah to his sheepshearers, together with his friend Hirah the Adullamite.
Judah failed to provide Tamar with a place in his house, causing her despair, leading her to approach Judah during the festive shearing event for yibum. Various commentaries discuss the significance of Judah's actions, including his relationship with Hirah, the lineage of Perez and Zerah, and the punishment meted out to Judah and his brothers. The Talmud suggests that Judah's failure to complete a mitzva resulted in the deaths of his wife and children. Yehudah's wife, the daughter of Shu'a, died, and he sought consolation by going to Timnah for sheep-shearing with his friend Chirah.

Commentary

Judah went up to his sheep-shearers to console himself after his wife's death, where Tamar waited for him. Judah's failure to provide Tamar with a place in his house may have caused her despair. The trip to Timna is described as an ascent, and Tamar positioned herself to intercept Judah. Tamar saw that Judah had finished mourning and knew he would be at the festive shearing event. Judah went up to the sheepshearers to relieve grief over his wife's death. Tamar chose shearing time to approach Judah, as it was a joyous occasion. Before the Torah was given, all relatives could perform yibum, but after, only paternal brothers could. Tamar was permitted to Judah, so she approached him for yibum.

Bekhor Shor, Genesis 38:12:2

To shear his flock. At the time that they sheared their flocks, they would rejoice and hold feasts, as is written of Avshalom and Naval. And when a person is joyous, their sexual urges overcome them, and so she chose shearing-time. And she did this licitly, because before the giving of the Torah all relatives could perform yibum, even the father of the deceased. And since Shelah hadn't performed yibum, it fell to Yehuda. And when the Torah was given and the law renewed [תתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכה], that only the paternal brothers of the deceased perform yibum. Even so, after the giving of the Torah, it was customary [to perform yibbum] even for other relatives who are permitted to her, in addition to brothers, just as Bo'az did to Rut.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:12:1

על גוזזי צאנו, “with the shearers of his flocks.” The word על here is used as meaning the same as עם, “with.”

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:12:1

AND JUDAH WAS COMFORTED. After Judah received condolences (I.E. apparently explains comforted in a technical rather than an emotional sense. Following his wife’s burial Judah’s friends expressed condolences and comforted him. Judah was thus comforted.) for his wife’s death he went up unto (al) his sheep shearers.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:12:2

Al is to be understood as el (unto). (Al means on. Our verse literally reads: And went up on (al) his sheep-shearers, hence I.E.’s comment.)

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 38:3

Lit. “he was comforted.”

Malbim on Genesis 38:12:1

For she saw … she had not been given. She also saw that Yehudah’s wife had died, leaving him free to perform the rite. And from the fact that he attended the shearing — a festive occasion — she knew that he had finished mourning.

Radak on Genesis 38:12:1

וירבו, according to Bereshit Rabbah 85,6 the time frame discussed was 12 months.

Radak on Genesis 38:12:2

ויעל, here the trip to Timnatah is described as an ascent, whereas in Judges 14,5 Shimshon is described as descending to that town. It all depends on the location from which one sets out.

Radak on Genesis 38:12:3

על גוזזי, as if the Torah had written אל גוזזי, “to the shearers.” We find a similar construction involving the preposition על instead of אל in Samuel I 1,11 ותתפלל על ה' instead of ותתפלל אל ה', “she prayed to G’d.” There are numerous similar examples of such constructions in Scripture.

Ramban on Genesis 38:12:1

AND JUDAH, WENT UP UNTO HIS SHEEP-SHEARERS. He would go there continually to console himself after his wife’s death so that he may turn his attention to the sheep and forget his poverty. (Proverbs 31:7. [and remember his trouble no more.]) Now when it was told to Tamar that he goes up there daily without fail, she waited for him on one of those days. It may be that since Judah was prominent in the land, people would assemble there to make a feast at the time of the shearing, similar to a royal feast, and the poor would go there, and it was told to her before he went up there.

Rashi on Genesis 38:12:1

ויעל על גזזי צאנו AND HE WENT UP UNTO HIS SHEEP-SHEARERS — it means: and he went up to Timnah to stand by his sheep-shearers.

Sforno on Genesis 38:12:1

ותמת בת שוע, so that Yehudah should have brought his daughter-in-law into his house as a replacement for his wife. This is what Avraham had done when Yitzchok’s wife Rivkah moved into Sarah’s tent after the latter had died. (24,67) Yehudah’s failure to give Tamar his wife’s quarters to live in may have caused her to despair of having any kind of future in his family.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:12

The days and years accumulated and the unnamed daughter of Shua, wife of Judah, died. After mourning over her death, Judah was comforted and ceased to mourn, and he went up to visit his sheepshearers, who were apparently located a significant distance from Judah’s home. Among other reasons, Judah sought to relieve the grief due to his wife’s death by participating in the shearing of his sheep, typically a festive and joyous occasion. He and Hira, his friend the Adulamite, came to Timna. Perhaps Judah’s close friend came to comfort him, and then decided to accompany Judah to the sheep shearing.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:12:1

ויעל על גוזזי צאנו, “he went up to supervise the shearing of his flocks.” The Torah describes a normal occupation of Yehudah, who frequently supervised his shearers. On one of these occasions, which Tamar was quite familiar with, she waylaid him. Alternately, the Torah describes a feast on the occasion of the completion of the shearing, and Tamar knew that Yehudah would participate. Therefore she positioned herself where he would have to pass her.

Kabbalah

Sarah's death is mentioned in the Torah, but she is not the only woman whose death is recorded, as the deaths of Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, and Judah's wife are also mentioned [Zohar, Chayei Sara 3:13].

Zohar, Chayei Sara 3:13

"And Sarah's life was" Of all the women in the world, why is Sarah the only one whose death is mentioned in Torah? Rabbi Chiya answered, This is not so, for it is written, "And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Efrat" (Gen. 35:19), "and Miriam died there" (Num. 20:1), "and Deborah, Rivkah's nurse, died" (Gen. 35:8) and "the daughter of Shua, Judah's wife died" (Gen. 38:12).

Midrash

In Midrash Tanchuma Buber, it is suggested that Hirah from the days of Judah is the same as Hiram from the days of Solomon, indicating a long-standing relationship between the two. Seder Olam Rabbah provides a detailed timeline of Jacob's life, including his time in Aram-Naharaim and the birth of his children. Bereshit Rabbah 85:6 discusses the significance of Judah going up to Timna to shear his sheep. Bereshit Rabbah 84:21 explores the mourning of Jacob for Joseph and Judah's refusal to be consoled. Devarim Rabbah 8:4 discusses the importance of reciting and completing mitzvot. Aggadat Bereshit 64:3 delves into the lineage of Perez and Zerah, suggesting that the Messiah comes from Perez. Bereshit Rabbah 74:5 contrasts Jacob's actions with those of Esau in terms of family and wealth.

Aggadat Bereshit 64:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Judah went down, etc., and he saw there a daughter of a Canaanite man and took her. Once he took her, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'The Messiah is destined to issue from Judah, and he went and took a Canaanite wife! What then shall I do? I will cause that she engage in improper conduct and have a son from her, and the son will marry my daughter Tamar, who is the daughter of the great Shem.' Said the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Let her die as a Canaanite,' as it is said, 'And the days were multiplied and she died, daughter of Shua, the wife of Judah' (Genesis 38:12). And her sons died, as it is said, 'And Er and Onan died' (Genesis 38:7)[from Onan: Genesis 38:10], so that Judah should cling to Tamar, who was the priestly daughter of Shem son of Noah, as it is said, 'And Melchizedek king of Salem' (Genesis 14:18). And it came to pass, as she was giving birth, that one put out a hand; and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, “This one came out first.” But it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out; and she said, “How hast thou broken forth? [i.e., breached the womb].” Therefore his name was called Perez. And afterward his brother came out that had the scarlet thread upon his hand; and his name was called Zerah (Genesis 38:27-30). At the time of Tamar's childbirth, Zerah sought to come out first. God said, "The Messiah will come from Perez." Zerah then emerged first, but later returned to his mother's womb, and Perez emerged first. The Messiah comes from Perez, as it is written, "And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, 'How hast thou broken forth?' Therefore his name was called Perez." This Perez is the Messiah, as it is written, "The breaker is come up before them" (Micah 2:13).

Bereshit Rabbah 74:5

“Truly, all the wealth that God salvaged from our father, it is for us and for our children. And now, everything that God said to you, do” (Genesis 31:16). “Jacob arose, and placed his sons and his wives upon the camels” (Genesis 31:17). “Truly, all the wealth that God salvaged from our father…arose and placed his children” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “The heart of the wise inclines to his right, and the heart of a fool to his left” (Ecclesiastes 10:2). “The heart of the wise inclines to his right” – this is Jacob, as it is stated: “Jacob arose, and placed his sons” and then, “and his wives.” “And the heart of a fool to his left” – this is Esau: “Esau took his wives” (Genesis 36:6), and then, “and his sons, and his daughters” (Genesis 36:6). “He led all his livestock, and all his property that he attained, his acquisitions that he acquired, which he attained in Padan Aram, to come to Isaac his father, to the land of Canaan” (Genesis 31:18). “He led all his livestock, and all his property that he attained, his acquisitions that he acquired” – what he acquired from the acquisitions of Laban. “Laban had gone to shear his sheep, and Rachel stole the household idols that were her father’s” (Genesis 31:19). “Had gone to shear his sheep” – everywhere that shearing is stated, it makes an impression. (It leaves a negative impression, as was the case with Judah (Genesis 38:12), Naval (I Samuel 25:4), and Absalom (II Samuel 13:23).) “Rachel stole the household idols that were her father’s” – but her intentions were only for the sake of Heaven. She said: ‘What, am I going to go on my way and leave this elder in his corruption?’ That is why it was necessary for the verse to say: “Rachel stole the household idols that were her father’s.” (She took them for his sake, to remove idolatry from him, not because she wanted them herself.)

Bereshit Rabbah 84:21

“All his sons and all his daughters arose to console him, but he refused to be consoled; he said: For I will descend mourning to the grave, to my son. His father wept for him” (Genesis 37:35). “All his sons and all his daughters arose” – how many daughters did he have? He had one, and if only he had buried her. It is, rather, that a person does not refrain from calling his son-in-law his son and his daughter-in-law his daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: The tribes married their sisters. That is what is written: “All his sons and all his daughters arose to console him.” (This view accords with the statement that each of Jacob’s sons was born with a twin daughter (see Bereshit Rabba 82:8). Each son then married one of the daughters of Jacob from a different mother, as according to the Noahide laws one is permitted to marry a half-sister from a different mother (Etz Yosef). ) “But he refused to be consoled” – a certain noblewoman asked Rabbi Yosei, she said to him: It is written: “For Judah prevailed over his brothers” (I Chronicles 5:2), and it is written: “Judah was consoled, and he went up to his sheepshearers” (Genesis 38:12), (His two sons and his wife died, and he was able to be consoled. And from the fact that the verse states that Judah prevailed over his brothers, it is implied that he was the most elevated and that his conduct is worthy of emulation (Etz Yosef). ) and this one, the father of them all, “refused to be consoled”? He said to her: One is consoled for the dead, but one is not consoled for the living. “His father wept for him” – this is Isaac. Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Simon said: When [Jacob] was with him he would weep, but when he would leave him, he would go, bathe, and anoint himself with oil. (Isaac was a prophet and knew the truth about Joseph. ) Why did he not reveal it to him? He said: The Holy One blessed be He did not reveal it to him and I will reveal it to him? Rabbi Simon said: This was based on: Anyone for whom one mourns, one mourns with him. (If one’s close relative is in mourning, one mourns together with him (Moed Katan 20b). )

Bereshit Rabbah 85:6

“The days accumulated, and the daughter of Shua, wife of Judah, died, and Judah was comforted, and went up to his sheepshearers, he and Ḥira, his friend the Adulamite, to Timna” (Genesis 38:12). “The days accumulated, and the daughter of Shua, wife of Judah, died.” “The days accumulated” – twelve months. “Up to his sheepshearers” – every place that shearing is stated, it makes an impression. We found likewise regarding Naval, Laban, and Avshalom. (Each of these biblical characters is recorded as having gone to shear his sheep (I Samuel 25:2; Genesis 31:19; II Samuel 13:23). In each case, this preceded a significantly negative event. Some explain that the shearing would accompanied by celebration, and these celebrations led to negative consequences (see Maharzu). ) “It was told to Tamar, saying: Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timna to shear his sheep” (Genesis 38:13). “It was told to Tamar, saying…” – Rav said: There are two Timnas, one of Judah and one of Samson. (“Samson went down to Timna, and he saw a woman in Timna of the daughters of the Philistines” (Judges 14:1).) Why does it mention in its regard ascent and descent? It was an ascent for Judah because he was producing kings, and a descent for Samson because he was marrying a gentile woman. Rabbi Simon said: There is one Timna. Why does it mention ascent and descent in its regard? Rabbi Aivu ben Agri said: It is like that Beit Maon – one ascends to it from Tiberias and descends to it from Kefar Shuvti.

Devarim Rabbah 8:4

What the verse said: “For they are life for those who find them…” (Proverbs 4:22) – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: It is a salve for the eye and a remedy for a wound, and a cup of roots for the intestines. A salve for the eyes, as it is written: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, it enlightens the eyes” (Psalms 19:9). A remedy for a wound, as it is written: “It will bring health to your body” (Proverbs 3:8). A cup of roots for the intestines – as it is written: “And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8). Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [lemotzeihem]” – to one who issues them [lemotzian] out of his mouth. (Studies out loud.) There was an incident involving a certain disciple of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who would complete all his learning in one hour. (He did not say the words out loud.) One time, he fell ill and forgot all his learning. What caused this to befall him? It is because he did not recite it with his mouth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov prayed on his behalf and all his learning was restored. Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who imparts it [shemotzian] to others. Alternatively, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who completes [shemamtzi] (This is a variation of the word mematze, which means exhausts or completes.) all the mitzvot. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “All the mitzva” (Deuteronomy 8:1). What is “all the mitzva”? It is until you complete all the mitzvot. "And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8), the 248 limbs that you have. That is "For this mitzva." Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, causes that he will bury his wife and his children. From whom do you derive it? It is from Judah, who began a mitzva but did not complete it. How so? When Joseph came to his brothers and they sought to kill him, as it is stated: “Let us go and kill him” (Genesis 37:20). Judah stood and did not allow them. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “What profit is it if we kill our brother?” (Genesis 37:26). They heeded him because he was king over them. Had he said to them: ‘Let us return him to our father,’ they would have heeded him. Because he began the mitzva but did not complete it, he buried his wife and his children, as it is stated: “Bat Shua, Judah’s wife, died” (Genesis 38:12), and it is written: “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 46:12). Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: Anyone who begins a mitzva but does not complete it, and another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the one who completed it. How so? Moses began the mitzva, as he took Joseph’s bones with him. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him…” (Exodus 13:19). But because he did not take them into the Land of Israel, it is attributed to Israel, who buried him, as it is stated: “The bones of Joseph that the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32). “That Moses took up from Egypt” is not written here, but rather, “that the children of Israel took up.” Why did they bury him in Shekhem? To what is the matter comparable? It is to thieves who stole a barrel of wine. The homeowner was aware of their presence. He said to them: ‘Enjoy it, but, as you live, after you drink the wine, return the barrel to its place.’ So, when the brothers sold Joseph, they sold him from Shekhem, as it is stated: “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). The Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘You sold him from Shekhem, return him to Shekhem.’ Since they completed the mitzva, it is attributed to them. That is, “for this mitzva.”

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:12

[(Gen. 38:1, cont.:) < THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE > WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH.] R. Judah bar Simon said: That Hirah from the days of Judah is Hiram from the days of Solomon; (Cf. Gen. R. 85:4.) and throughout his days he loved this tribe, for so it says (in Gen. 38:12): HIS FRIEND HIRAH THE ADULLAMITE. And it says elsewhere (in I Kings 5:15 [1]): < THEN HIRAM KING OF TYRE SENT HIS SERVANTS UNTO SOLOMON > … FOR HIRAM HAD ALWAYS BEEN A FRIEND TO DAVID.

Seder Olam Rabbah 2:2

Our forefather Jacob was 63 when he was blessed. Ishmael died at that time as is written, "Esau saw that Isaac had blessed...Jacob listened to his father...Esau saw [the Canaanite women] were bad [in the eyes of Isaac]...Esau went to Ishmael..."(Genesis 28:9). There seems no need for the verse to state "sister of Nebaioth." What do we learn from the fact that it says "sister of Nebaioth"? We learn that Ishmael died and Nebaioth [Ishmael's firstborn therefore] married off his sister to Esau. Jacob our forefather hid [from Esau] 14 years in the land of Israel and served Eber. Eber died two years after Jacob went to Aram-Naharaim. [Jacob] left and went to Aram-Naharaim and he was found by the well when he was 77 years old and he was in Laban's house for 20 years: 7 before he married any matriarchs, 7 from when he married in the Matriarchs and 6 years after the 11 tribes and Dinah were born. It comes out that all the tribes were born in seven years besides Benjamin. Each and every one each 7 months. He left Aram-Naharaim and came to Succoth and stayed there 18 months as is written "And Jacob went to Succoth" (Genesis 33:17). He left Succoth and went to Bet El and made 6 new encampments close to the place.

Mishnah

Water that is so unfit that it cannot be drunk by a beast is considered invalid if in a vessel, but valid if in the ground. If dye, gum, or copper sulfate changes the color of the water, it is invalid. Any work done with the water or bread soaked in it also renders it invalid. Shimon of Teman adds that even if one intended to soak bread in one water and it fell into another, the water is still valid.

Mishnah Yadayim 1:3

Water which had become so unfit that it could not be drunk by a beast: If it was in a vessel it is invalid, But if it was in the ground it is valid. If there fell into [the water], dye, or gum or sulphate of copper and its color changed, it is invalid. If a person did any work with it or soaked his bread in it, it is invalid. Shimon of Teman says: even if he intended to soak his bread in one water and it fell into another water the water is valid.

Musar

Judah and his brothers were punished "measure for measure" for their actions against Joseph. Judah mourned over his sons and his wife died after many days of mourning. They deceived their father with a kid of goats, and Judah was deceived in a similar way. Judah's actions towards Tamar were punished with great shame and mortification.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:18

From here on, Scripture begins to relate the punishments and the mortifications that they suffered for this, all "measure for measure." First of all, Judah was punished, who was the immediate cause of the sale. He became a mourner over his sons, and certainly also rent his garments over them, according to the din. And his brothers, too, were not exempt from the punishment of "rending" [k'riyah], for they, too, rent their garments on their day of woe [viz. Ibid. 44:13]. And because he [Jacob] mourned his son "many days," therefore, (Ibid. 38:12): "And after 'many days,' the daughter of Shua, Judah's wife, died." And because he deceived his father with a kid of goats, dipping Joseph's robe in its blood, they deceived him, too, with a kid of goats, as we find in the Midrash. And because they said (Ibid. 37:32): "Recognize, now," he, too, was punished through Tamar with (Ibid. 38:25): "Recognize, now, whose are this signet and cloak and staff? Who can imagine the greatness of the shame and the mortification that he suffered then!

Quoting Commentary

The German Commentary on Mishnah Yadayim 1:3:10 discusses Simon the Temani from the town of Timna, possibly the same as mentioned in Genesis 38:12 or Joshua 15:10. The Chizkuni commentary on Numbers 11:12:3 explains that "על האדמה" should be understood as "on to the earth," citing examples from Genesis 38:12 and Exodus 10:21 to support this interpretation.

Chizkuni, Numbers 11:12:3

על האדמה, not “on the earth,” but as in אל האדמה “on to the earth.” Compare Genesis 38,12, על גוזזי צאן, “to the shearing of the sheep.” Compare also Exodus 10,21: נטה ידך על השמים, not “incline your hand over the heaven,” but “incline your hand in the direction of the heaven.”

German Commentary on Mishnah Yadayim 1:3:10

Simon der Temani. Nach Rosch aus dem Ort Timna. Vielleicht Timna in Gen. 38, 12 od Jos. 15, 10. — L. hat die von Rosch angeführte Lesart התבני. Vgl. hierzu E. Saphir, Haarez Nr. 1733, 1734, wo das arabische Tebna und Tebne mit Timna identifiziert werden.

Talmud

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani suggests that Judah's failure to complete a mitzva resulted in the deaths of his wife and children, as seen in the deaths of Judah's wife and two sons after he failed to fulfill his obligation.

Sotah 13b:8

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: The episode with regard to Judah also indicates that one who initiates performance of a mitzva but does not complete it will also bury his wife and children as Judah did, as it is written: “And in process of time Shua’s daughter, the wife of Judah, died” (Genesis 38:12), and it is written further: “And the sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Perez, and Zerah; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 46:12).

Targum

Yehudah's wife, the daughter of Shu'a, died, and he sought consolation. Yehudah went with his friend Chirah to Timnah for the sheep-shearing.

Onkelos Genesis 38:12

Many days passed, and Shu’a’s daughter, the wife of Yehudah died. Yehudah sought consolation, and went up to his sheep-shearers—he and his friend, Chirah the Adullamite—to Timnah.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:12

And days multiplied and the daughter of Shuva, Jehuda's wife, had died, and Jehuda was comforted. And Jehuda went up to the shearing of his flock, he and Hira his friend the Adullemite, to Timnath.

וַיֻּגַּ֥ד לְתָמָ֖ר לֵאמֹ֑ר הִנֵּ֥ה חָמִ֛יךְ עֹלֶ֥ה תִמְנָ֖תָה לָגֹ֥ז צֹאנֽוֹ׃ 13 J And Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is coming up to Timnah for the sheepshearing.”
Rashi connects "going up" to Timnah in Genesis 38:13 to the mountainous terrain, while Chizkuni sees Yehudah's journey as spiritually uplifting. The Midrash discusses the similarities between Rebekah and Tamar, and the Talmud explores the contradiction in the direction of travel to Timnah. Targum Jonathan mentions Tamar being informed of her father-in-law coming to Timnah to shear his sheep.

Commentary

Rashi explains that the mention of "going up" to Timnah in Genesis 38:13:1 is connected to the mountainous terrain of the area, as seen in Judges 14:1. Chizkuni interprets Yehudah's journey to Timnah as spiritually uplifting, leading to the birth of two righteous people, while Tamar strategically chooses to confront him during sheep-shearing festivities to increase the likelihood of his succumbing to temptation. The union between Tamar and Yehudah is not considered sinful incest before the giving of the Torah, with Chizkuni highlighting the historical context of levirate marriages within the family.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:13:1

עולה תמנתה, “ascending toward Timnat;” when Yehudah travelled this route it was spiritually uplifting for him (in retrospect) seeing that two righteous people would be born from that union. When Shimshon in Judges 14,1, travelled the same route, this is described as a “descent,” as it eventually led to his being blinded and dying, [and we have no record of his having sired any children at all. Ed.]

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:13:2

לגוז צאנו, “to shear his sheep.” Tamar deliberately chose a time for this encounter when her fatherinlaw, Yehudah, would be in good spirits. At such a time one is more prone to fall victim to temptation, especially as at the conclusion of such a shearing there would be a festive meal and much wine would be consumed. If you were to ask how G-d could have agreed that all of the kings of the Davidic dynasty were the result of the illegitimate pairing of Yehudah with his daughterinlaw through Peretz? The answer is that it was better that David would be descended from the daughter of Shem who had been a priest of Hashem as we know from Genesis chapter 14, than that he should be descended through a Canaanite woman, a cursed nation. [The author appears to contradict what he wrote about Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife not having been of Canaanite descent. Compare page 281. Ed.] Furthermore, it is erroneous to describe the union between Tamar and Yehudah as sinful incest, seeing that before the giving of the Torah, when the seven laws only plus circumcision were binding for the descendants of Avraham, one could perform levirate marriages with any relative, including with the father of the deceased brother. (Compare B’chor shor) Seeing that Yehudah had not allowed Sheylah to perform the rites of the levirate marriage on Tamar, she was available to him for that purpose. Once the Torah was given, the rules about the levirate marriages were revamped to apply only to surviving brothers of the deceased. However, even after the Torah was given, the practice of the levirate marriage to other members of the family did not stop. [This editor is not sure whether the author means that after the Torah was given it remained permissible but was not obligatory for other members of the family, or whether what had once been allowed could not be abolished in practice, just as the use of private altars, though forbidden once the Israelites settled in the land of Israel, continued in spite of this, and it took until 100 years before the destruction of the Temple to eradicate that practice. Ed.] What Boaz did with Ruth is an example of this practice hundreds of years after the Torah had been given.

Rashi on Genesis 38:13:1

עלה תמנתה HE GOETH UP TO TIMNAH — In the case of Samson it is said (Judges 14:1) “And Samson went down to Timnah”. But it lay on the slope of a mountain: from one direction one had to go up to it, from the other one went down to it (Sotah 10a).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:13:1

“Shimshon went down, etc... to Timnah”... [Question:] In the previous verse it is written, “He went up,” and Rashi explained that this is connected with “to Timnah.” If so, why did Rashi not make his comment there? The answer is: [Based on the previous verse alone, Rashi would agree that] “He went up” could be connected with “to his sheep-shearers.” I.e., he went up the mountain to where the shepherds were, to stand by his sheep-shearers. [Thus, Rashi’s comment depends on the present verse.]

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:13

It was told to Tamar, saying: Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timna to shear his sheep. As Tamar belonged to Judah’s family, she was informed of his trip. She decided to take drastic action.

Midrash

The Midrash Tanchuma Buber discusses the similarities between Rebekah and Tamar, as both covered themselves with a veil and bore twins. Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition) compares the journeys of Samson and Judah to Timnata, explaining the significance of going up and down. Bereshit Rabbah 85:6 explores the negative consequences associated with shearing sheep, using examples from Naval, Laban, and Avshalom. Finally, Bamidbar Rabbah 9:24 discusses the concept of measure for measure in terms of retribution, using examples from various biblical characters who faced consequences for their actions.

Bamidbar Rabbah 9:24

It is taught: Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that in accordance with the measure that a person metes out for others it is meted out for him? (The retribution is commensurate with the action.) It is as it is stated: “In measure [besasse’a] (This is expounded as bise’a se’a, measure for measure.) in sending it away, You contend with it” (Isaiah 27:8). I have derived only a matter that is a se’a. From where is it derived regarding one who measures a tarkav, half a tarkav, a kav, half a kav, a rova, half a rova, toman, and ukhela; (These are all smaller measures.) from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “For all boots [seon] stomp [so’en] noisily” (Isaiah 9:4) – it includes here many se’a. I have derived only a matter that comes by measure, from where is it derived that even perutot (A peruta is the smallest coin.) accumulate to a large account? The verse states: “One to one to find the account” (Ecclesiastes 7:27). The way of the world is that if a person stumbles by performing a transgression for which one incurs liability for death at the hand of Heaven, his ox dies, his hen is lost, his jug is lost, his finger is injured, and the account is settled. One event follows another and the account is settled. To what extent is the settling of the account? It is until the last one. Likewise you find regarding the sota that in accordance with the measure that she meted out it is meted out for her. She stood before him so she would be beautiful in his eyes; therefore, the priest has her stand before all to display her shame, as it is stated: “The priest shall have the woman stand before the Lord” (Numbers 5:18) – this is the Nikanor Gate. She wrapped beautiful scarves on her head; therefore the priest removes the covering from upon her head and places it under the soles of her feet. She adorned her face for him; therefore, her face turns sallow. She applied makeup to her eyes for him; therefore, her eyes bulge. She plaited her hair for him; therefore, the priest dishevels her hair. She signaled to him with her fingers; therefore, her fingernails fall off. She wore a fine belt for him; therefore, the priest brings a rope crafted from trees and ties it above her breasts. She extended her thigh to him; therefore, her thigh falls. She received him on her belly; therefore, her belly distends. She fed him delicacies of the world; therefore, her offering is animal feed. She gave him fine wine to drink in fine goblets; therefore the priest gives her bitter water to drink in an earthenware vessel. She acted clandestinely [baseter]; therefore, He who dwells in the shelter [beseter] of the Most High directs His glance at her, as it is stated: “The eye of the adulterer awaits the night, saying: No eye will behold me; and he masks [veseter panav] his face” (Job 24:15). Another matter: She acted clandestinely and the Omnipresent publicized her in the open, as it is stated: “Hatred will be concealed by darkness; his wickedness will be revealed in public.” (Proverbs 26:26). The Sages taught: The members of the generation of the Flood became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the goodness that He bestowed upon them, as it is stated: “Their houses are peaceful without fear.… his bull breeds.… they send out their youngsters like a flock.… They sing to the drum and harp [and rejoice at the sound of the pipe.] They will end their days in prosperity…” (Job 21:9–13). That caused them: “They say to God: Turn away from us.… What is the Almighty, that we should serve Him…” (Job 21:14–15). The members of the generation of the Flood said: Since the only exertion he does for us is these two drops of water, we do not need it. We have springs and rivers from which we take our supply in the summer and in the rainy season, as it is stated: “And a mist would rise from the earth [and water the entire surface of the ground]” (Genesis 2:6). The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘With the goodness that I bestowed upon you, you become haughty before Me? With it, I will exact retribution against you,’ as it is stated: “On that day, [all the wellsprings of the great depths] were breached [and the windows of the heavens were opened]…” (Genesis 7:11); “He obliterated all existence…” (Genesis 7:23). Rabbi Yosei ben Dormaskit says: They became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the eyeball, which is similar to water, as it is stated: “And the sons of the prominent saw the daughters of men, that they were fair” (Genesis 6:2). The Omnipresent, too, exacted retribution from them only with the water wheel, which is similar to an eyeball [ha’ayin], as it is stated: “On that day [all the wellsprings [ma’ayanot] of the great depths] were breached” (Genesis 7:11). The people of the tower became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the goodness that He bestowed upon them, as it is stated: “The entire earth was of [one] language.… When they migrated from the east…[and settled [vayeshvu] there]” (Genesis 11:1–2). Yeshiva is nothing other than eating and drinking, as it is stated: “The people sat [vayeshev] to eat and drink” (Exodus 32:6). That caused them: “They said: Come let us build us [a city]” (Genesis 11:4). With it, (By means of the language that had been part of the original goodness. ) He exacted retribution against them, as it is stated: “The Lord dispersed them from there…That is why one called it Babylonia, [because there the Lord confounded [balal] the world’s language]” (Genesis 11:8–9). The people of Sodom became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the goodness that He bestowed upon them. What is stated in their regard? “Earth, from which bread emerges.… the source of sapphires.… a path unknown by birds of prey.… wild beasts have not trodden it…” (Job 28:5–8). (The reference is to the city of Sodom, which was later overturned, as it is stated thereafter: “He extends his hand to the flinty rock; He overturns mountains from the root” (Job 28:9).) Sodom said: Since food emerges from our land, silver and gold emerge from our land, jewels and gems emerge from our land, we do not need people coming to us, as they come only to cause us loss. Let us stand and cause passersby to be forgotten from our midst. The Omnipresent said to them: With the goodness that I bestowed upon you, you seek to cause passersby to be forgotten from your midst? “He drives a shaft away from habitation, [which is forgotten by foot traffic, removed from humanity]” (Job 28:4). “A calamity that brings contempt to complacent composure.… The tents are tranquil…” (Job 12:5–6). It caused them: “As the hand of God engenders” (Job 12:6). Likewise it says: “As I live, the utterance of the Lord God, Sodom, your sister, she and her daughters surely did not do as you have done, you and your daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom…” (Ezekiel 16:48–49). Why [was Sodom punished] to that extent? “But she did not support the hand of the poor and indigent…” (Ezekiel 16:49). Egypt became haughty before the Omnipresent only with water, as it is stated: “Pharaoh commanded all his people [saying:] every son who is born, [into the Nile you shall cast him]” (Exodus 1:22). The Omnipresent, too, exacted retribution against them only with water, as it is stated: “Pharaoh’s chariots [and his army, He cast in the sea]” (Exodus 15:4). Sisera became haughty before the Omnipresent only due to the legions that do not receive wages, as it is stated: “Kings came, they waged war, then [the kings of Canaan] waged war…[they took no monetary gain]” (Judges 5:19). The Holy One blessed be He, too, exacted retribution against them with legions that do not receive wages, as it is stated: “From the heavens, they made war; [the stars from their courses made war with Sisera]” (Judges 5:20). They did not move from there and did not show him respect, because he is an underling. (He was a general in the army of the king.) Samson rebelled with his eyes, as it is stated: “Samson said to his father: Take her for me, as she is fitting in my eyes” (Judges 14:3). He too was stricken in his eyes, as it is stated: “The Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes” (Judges 16:21). One verse says: “Samson descended to Timna” (Judges 14:1), and one verse says: “Behold your father-in-law is ascending to Timna” (Genesis 38:13). Rav said: There are two Timnas, one of Judah and one of Samson. Rabbi Aivu bar Nagari said: It is like this Beit Maon that one descends to it from Pelugta and ascends to it from Tiberias. Rabbi Simon says: There was one Timna. Why is ascent and descent written in its regard? It is, rather, that the one of Judah, that was for the sake of Heaven; (This is a reference to the behavior of Tamar in the story in Genesis, chapter 38. See Yalkut Shimoni, Vayeshev 144.) therefore, ascent is written in its regard. The one of Samson, that was not for the sake of Heaven; therefore, descent is written in its regard. It is written: “They came to the vineyards of Timna” (Judges 14:5) – Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: It teaches that his father and his mother would show him the vineyards of Timna sown with diverse kinds and say to him: ‘Just as their vineyards are sown with diverse kinds, so their daughters are sown with diverse kinds.’ (The Philistines did not observe the laws of family purity.) “His father and his mother did not know that it was from the Lord” (Judges 14:4) – Rabbi Elazar said: In seven places, (See Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4, and the commentators there who give different explanations for the phrase "seven places.") it is written: “Do not marry them” (Deuteronomy 7:3), to prohibit the seven nations, (This is a reference to the seven nations mentioned in Deuteronomy 7:1.) and here, this is what it says? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “If it is to scoffers, He will scoff, but to the humble He gives favor” (Proverbs 3:34). (When one seeks to sin, God enables the sinner to do as he wishes.) It is taught: Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says: The beginning of his corruption was in Gaza; therefore, he was stricken in Gaza. The beginning of his corruption was in Gaza, as it is written: “Samson went to Gaza, and he saw a harlot there, and he consorted with her” (Judges 16:1). Therefore, he was stricken in Gaza, as it is written: “They took him down to Gaza and bound him with bronze shackles; he became a grinder in the prison” (Judges 16:21). They raised an objection: But is it not written: “Samson descended to Timna” (Judges 14:1)? Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: The one in Timna was through marriage, but the beginning of his corruption was in Gaza. (Sota 9b.) “It was after that that he fell in love with a woman in Sorek Stream, [and her name was Delilah]” (Judges 16:4). What is the Sorek Stream? He became like a tree that does not bear fruit. (Such a tree is known as an etz serak.) So, since he sinned three times he became a habitual sinner. “And her name was Delilah” – Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says: Had her name not been called Delilah, it would have been appropriate that she be called that; she depleted [dildela] his strength, she depleted his actions, she depleted his heart. It is written: “Delilah saw that he had told her his whole heart…” (Judges 16:18). How did she know? Rabbi Ḥanan said: Truth is apparent. Naḥmani said: She knew regarding that righteous one that he would not express the Name of Heaven for naught. When he said: “I am a nazirite of God” (Judges 16:17), she said: Now it is certain that he has spoken the truth. She depleted his strength, as it is written: “His strength left him.” (Judges 16:19). “He became a grinder [toḥen] in the prison” (Judges 16:21) – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Teḥina is nothing other than an expression of transgression. Likewise it says: “Let my wife grind [titḥan] for another…” (Job 31:10). It teaches that each and every one would bring his wife to the prison so she would be impregnated by him. That is what people say: Before one who drinks wine, wine; before a cultivator of the ground, scrapings of wild onions. (Samson was accustomed to consorting with women, so they brought him women.) Rabbi Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami said: Because Samson desired an impure matter, his life depended on an impure matter, as it is stated: “God split the hollow that was in the jawbone, (It was the jawbone of a donkey.) and [water] emerged [from it; he drank, and his spirit returned, and he was revived]” (Judges 15:19). “Samson called to the Lord and said: Lord God, please remember me [and please strengthen me]” (Judges 16:28) – what remembrance does he have with the Holy One blessed be He, while he desires licentiousness? Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Samson said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, remember for me the twenty years during which I judged Israel and I did not say to one of them: Move this staff from place to place.’ “God, that I will take vengeance from the Philistines for one of my two eyes” (Judges 16:28) – Rav Aḥa said: He said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, give me reward for one of my eyes in this world, and let reward for one of my eyes be prepared for me for the future.’ Avshalom rebelled with his hair, as he was haughty in its regard, as it is stated: “There was no man in all of Israel so…beautiful as Avshalom.… When he would cut the hair of his head, it was at the end of every year that he would cut his hair…[he would weigh the hair of his head]” (II Samuel 14:25–26). That is why he was suspended by his hair, as it is stated: “His head was caught in the terebinth, and he was suspended between the heavens [and the earth]” (II Samuel 18:9). It is taught: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Avshalom was an eternal nazirite. Once every twelve months, he would cut his hair, as it is stated: “It was at the end of forty years, and Avshalom said to the king: Please let me go and pay my vow.… for your servant took a vow…” (II Samuel 15:7–8). He would shave once every twelve months, as it is stated: “It was at the end yamim leyamim that he would cut his hair” (II Samuel 14:26). One derives “yamim,” “yamim” from houses of a walled city. As it is written: “Its redemption shall be a year [yamim]” (Leviticus 25:29). Just as there it is twelve months, so too here it is twelve months. Rabbi Nehorai says: He would cut his hair once every thirty days. One derives it from the priests, in whose regard it is stated: “They shall not shave their heads, nor shall they allow their hair to grow wild [ufera]” (Ezekiel 44:20), and more than thirty days is pera. Regarding priests, what is the reason that they are not permitted to grow pera? It is due to honor. Here too there is honor. Rabbi Yosei says: From Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve, as we find that the residents of Tiberias and the residents of Tzippori cut their hair from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve. (See Nazir 4b–5a.) “He would weigh the hair of his head; it was two hundred shekels…” (II Samuel 14:26) – Avshalom. Rabbi Ḥanina said: He was like a large carob tree. Was it like a javelin? (Did his hair descend straight down?) Rabbi Beivai said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It was styled curls upon curls. Rabbi Ḥanina said: When I ascended to here, (From Babylonia to the Land of Israel.) I took my belt, my son’s belt, and the belt of the donkey driver and wrapped it around a Land of Israel carob tree, and it did not reach. I cut one carob and a handful of honey oozed out. Abba Shaul says: I was a gravedigger. Once a burial cave opened beneath me, and I was standing in the eye socket of a corpse until my nose. When I went back, they said to me: It was the eye of Avshalom. Perhaps you will say that Abba Shaul was a midget. That is not the case, but rather, Abba Shaul was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi Tarfon reached his shoulders. Rabbi Tarfon was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi Akiva reached his shoulders. Rabbi Akiva was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi Meir reached his shoulders. Rabbi Meir was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] reached his shoulders. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] was the tallest in his generation, and Rav reached his shoulders. Rav was the tallest in his generation, and Rav Yehuda reached his shoulders. Rav Yehuda was the tallest in his generation, and Ada the attendant reached his shoulders. Pashtivena of Pumbedita reached the midsection of Ada the attendant. Everyone reached the midsection of Pashtivena of Pumbedita. It is written: “There was no man in all of Israel so very remarkably beautiful as Avshalom” (II Samuel 14:25). Is it, perhaps, in all aspects? The verse states: From the sole of his foot to the top of his head there was no blemish in him” (II Samuel 14:25). Similarly, “he had a son, and his name was Saul, a distinguished and fine person” (I Samuel 9:2). Is it, perhaps, in all aspects? The verse states: “From his shoulders upward he was taller than all the people” (I Samuel 9:2). It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: When Avshalom was suspended from the terebinth, he took a sword and sought to cut himself loose. At that moment, the netherworld was breached beneath him. Because he consorted with his father’s ten concubines, as it is stated: “The king left ten [concubine] women [to keep the house]” (II Samuel 15:16), and it says: “Avshalom consorted with his father's concubines” (II Samuel 16:22), that is why ten spears were stuck in him, as it is stated: “Ten lads, [bearers of Yoav’s armor], circled around [and smote Avshalom and put him to death]” (II Samuel 18:15). It is written: “Avshalom had acquired and raised in his lifetime” (II Samuel 18:18) – what did he acquire? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He acquired a bad acquisition for himself. “The monument that is in the valley [be’emek] of the king [hamelekh]” (II Samuel 18:18) – Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: In the profound [amuka] counsel of the King [malko] of the world, as it is stated: “So said the Lord: Behold, I will arouse harm against you from your house, and I will take your wives [before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun]” (II Samuel 12:11). Similarly, “he sent him from the valley of [me’emek] Hebron” (Genesis 37:14) – Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: In the profound [amuka] counsel of that righteous man who is buried in Hebron: “Know, that you’re your seed will be a stranger [in a land that is not theirs, and they shall be enslaved to them and they shall oppress them, four hundred years]” (Genesis 15:13). “As he said: I do not have a son” (II Samuel 18:18), but another verse says: “To Avshalom were born three sons and one daughter, and her name was Tamar” (II Samuel 14:27). Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: It is that he did not have a son fit for kingship. Because Avshalom committed three thefts: His father’s heart, the court’s heart, and the heart of the men of Israel; therefore, three staves were fixed in his heart. “[He took three staves in his hand], and he thrust them into the heart of Avshalom, while he was still alive in the heart of the terebinth” (II Samuel 18:14). His father’s heart, from where is it derived? “It was at the end of forty years, and Avshalom said to the king…” (II Samuel 15:7). All the days that David reigned totaled only forty years, and this is what it says here? It is, rather, from the time that Israel requested a king. “For your servant took a vow [while I lived in Geshur in Aram, saying]” (II Samuel 15:8) – he [David] said to him: What are you requesting now? He said to him: Write for me one note that two men will accompany me. He said to him: Tell me whom you want. He said to him: Write it for me without specification, and I will take whom I want. He wrote it for him without specification. He went and gathered several pairs of men until he had gathered two hundred men. That is what is written: “With Avshalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem, who were invited and went innocently; they did not know anything” (II Samuel 15:11). They “were invited” by David, “and went innocently” of Avshalom; “they did not know anything” of Aḥitofel’s counsel. Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: They were all heads of the Sanhedrin. When they saw that matters were going to the contrary, they said: Master of the universe, please let us fall into the hand of David and let David not fall into our hands, as if we fall into the hand of David, he will have mercy upon us, but if David falls into our hands, we (This refers to Avshalom and his supporters.) will not have mercy upon him, as it is stated: “He redeemed me unharmed…[for there were many with me]” (Psalms 55:19). That is, he stole his father’s heart. The court’s heart: “Avshalom would say: If only I were appointed judge in the of Israel” (II Samuel 15:6). Likewise Sennacherib became haughty before the Omnipresent only by means of an emissary [malakh], as it is stated: “By means of your servants you blasphemed the Lord…and I arrived at its highest edge…” (Isaiah 37:24). The Holy One blessed be He, too, exacted retribution from him only by means of an angel [malakh], as it is stated: “An angel of the Lord emerged and smote in the Assyrian camp [one hundred eighty-five thousand]” (II Kings 19:35). All of them [the people killed] were kings who tied crowns on their heads. Nebuchadnezzar said: All those who have entered the world are not worthy [for me] to dwell in their midst. He crafted for himself a small cloud and resided in it, as it is stated: “I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will be comparable to the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14). The Holy One blessed be He said to him: “You said in your heart: To the heavens, I will ascend…” (Isaiah 14:13); I will cause you to descend to the netherworld. That is what is written: “However, you will be lowered to the netherworld” (Isaiah 14:15). You said: All those who have entered the world are not worthy [for me] to dwell in their midst; you are not worthy to dwell in their midst, “You will be driven from men, and your dwelling will be with the beasts of the field” (Daniel 4:29). “At that moment, the matter was determined [for Nebuchadnezzar, and he was driven away from men, and would eat grass like oxen]” (Daniel 4:30). “At the end of twelve months [he was walking upon the royal palace of Babylon. The king spoke, saying: Is this not this great Babylon, which I built as a royal residence, with the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?” (Daniel 4:26–27). (For this haughtiness he was punished.)

Bereshit Rabbah 85:6

“The days accumulated, and the daughter of Shua, wife of Judah, died, and Judah was comforted, and went up to his sheepshearers, he and Ḥira, his friend the Adulamite, to Timna” (Genesis 38:12). “The days accumulated, and the daughter of Shua, wife of Judah, died.” “The days accumulated” – twelve months. “Up to his sheepshearers” – every place that shearing is stated, it makes an impression. We found likewise regarding Naval, Laban, and Avshalom. (Each of these biblical characters is recorded as having gone to shear his sheep (I Samuel 25:2; Genesis 31:19; II Samuel 13:23). In each case, this preceded a significantly negative event. Some explain that the shearing would accompanied by celebration, and these celebrations led to negative consequences (see Maharzu). ) “It was told to Tamar, saying: Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timna to shear his sheep” (Genesis 38:13). “It was told to Tamar, saying…” – Rav said: There are two Timnas, one of Judah and one of Samson. (“Samson went down to Timna, and he saw a woman in Timna of the daughters of the Philistines” (Judges 14:1).) Why does it mention in its regard ascent and descent? It was an ascent for Judah because he was producing kings, and a descent for Samson because he was marrying a gentile woman. Rabbi Simon said: There is one Timna. Why does it mention ascent and descent in its regard? Rabbi Aivu ben Agri said: It is like that Beit Maon – one ascends to it from Tiberias and descends to it from Kefar Shuvti.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 1:28

It is written (Judges 14, 1) And Samson went down to Timnata. Again it is written (Gen. 38, 13) Behold thy father-in-law goeth up to Timnata to sheer his sheep. [How do up and down correspond?] Said R. Elazar, "Samson disgraced himself with that journey, therefore it is written that he went down, but Juda became elevated through that journey, therefore it is written that he goeth up." R. Samuel, the son of R. Nachmeni explained that there were two cities called Timnata; one was down-hill the other was up-hill. R. Papa said: "It is one and the same Timnata only [it was situated on the slope of a hill]. Then one came from one side, he had to descend to it and the one that came from the other side to ascend the hill, similar to Vardina, Be-barei and the market place of Narash." Ib., ib. 14) And seated herself at the cross-road. Said R. Alexandria: "From this we infer that she went and occupied a seat at the door where Abraham's house was situated, a place where many eyes could see her." R. Jochanan said: "A place the name of which was Enaim, and such a name we find (Josh. 15, 34) Thappuach, and Enaim."

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 17:1

What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 38:13-14)? AND IT WAS TOLD TO TAMAR, SAYING: < HERE IS YOUR FATHER-IN-LAW COMING >…. SO SHE PUT HER WIDOW'S CLOTHES OFF [FROM HER] AND COVERED HERSELF WITH A VEIL. < THEN, HAVING WRAPPED HERSELF, SHE SAT DOWN AT THE ENTRANCE TO ENAIM >. Two women covered themselves with a veil and bore twins. These are Rebekah and Tamar. (Gen. R. 60:15; 85:7.) Of Rebekah it is written (in Gen. 24:65): SO SHE TOOK THE VEIL AND COVERED HERSELF. Then she bore twins, Esau and Jacob, as stated (in Gen. 25:24): BEHOLD, THERE WERE TWINS IN HER WOMB. As for Tamar, she covered herself with a veil and (according to Gen. 38:27-30) bore twins, Perez and Zerah.

Talmud

The text discusses the apparent contradiction in the direction of travel to Timnah in the stories of Samson and Judah, with Rabbi Elazar explaining that the terms are used figuratively to reflect the outcomes of their journeys. Rav suggests there were two Timnahs, while Rebbi Simon argues there was only one. Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari gives an example of Bet Ma‘on to illustrate descending and ascending in different contexts.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 1:8:3

(Babli 10a, with different names. Num. rabba 9(24), the Yerushalmi version.) One verse says, “Simson descended into Timna”, and another verse says, “behold, you father-in-law ascends to Timna (Gen. 38:13.) .” Rav said, there were two Timnot, one of Jehudah and one of Simson. Rebbi Simon said, there was only one Timna(ta). Why does it mention decent and ascent? But in the case of Jehudah, because it was in the name of Heaven, ascent is written. In the case of Simson, because it was not in the name of Heaven, descent is written. Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari said, for example like Bet Ma‘on (Reading of Num. rabba 9(24).) to which one descends from Palatatha and ascends from Tiberias.

Sotah 10a:16

§ It is written with regard to Samson: “And Samson went down to Timnah, and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines” (Judges 14:1), and it is written in the Torah passage concerning the incident of Judah and Tamar: “And it was told to Tamar, saying: Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to sheer his sheep” (Genesis 38:13). The verses contain an apparent contradiction as to whether Timnah was a place to which one must descend or a place to which one must ascend. Rabbi Elazar says: These terms do not refer to the manner of traveling to Timnah but are used figuratively. Concerning Samson, who was disgraced there in Timnah, the term indicating descent is written with regard to his journey. Concerning Judah, who was elevated there, the term indicating ascent is written with regard to his journey.

Targum

Tamar was informed that her father-in-law was coming to Timnah to shear his sheep [Onkelos Genesis 38:13; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:13].

Onkelos Genesis 38:13

Tamar was told, Behold your father-in-law has come to Timnah, to shear his sheep.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:13

And it was told to Tamar, saying, Behold, thy father--in--law cometh up to Timnath to shear his flock.

וַתָּ֩סַר֩ בִּגְדֵ֨י אַלְמְנוּתָ֜הּ מֵֽעָלֶ֗יהָ וַתְּכַ֤ס בַּצָּעִיף֙ וַתִּתְעַלָּ֔ף וַתֵּ֙שֶׁב֙ בְּפֶ֣תַח עֵינַ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־דֶּ֣רֶךְ תִּמְנָ֑תָה כִּ֤י רָאֲתָה֙ כִּֽי־גָדַ֣ל שֵׁלָ֔ה וְהִ֕וא לֹֽא־נִתְּנָ֥ה ל֖וֹ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ 14 J So she took off her widow’s garb, covered her face with a veil, and, wrapping herself up, sat down at the entrance to Enaim, (Enaim Cf. Enam, Josh. 15.34. Others “in an open place” or “at the crossroad.”) which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, yet she had not been given to him as wife.
Tamar disguised herself to conceive a child with Judah in Genesis 38:14, using clothing to hide her identity and attract him. The Torah mentions covering hair with a scarf and the unbinding of hair in cases of suspected adultery. The Divine quality "Thus-Koh" can transform judgment into mercy, and Tamar's righteousness is highlighted in the Midrash. In the Talmud, Tamar's actions are compared to Zimri ben Salu, and the Second Temple text describes Wisdom testing scholars by veiling her face. Additionally, Targum states that Tamar took off her widow's clothing, covered herself with a veil, and sat at a crossroads to conceive a child with Judah.

Commentary

In Genesis 38:14, Tamar covered herself and wrapped her face to hide her identity from Judah, sat at the entrance of a place called Einayim, which was a crossroads, and took off her widow's garments to attract Judah and conceive a child with him without his knowledge. This behavior was driven by her realization that Judah had no intention of letting her marry his son Shelah, freeing her from the obligation of yibbum.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:14:1

ותכס בסעיף, “she wrapped her veil so as to cover her face.” This was not something that widows used to do.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 38:14:1

בפתח עינים, this expression may be understood as we know from the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio,10, where Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni understands it as giving a reason for her apparently inappropriate behaviour, when Yehudah first asked her about her personal status; she said that she was not married, was a widow, that she was ritually pure, and quite unattached to any other man when she had married, and that even then she was not anyone’s daughter-in-law. [The marriage had not been consummated. Ed.]

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:14:1

AND COVERED HERSELF. Ve-tekhas is a transitive verb. It means and covered herself. (An intransitive verb is not followed by the object. In our verse va-tekhas (covered) is not followed by the object. I.E. points out that even though va-tekhas is not followed by the object it is transitive and the object has to be supplied by the reader, i.e., translate va-tekhas, and she covered herself.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:14:2

AND WRAPPED HERSELF. The meaning of va-titallaf (she wrapped herself) is she hid her face. Va-yitallaf (Jonah 4:8) is similar. Its meaning is, Jonah hid his face in his garments. Similar in meaning both to our verse and Jon. (4:8) is the word me’ullefet (overlaid) in Overlaid (me’ullefet) with sapphires (Cant. 5:14).

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:14:3

IN THE ENTRANCE OF ENAIM. Enaim is the name of a place. Others say that there were two springs with a door-like entrance on the road which Judah had to pass on his return to his home. (According to this interpretation enaim is the plural of ayin (a spring) and petach enayim should thus be rendered: at the entrance of the wells.)

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 38:4

Cf. Enam, Josh. 15.34. Others “in an open place” or “at the crossroad.”

Malbim on Genesis 38:14:1

And she removed her widow's weeds. To show that she doesn't want to be obligated to yibbum, after she was not given to Shelah even after he grew up, from this she was freed from the obligation of yibbum. She wanted to say to Yehudah that he should marry her, and with this intention she sat at Petah Einayim

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:14:1

כי ראתה כי גדל שלה, for she saw that Shelah had reached marriageable age. What is the meaning of the word והיא in our verse? Why did it not suffice for the Torah to say ולא נתנה לו לאשה? "and she had not been given as a wife to him" without the additional word והיא? Perhaps the verse wishes to inform us of two things. 1) She saw that Shelah had grown up and it was plain to see that Yehudah had not kept his promise when he asked Tamar to wait until such time as Shelah would grow up. 2) She saw through רוח הקודש, divine inspiration, that she was not destined to become Shelah's wife. This is why she could take up a position at Petach Eynayim and successfully seduce Yehudah. The long term results of Tamar's conduct speak for themselves. She deserved every possible credit.

Radak on Genesis 38:14:1

ותכס בצעיף. She covered her face with the shawl in order for Yehudah not to be able to recognise her.

Radak on Genesis 38:14:2

ותתעלף, she donned beautiful garments instead of widow’s garb in order to attract Yehudah.

Radak on Genesis 38:14:3

ותשב בפתח עינים, at the crossroads. This was a very exposed location, visible to anyone traveling in that region.

Radak on Genesis 38:14:4

כי ראתה כי גדל שלה, she did all this because she realised now that Yehudah had no intention of letting her be married to his son. She therefore planned to be impregnated by him (seed of his family) without his being aware of it.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:14:1

ותכס, she covered her head.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:14:2

ותכס ראשה בצעיף, not the customary manner for a widow to wear her shawl.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:14:3

ותתעלף, she covered her face so as not to be identified.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:14:4

בפתח עינים, at the public square where the road forked off in two different directions. The word עינים is used to describe the fact that anyone standing or sitting there was in plain view of anyone traveling these roads. Commentators who translate the word עינים as the name of a town are wrong, as is clear from the words בעינים על הדרך in verse 21. If there had been a town there, the Torah would have had to write בעינים with the semi vowel sheva under the letter ב. We do not find such constructions as בעינים as in verse 21 when reference is made to other cities such as ביריחו, “at Jericho,” or בבית-אל, “at Bet-El,” or בירושלים, “at Jerusalem.”

Rashi on Genesis 38:14:1

ותתעלף AND SHE WRAPPED HERSELF — she veiled her face that he should not recognise her.

Rashi on Genesis 38:14:2

ותשב בפתח עינים AND SHE SAT AT THE ENTRANCE OF ENAYIM (literally, at the opening of the eyes) — at the place where the eyes become opened:) at the cross-road which is on the way leading to Timnah. Our Rabbis explain (Sotah 10b) that it means at the door (פתח) of our father Abraham’s residence to which all eyes עינים)) looked forward to pay a visit.

Rashi on Genesis 38:14:3

כי ראתה כי גדל שלה FOR SHE SAW THAT SHELAH WAS GROWN etc. — This was the reason why she offered herself to Judah, for she was anxious to have children from him (as an ancestor in some way or other) (Horayot 10b).

Sforno on Genesis 38:14:1

בפתח עינים, at the beginning of two major roads. Such a highway is known as עינים, as we know from Genesis 16,7 על העין בדרך שור, “by the road leading to Shur.”

Sforno on Genesis 38:14:2

אשר על דרך תמנתה, so that Yehudah could not avoid meeting her when he would return from Timnatah.

Sforno on Genesis 38:14:3

כי ראתה כי גדל שלה, she thought that when Yehudah would see her without widow’s garments he would ask her why she had shed those garments. She would answer him that the time had come for Shelah to marry her. He himself had suggested that she live as a widow only until Shelah would grow up. In the meantime he had already matured.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:14:1

She covered her face so that he not recognize her. [Rashi knows this] because it is written later, “Because she had covered her face” — implying that this was already mentioned before.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:14:2

At the opening of the eyes, at the crossroads... [It is so called] because two roads branch out, each in a different direction than the other, to here and to there, and one needs to open his eyes and think which road to take. פתח עינים means opening one’s eyes.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:14:3

Our Sages explain it Midrashically: At the entrance of our father Avraham... I.e., at the tomb of our father Avraham. She prayed that a descendant of Avraham should come to her in order to have children by him. So say Chazal in Sotah 10a.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:14:4

She desired to have children... [Rashi knows this] because afterwards she went back to her widow’s garb. If she did it to be promiscuous, she would not have gone back to her widow’s garb. (Maharshal)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:14

She removed the garments of her widowhood from upon her. It was customary for widows to wear distinctive garments testifying to their familial status. 23 This custom was especially significant in the case of a widow like Tamar, who was awaiting levirate marriage and was unable to marry whomever she wished. She covered herself with a large veil concealing her entire body, wrapped herself, covering herself completely in the manor of harlots, who wore loose-fitting garments. And she sat at the entrance of a place called Einayim, which is on the road to Timna. Perhaps Einayim was called by this name because there were ma’ayanot , springs, there. 24 Tamar knew that Judah would need to pass through Einayim, so she waited for him there. Her behavior did not stem from some character flaw, but from despair, for she saw that Shela had matured and reached marriageable age, but yet she had not been given to him as a wife. Tamar understood that Judah did not want her to be married to Shela, which meant that she could remain a widow for the rest of her life.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:14:1

ותתעלף, “she covered her face.” Ibn Ezra says that the meaning is that she covered her face. The expression is used in this sense in Jonah,

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:14:2

בפתח עינים, according to Ibn Ezra this was the name of a place.

Halakhah

The Torah does not specifically command married women to cover their hair, but mentions covering with a scarf or shawl in the context of Rebecca and Tamar. The Torah also discusses the unbinding of a woman's hair in the case of suspected adultery, indicating that hair was typically worn bound in that time.

From Sinai to Ethiopia, Shulhan haOrit; The Halakhah of Ethiopian Jewry, Then and Now, 5 Bride, Groom, and Family 6:5

The Torah gives no specific instruction that commands a married woman to cover her hair, nor does it mention a woman who covered her hair. Covering with a scarf or shawl is mentioned regarding Rebecca (Genesis 24:65) and Tamar (Genesis 38:14), and this apparently refers to covering the face, as was common in those times. The Torah mentions hair in the context of the adulterous wife whose husband suspects her of being unfaithful. He must take her to the kohen, “and the priest [kohen] shall set the woman before the Lord, and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose” (Numbers 5:18). According to the plain meaning of the text, the kohen unbinds the woman’s gathered hair.

Kabbalah

The Divine quality called "Thus-Koh" has the power to transform judgment into mercy and bring about positive changes in life, health, and fertility. This quality is referred to as The Opening of the Wellsprings and is crucial for all aspects of existence. Additionally, the renewal of the moon symbolizes shedding darkness and being clothed in beauty, as seen in the removal of widow's garments and the restoration of youth.

Sha'arei Orah, First Gate, Tenth Sefirah 123

It is this Divine quality that can transform the quality of judgment to mercy, and exchange death for life, exchange illness for health, exchange barren for fertile. For, all is dependent upon it, and it is thus called, The Opening of the Wellsprings-Petach Eynayim-פתח עינים. (Genesis 38:14 – The term “Eynayim-עינים” means both “eyes” and “wellsprings.”) Thus, since everything is dependent upon the Divine quality called, “Thus-Koh-כה,” HaShem-יהו״ה, blessed is He, answered Avraham, (Genesis 15:5) “Thus-Koh-כה shall your offspring be.”

Tikkunei Zohar 36b:21

And at that time, the moon will be divested of those dark husks, and will be renewed with beautiful clothes. And this is ‘the renewal of the moon’. It is this that is written: (Gen. 38:14) And she removed her widow’s garments from upon her... And it is stated of Her: (Ps. 103:5) ... your youth shall be restored like an eagle.

Midrash

Tamar sat at the entrance to Enaim, where all eyes would be raised in expectation of the Holy One. She prayed for divine assistance and opened Judah's eyes to the truth. The text highlights the righteousness of Tamar, who was exonerated with the help of a Divine Voice. Additionally, the commentary discusses how the actions of Eli's sons and Samuel's sons were misinterpreted due to delays and neglect, respectively.

Bereshit Rabbah 60:15

“Rebecca lifted her eyes, she saw Isaac, and she fell from upon the camel” (Genesis 24:64). “Rebecca lifted her eyes, she saw Isaac” – Rav Huna said: She saw that his hand was outstretched in prayer. She said: ‘He is certainly a great man,’ and that is why she inquired about him. (See the next verse.) “She fell [vatipol] from upon the camel” – she tilted herself downward, (It does not mean that she actually fell to the ground.) just as it says: “When he stumbles [yipol], he will not fall” (Psalms 37:24). (The verse shows that yipol does not necessarily mean to fall.) “She said to the servant: Who is that man who is walking in the field toward us? The servant said: He is my master. She took the veil, and covered herself” (Genesis 24:65). “She said to the servant: [Who is that [halazeh] man]” – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: She saw that he was attractive and was overwhelmed before him, just as it says: “Behold, here comes that [halazeh] dreamer” (Genesis 37:19). (Halazeh is used in reference to Joseph, who was very attractive (see Genesis 39:6). The same was true of Isaac.) The Rabbis said: [Halazeh means:] He and his accompanying angel; halazeh [as an abbreviation for] that different one [alon zeh]. (Rebecca saw that the individual accompanying Isaac was no ordinary man.) “The servant said: He is my master. [She took the veil, and covered herself]” – there are two people who covered themselves with a veil, and they both bore twins: Rebecca and Tamar. Rebecca – “she took the veil”; Tamar – “she covered herself with a veil, and she wrapped herself” (Genesis 38:14). “The servant related to Isaac all the matters that he had done” (Genesis 24:66). “The servant related to Isaac [all the matters]” – Rabbi Eliezer said: The general statements of the Torah (Such as here, where the Torah makes the general statement that Eliezer related “all the matters,” but does not specify what they were.) are more common than its detailed statements, as, if it had desired to write it [the details of what had transpired], it would have written two or three [more] columns. The Rabbis say: He revealed to him the matters that involved praise [for God], [such as] that the path was miraculously shortened for him.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:12

“Judah identified them, and said: She is more righteous than I, because indeed, I did not give her to Shela my son. And he was not intimate with her anymore” (Genesis 38:26). “Judah identified…” – Rabbi Yirmeya in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak: The divine spirit appeared in three places: In the court of Shem, in the court of Samuel, and in the court of Solomon. In the court of Shem – “Judah identified them, and said: She is more righteous than I [mimeni].” What is mimeni? Rabbi Yirmeya in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You will attest to what is revealed, and I attest to what is concealed.’ (Judah could attest that he had been with Tamar, but he could not attest to the fact that no one else had been with her and that she had conceived from him. A Divine Voice therefore emerged and confirmed that which was concealed, namely that she had conceived from Judah and had not been intimate with anyone else. The word mimeni, which can also mean “from me,” is interpreted to mean that Tamar’s full exoneration was achieved with assistance from the Divine Voice, or that God announced that all of these events were “from Me,” meaning guided by Divine providence (see Kohelet Rabba 10:16). ) In the court of Solomon – “she is his mother” (I Kings 3:27). Who said? Rabbi Shmuel said: A Divine Voice was shouting and saying: ‘She is certainly his mother!’ In the court of Samuel: “Here I am; testify against me.… He said… The Lord is witness for you, [and His anointed is witness this day, that you did not find anything in my hand.] They said: He is witness” (I Samuel 12:3–5). A Divine Voice emerged and said: “He is witness.” (God testified that Samuel had never taken anything from the people. ) What does it say regarding Eli’s sons? “The sin of the lads was [very] great…” (I Samuel 2:17), and it is written: “That they would lie with the women who would assemble…” (I Samuel 2:22). Is it possible that it is so, that the sons of that righteous one would perform that act? Say now that because they would delay the bird offerings in Shilo and they thereby kept [the women] out of their houses for one night, the verse ascribes to them as though they had relations with them. (A woman who gives birth is required to bring two birds as offerings. The sons of Eli were slow in sacrificing the various offerings that were brought to the Tabernacle. This caused the women to remain in Shilo overnight and to be delayed in returning home to their husbands, and the verse describes this as though the sons of Eli would lie with the women. ) Similarly, “his sons did not follow his ways, and they turned to bribes” (I Samuel 8:3) – is it possible that the sons of the righteous Samuel would perform that act? Rabbi Berekhya said: A caravan would pass in Beersheba, and they would forsake the needs of the public and engage in their own business. Because of that action, the verse ascribed to them as though they took bribes. Similarly, “she sat at Petaḥ Einayim” (Genesis 38:14), as it is written above. (Above (section 7) it was written that she did not actually act as a harlot as indicated by the plain meaning of the verse. )

Bereshit Rabbah 85:7

“She removed the garments of her widowhood from upon her; she covered herself with a veil, and she wrapped herself, and she sat at Petaḥ Einayim, which is on the road to Timna, for she saw that Shela had matured, and she had not been given to him as a wife” (Genesis 38:14). “She removed the garments of her widowhood from upon her; she covered herself with a veil” – there were two who covered themselves with a veil, Tamar and Rebecca, and both of them bore twins. Rebecca – “she took the veil and covered herself” (Genesis 24:65); Tamar – “she covered herself with a veil, and she wrapped herself.” “She sat at Petaḥ Einayim” – Rabbi Ami said: We reviewed the entire Bible, and we did not find a place whose name is Petaḥ Einayim. What is petaḥ einayim? It teaches that she directed her glance to the entrance [petaḥ] to which all eyes [einayim] are directed. (This is a reference to the gates of prayer.) She said: May it be Your will, Lord my God, that I will not emerge from this house empty-handed. Alternatively, “at Petaḥ Einayim” – it teaches that she opened his eyes [shepateḥa lo et haayin] (She removed his hesitations. ) by saying to him: ‘I am ritually pure, and I am unmarried.’

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13:1

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.] What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 37:14)? PLEASE GO AND SEE [ABOUT YOUR BROTHERS' WELFARE AND ABOUT THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK]. Would the flock know what WELFARE was when he told him < to see about > THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK? (“What is your welfare” corresponds to the English greeting “How do you do.” How could animals respond to such a greeting?) R. Ayyevu said: A person must pray for whoever is beneficial to him. (The Buber text, which reads “shatters him,” makes little sense. The emendation adopted here is slight. It has been accepted by Jastrow, in his lexicon under SKR, and suggested in Midrash Tanhuma (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.), vol. 1, appendix, p. 74, n. 2. See Gen. R. 84:13.) Because Jacob was benefiting from his flock by consuming the milk and wearing the shorn wool, for that reason he had to ask about their welfare. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 37:14): YOUR BROTHERS' WELFARE AND THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK. (Ibid., cont,:) AND BRING BACK WORD TO ME. They said (in vs. 33): JOSEPH HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS. (According to the biblical context, these words were spoken by Jacob.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 17:2

(Gen. 38:14:) SHE SAT DOWN AT THE ENTRANCE TO ENAIM (a name which means "eyes"). R. Joshua ben Levi said: It was at the entrance to which all eyes would be raised in expectation of the Holy One. (See Sot. 10a; ySot. 1:4 (16d); yKet. 13:1 (35c); Gen. R. 85:7; M. Sam. 7.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 17:3

Another interpretation (of Gen. 38:14:) SHE SAT DOWN AT THE ENTRANCE TO ENAIM ("eyes"), < i.e., > at the entrance on which the Holy One looks. Thus it is stated (in Zech. 4:10): < THESE ARE > THE EYES (a form of 'enayim) {OF THE LORD ROAMING} [OF THE LORD. THEY ROAM] AROUND ALL THE EARTH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 17:4

Another interpretation (of Gen. 38:14): AT THE ENTRANCE TO ENAIM ("eyes"). When one goes out on the road, his eyes look here and there.

Quoting Commentary

Clothing plays a significant role in the story of Tamar and Yehudah, as shown by the detailed descriptions of Tamar changing her clothing in Genesis 38:14 and 38:19. Additionally, the term "overlaid with sapphires" in Song of Songs 5:14:5 is interpreted as adorning oneself. In Psalms 18:35:1, the phrase "a copper bow is bent by my arms" is explained as a metaphor for David's strength. In Numbers 17:25:1, the phrase "so that their complaints will cease" is understood as a way to end the Israelites' complaints. Finally, the term "רדיד" in Mishnah Kelim 29:1:6 refers to a female's wrap or veil, as seen in Genesis 38:14.

Bartenura on Mishnah Kelim 29:1:6

רדיד (female’s wrap of fine texture, veil) – a thin that woman covers here head. The Aramaic Jerusalem translation of "ותכס בצעיף"/”And she (Tamar) covered her face with a veil” (Genesis 38:14) is רדידא.

Chizkuni, Numbers 17:25:1

ותכל תלונתם. “so that their complaints will cease.” Our author understands the word as if the Torah had written: ותכלה אתה תלונתן של ישראל, “so that you will be able to bring to an end the Israelites’ complaints.” He cites two similar constructions in Deuteronomy 3,28: וצו את יהושע, and Genesis 38,14 ותכס בצעיף.

Rashi on Psalms 18:35:1

so that a copper bow is bent by my arms Heb. ונחתה, an expression of treading the bow, as (below 38:3): “Your arrows were driven (נחתו) into me.” Its radical [or its active voice] is נחת. When it is used in the passive voice, a dagesh comes and causes the “nun” to drop out. Hence נחתה is derived from ננחתה as (below 69:4): “My throat is dried (נחר),” derived from ננחר as (in Jer. 6:29): “The bellows is heated (נחר)”; נדף, rattling (in Lev. 26:36) is derived from ננדף ; “My eyes stream (נגרה)” (in Lam. 3:49), is like ננגרה ; “was given (נתנה)” (Gen. 38:14) is like ננתנה ; “they were smitten (נגף)” (II Sam. 10:15) is derived from ננגף. We cannot interpret it as being of the radical חתת, for then it would say נחתתה, as [it says] נעשתה, was done, from עשה ; נענתה, was answered, from ענה. Another explanation: and a copper bow is bent by my arms: חית is an expression of treading a bow, as (below 38:3): “Your arrows were driven (נחתו).” The “nun” is not of the radical but it is like נחלו “gave for inheritance” (in Jos. 14:1), and the copper bow was bent by my arms. Copper bows were hanging in David’s house. The kings of the nations would see them and say to each other, “Do you think that David has the strength to bend them? This is only to frighten us.” But he would hear [them] and bend the bows before them.

Rashi on Song of Songs 5:14:5

Overlaid with sapphires. Adorned and decorated with sapphires, an expression [as in], “וַתִּתְעַלָּף,” (Bereishis 38:14. ) which the Targum renders, “and she adorned herself.”

Redeeming Relevance; Exodus, CHAPTER 6 Clothing Aharon 29

In line with the main topic of this chapter, clothing seems to take on unusual import in the story of Tamar – especially in the discussion of Tamar’s meeting with Yehudah at Petach Einayim. When the Torah goes into such great detail, telling us that she took off one set of clothing for another and then that she removed that clothing and put the first set back on (Bereshit 38:14 and Bereshit 38:19), (Bereshit 38:14, 19.) it is clearly inviting us to understand the relationship between Tamar and her clothes.

Second Temple

The text describes how Wisdom tests her scholars by veiling her face and appearing like a harlot at the crossroads, hoping that those who are truly earnest and zealous will unveil her true beauty and purity.

On Mating with the Preliminary Studies 23:1

[124] But sometimes she makes trial of her scholars, to test their zeal and earnestness; and then she does not meet them, but veils her face and sits like Tamar at the cross-roads, presenting the appearance of a harlot to the passers-by (Gen. 38:14, 15). Her wish is that inquiring minds may unveil and reveal her and gaze upon the glorious beauty, inviolate, undefiled and truly virginal, of her modesty and chastity.

Talmud

The Talmud discusses the actions of Tamar, who engaged in sexual intercourse with Judah, and Zimri ben Salu, who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Midianite woman. It also explores the behavior of Eli's sons, who were neglecting their duties in favor of personal gain, as well as the implications of their actions on sacrifices and public needs.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 13:1:3

(This text is also in Soṭah 1:4, 1. 66 f., Notes 198–208. The variant readings from there are indicated by ס. To the sources indicated there one may add Gen. rabba 85(8) (in the name of R. Immi.)) Rebbi Ḥizqiya in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi used to explain three verses for praise. “She sat at the entrance to the double spring.” Is this possible? Even the most brazen whore would not do that. But she lifted her eyes to the door to which all hope is directed; she said before Him: Master of the universe, do not let me leave this house empty. Another explanation: “She sat at the entrance to the double spring;” she opened his eyes and told him, I am single and pure (The courts will not intervene in the monetary affairs of married couples. After the husband’s death, the liquidation of the husband’s estate is a legitimate object of the court’s attention.) . “And Eli was very old; …, that they slept with. (This is confirmed in the Babli, 107a, but rejected as practice, 107b.) ” It is written “they bedded them (Our Mishnah reads “if somebody went overseas”, i. e., with the intent to return. In this version, the court will intervene in behalf of the married woman. But “if somebody left for overseas”, i. e., emigrated permanently, then the Mishnah only deals either with an abandoned wife or a widow, but not with a wife who expects her husband to return.) ”. Rebbi said, the women were bringing their nests (The oath required in the opinion of the High Priests’ sons.) to become purified for their husbands and they were deferring the sacrifices; the verse counts it as if they had slept with them. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, that is what he scolds them for: “Why do you disregard my slaughter sacrifice and my flour sacrifice?” Could he remove them from the serious sin and scold them for the simple one? “His sons did not walk in his ways,” that they were taking tithe and judging. Rebbi Berekhiah said, a camel caravan was passing by, they neglected public needs and dealt in merchandise.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 1:4:5

Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Ḥiyya explains three verses as praise. (The parallel to the entire section is in Ketubot 13:1 (fol. 35b/c). A different version, in the name of other authors, in Babli 10b, Gen. rabba85(8). One of the Babli’s authors identifies the place as העינם (Jos. 15:34).) “She sat at the entrance to the source.” Is that possible? Even the most depraved prostitute would not do that (To try to sleep with a man not in a room.) . But she lifted her eyes to the door to which all eyes are looking (Usually identified, cf. Berakhot4, Note 234.) . She said before Him: Master of the Universe, let me not leave this family empty-handed. Another explanation, “at the entrance to the eyes”, that she opened his eyes saying, I am unmarried and pure. “And Eli was very old, (1S. 2:22–23. The same explanation in Babli Šabbat 55b; more in detail Midrash Samuel 7(4).) ” “they would make them lie” is written (The masoretic text reads יִשְׁכְּבוּן [Eli’s sons] would lie [with the women assembled before the Tent]. A sacrifice of birds is required for a woman healed from prolonged flux to be permitted again to her husband (Lev. 15:29) and also for a woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:8).) . That women would bring them their bird-sacrifices to be purified for their houses but since they were dragging their feet (Unnecessarily preventing them from sleeping with their husbands.) , the Holy One, praise to Him, found them guilty as if they had slept with them. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, here, he needles (Greek κεντρόω, cf. Berakhot 3, Note 96.) them: (1S. 2:29.) “why do you disregard my slaughter-sacrifice and my flour-sacrifice?” If you say that they committed a serious crime, why should he absolve them from the serious crime and needle them for a minor one? (1S. 8:3. Similar explanations in Babli Šabbat 56a.) “But his sons did not follow in his ways and turned after lucre.” That they took tithe but remained judging (As Levites, Samuel’s sons were entitled to tithe. The Yerushalmi faults them for creating an appearance of conflict of interest; in the Babli, there is one opinion that they exacted tithes for themselves, when the farmer should have had full freedom to give the tithe to any Levite of his liking.) . Rebbi Berekhia: A camel-caravan came by, they put aside the needs of Israel and were going and attending to business affairs (Greek πραγματεία “business, affairs, work”.) .

Nazir 23b:3

§ In relation to the preceding discussion with regard to the daughters of Lot, who acted in a wanton manner for the sake of a mitzva, the Gemara cites that which Ulla said: Tamar engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with her father-in-law, Judah (see Genesis, chapter 38), and Zimri ben Salu also engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers, chapter 25).

Sotah 10a:19

The verse states with regard to Tamar: “And she put off from her the garments of her widowhood, and covered herself with her veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in the entrance of Enaim [befetaḥ einayim], which is by the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she was not given unto him to wife” (Genesis 38:14). The amora’im dispute the meaning of the word einayim. Rabbi Alexandri says: This teaches that she went and she sat at the entrance of the home of Abraham our forefather, a place that all eyes hope to see it, as she was certain that Judah would pass there. Rabbi Ḥanin says that Rav says: It is a place called Enaim, and similarly the verse states in the list of cities in Eretz Yisrael in the portion of Judah: “Tappuah and Enam” (Joshua 15:34).

Tanakh

Joshua 15:34 lists the cities of Zanoah, En-gannim, Tappuah, and Enam.

Joshua 15:34

Zanoah, En-gannim, Tappuah, Enam,

Targum

Tamar took off her widow's clothing, covered herself with a veil, and sat at a crossroads on the way to Timnah, because she saw that Sheilah was of age but had not been given to him as a wife.

Onkelos Genesis 38:14

She took off her widow’s garb, covered herself with a veil, and disguised [adorned] herself. She sat at the crossroads which is on the road to Timnah, for she saw that Sheilah had come of age and she had not been given to him for a wife.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:14

And she put the dress of her widowhood from her, and covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in the dividing of the road where all eyes see, upon the way of Timnath. For she knew that Shela was grown up, yet she had not been given to him to be his wife.

וַיִּרְאֶ֣הָ יְהוּדָ֔ה וַֽיַּחְשְׁבֶ֖הָ לְזוֹנָ֑ה כִּ֥י כִסְּתָ֖ה פָּנֶֽיהָ׃ 15 J When Judah saw her, he took her for a harlot; for she had covered her face.
The Baal Shem Tov explains that food and drink contain sparks of Adam that long to become attached to holiness, and when a person eats and drinks, they are repairing their own sparks. Yehudah mistook Tamar for a harlot because she covered her face, a common practice among harlots sitting at crossroads, veiling part of the face while leaving the throat and neck exposed. Judah saw Tamar and mistook her for a harlot because she covered her face, but she was actually his daughter-in-law. The kingdom of David, despite its seemingly unholy origins, was part of God's plan to eventually purify and restore all people and forces outside the realm of holiness to their sacred roots. Tamar bore divine seed without seeing the sower, veiled her face, and recognized the symbols as gifts from a divine source. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said a modest bride in her father-in-law's house will have kings and prophets emerge from her, as seen with Tamar who covered her face, contrary to a prostitute. The Tosefta discusses instances where multiple individuals make different statements in a sequence, emphasizing that each statement is distinct and not interchangeable.

Chasidut

The Baal Shem Tov explains that food and drink contain sparks of Adam that long to become attached to holiness, and when a person eats and drinks, they are repairing their own sparks. G-d sends clues to Israel to find these sparks and return to Him, as the sparks were intentionally lost and scattered throughout creation. (Ba'al Shem Tov, Eikev 2:6, Kesser Shem Tov, p. 18b)

Ba'al Shem Tov, Eikev 2:6

Thus the Baal Shem Tov commented on the verse: “Hungry and also thirsty, their souls faint (tisatef) in them” (Psalms 107:5). He explained here a great secret. Why did G-d create various types of food and drink that human beings desire? Because they contain sparks of Adam, the first man that became enclothed in the mineral, vegetable, animal and human levels, and that long to become attached to holiness. They arouse the “feminine waters,” (Mayin nukvin. That is, the arousal from below, following human actions, that uplift the fallen sparks in creation, and initiate a flow of Divine blessing from above – the “masculine waters,” mayin d’chorin.) in the mystery of the Sages’ statement: “A drop does not descend from above that does not have two drops rising to meet it.” (Zohar 3:147b.) Everything a person eats and drinks contain his very sparks that he needs to repair. (That is, although the holy sparks originally came from Adam’s soul, that was fragmented and scattered throughout creation as a result of his sin, each person can only collect the sparks that are related to his individual soul, for each human soul was also present in Adam before the sin.) Thus, it is written: “hungry and also thirsty,” for a person hungers and thirsts for them. And it says: “His soul is enwrapped in them,” (Tisatef, from the root ATeF, means both to faint, and to enwrap.) in the mystery of exile, in a garment: “And he took her for a prostitute because her face was covered” (Genesis 38:15). For all that a person makes use of is really like his children, which are enwrapped [in the physical]. Understand this! G-d sends numerous clues to Israel, so that they can find the lost object and return to its owner – to their Father in Heaven. He commands neither His angels, seraphs or ophanim. (A type of angel. See Ezekiel 1.) Furthermore, the item was intentionally lost, as our Rabbis have said: “He built worlds and destroyed them.” (Bereishis Rabbah 3:7.) Kesser Shem Tov, p. 18b

Commentary

Yehudah mistook Tamar for a harlot because she covered her face, a common practice among harlots sitting at crossroads, veiling part of the face while leaving the throat and neck exposed. Tamar had acted modestly in her father-in-law's house, always covering her face, which led Yehudah to not recognize her and assume she was a harlot, despite her intentions being otherwise. This act of covering the face was a way to remain anonymous, as harlots often engaged in relations even with relatives and needed to protect their identities.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:15:1

ויחשבה לזונה כי כסתה פניה, “he assumed that she was a harlot because she had covered her face.” She had only done this when he was approaching, in order that he could not recognise her. The letter ח in the word ויחשבה, is vocalised with a semivowel sh’va.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 38:15:1

ויחשביה לזונה, “he considered her as a harlot.” Why should Yehudah have cared? He turned around to resume on his way to the shearing. However, Tamar raised her face to heaven to pray and ask G–d why she should not be able to give birth to a worthwhile and intelligent son from the semen of such a righteous man as Yehudah. Upon hearing her prayer, G–d immediately dispatched the angel Michael who made Yehudah have second thoughts and turn around. The Torah here wrote: ויט אליה, “he turned to her,” and we find the same expression in Numbers 22,33 where it is written of Bileam’s she-ass: ותט לפני, “she turned around before me;” (the angel speaking to Bileam) in both instances the angel Michael was the subject. (subject discussed in B’reshit Rabbah 85,8)

Gur Aryeh on Bereishit 38:15:1

Please (Havah na). The word havah often means “prepare yourself.” Yehudah requested that she consign herself to him exclusively so that no harlotry would be involved.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:15:1

FOR SHE HAD COVERED HER FACE. This explains the meaning of va-titallaf (and wrapped herself) (v. 14). (We can ascertain that the meaning of va-titallaf means to cover the face from our clause, as it is the manner of Scripture to explain later a previously used term (Weiser).) Someone who explains for she had covered her face to mean that she covered her face with a variety of colored cosmetics and brought proof of this from his daughter (She wore cosmetics (Filwarg). His daughter put so much cosmetics on her face that she was unrecognizable. Tamar acted similarly.) is speaking nonsense, for one ought not to offer proof from fools. (If she put on so much make up that she was unrecognizable then she was a fool and one is not to bring proof from her.) That which our sages say concerning Tamar’s chastity in her father-in-law’s house is also correct. (Cf. Sotah 10b: “She covered herself in her father-in-law’s house.” Judah thus had never seen her face and therefore could not now recognize her (Nahmanides).)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:15:1-2

כי כסתה פניה, “for she had covered her face.” According to the plain meaning of the text Yehudah considered the woman as a harlot because she had had covered her face, not wanting to be identified This would enable harlots to have sexual relations even with close relatives as the latter would not shy away from having contact with them. A Midrashic approach from Sotah 10: the words refer to the fact that while living under her father-in-law’s roof Tamar had kept her face covered so that he did not know what her face looked like.This is also the reason why Bereshit Rabbah 85,9 writes that a person should make a habit to know his relatives well enough to be able to identify them when looking at them so as to protect himself against what happened to Yehudah with Tamar.

Radak on Genesis 38:15:1

ויראה....כי כסתה פניה, so that he did not recognise her. This is why he considered her a harlot, seeing that she had positioned herself so prominently at the crossroads. Had she not covered her face, he would have recognised her as his daughter-in-law and would not have slept with her. Our sages in Sotah 10 say that on the contrary, she used to keep her face covered in her father-in-law’s house and was extremely chaste. When he now saw a woman sitting at the crossroads, the last thing he would think of was that it was his daughter-in-law Tamar.

Ramban on Genesis 38:15:1

AND HE THOUGHT HER TO BE A HARLOT. This was because she was sitting at the cross-roads. For she had covered her face, and he could not see her. A Midrash of our Rabbis explains: For she had covered her face, i.e., that when she stayed in Judah’s house, she had acted modestly, always covering her face, and therefore he did not suspect her. This is Rashi’s language. Now the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] (See Note 139, Seder Bereshith.) literal interpretation is feasible since it was the way of the harlot to sit at the cross-roads, just as it is written, And she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city, to call to them that pass by, etc. (Proverbs 9:14-15.) Accordingly, the verse states that because her face was veiled he did not recognize her. But according to the Midrasn of our Rabbis which states that she covered her face in her father-in-law’s house, meaning that she hid herself from him while being in his house and that he never saw her face, how would he recognize her even if she were not veiled? It further appears to me to be correct, in line with the literal sense of Scripture, that the verse is stating that he thought her to be a harlot because her face was veiled, since afterwards it states, For he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law. (Verse 16 here. This indicates that if her face were not veiled, he would have recognized her to be his daughter-in-law. This again is at odds with the Midrash which states that he never saw her face.) The reason for the covering of the face is that it was the way of the harlot to sit at the cross-roads wrapped up in a veil, with part of the face and hair uncovered, gesticulating with the eyes and lips, and baring the front of the throat and neck. Now since she would speak to the by-passer in an impudent manner, catching him and kissing him, (See Proverbs 7:13.) she therefore veiled part of the face. Furthermore, harlots sitting by the roadside veil their faces because they commit harlotry even with relatives. Sodomites still do it to this day in our countries, and when they return to the city they remain anonymous. Thus we have learned in a Mishnah: (Keilim 24,16.) “There are three kinds of head-nets: that of a girl, which is susceptible to midras (A term applied to the uncleanness conveyed by a Zav or Zavah — (see Leviticus 15:2-6; 25-26) — to an object which is used as a seat. An object not so used, but which serves as a garment or a container, is susceptible only to corpse-uncleanness (see Numbers 19:14-17). If it serves none of these purposes, it is not susceptible to any uncleanness.) uncleanness; that of an old woman, which is susceptible to the uncleanness of a corpse, while that of a yotza’ath chutz, [literally, ‘she who goes outside’], is not susceptible to any uncleanness.” Now a yotzath chutz refers to the harlot, the nafkat bro of Onkelos (Verse 15 here. This is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew term, yotza’ath chutz (she who goes outside).) , who places the head-net on part of the head. It does not serve her the purpose of lying on it, for in that case it would be susceptible to midras-uncleanness. (A term applied to the uncleanness conveyed by a Zav or Zavah — (see Leviticus 15:2-6; 25-26) — to an object which is used as a seat. An object not so used, but which serves as a garment or a container, is susceptible only to corpse-uncleanness (see Numbers 19:14-17). If it serves none of these purposes, it is not susceptible to any uncleanness.) Nor does she cover her head with it, for in that case it would be susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. Instead, she uses it to dress up the ends of her hair, in order that it be partly visible from beneath the net, and this is why it is not susceptible to any uncleanness.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:15:1

כי כסתה פניה, only at this point, in accordance with our commentary on the word ותתעלף, (verse 14)

Rashi on Genesis 38:15:1

ויחשבה לזונה AND HE THOUGHT HER TO BE AN HARLOT, because she was sitting at the cross-roads.

Rashi on Genesis 38:15:2

כי כסתה פניה FOR SHE HAD COVERED HER FACE — so that he could not see her face and thus recognize her. A Midrashic explanation of our Rabbis is that כי כסתה פניה means BECAUSE SHE ALWAYS COVERED HER FACE: when she had stayed in her father-in-law’s house she had shown herself a modest woman, and therefore he did not suspect her (of being the woman who was sitting there for that evil purpose) (Sotah 10b).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:15:1

Because she was sitting at the crossroads. Rashi is answering the question: How is, “Because she had covered her face,” a reason for [Yehudah to think] that she was a harlot? On the contrary, it shows she is modest! Thus Rashi explains, “Because she was sitting at the crossroads.” Then Rashi says that he did not recognize her “because she had covered her face.” Had he recognized her he would not have “thought she was a harlot.” You might ask: How could Yehudah go to a harlot? The Patriarchs and their children kept the Torah, so how could he transgress, “There shall not be a harlot” (Devarim 23:18)? Re’m answers: Perhaps he performed kiddushin with her through money or a written contract, and the goat-kid [which he promised to send] was only to appease her [i.e., not a harlot’s fee]. An alternate answer: He had relations with her as an act of kiddushin. Although it says in Kiddushin 12b that it is impudent to perform kiddushin by having relations, this is only when there are witnesses. Privately it is permitted, and here there were no witnesses — only his [close] friend who was considered as himself. Or, it was not in his friend’s presence. Accordingly, the verse says הבה נא (v.16), which Rashi explains as, “Prepare yourself and your mind for this,” it means to prepare for kiddushin by having relations. An alternate answer: Yehudah held that, “There shall not be a harlot,” applies only between a Jew and a Jewess, but a non-Jewess is merely forbidden Rabbinically.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:15:2

At her father-in-law’s house, she was a modest woman, therefore, he did not suspect her. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise he would have recognized her when they spoke and also during their having relations, since afterwards she must have uncovered her face. This is why Rashi brings the Midrash. (Devek Tov)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:15

Judah saw her on the road and thought her to be a harlot because she covered her face. Evidently, harlots were known to partially cover their faces.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:15:1

ויחשבה לו לזונה, “he considered her as being a whore.” This was because she had chosen to sit at a crossroads

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:15:2

כי כסתה פניה, “for she had covered her face.” Our sages say that this described her state while married, and while she was in her father-in-law’s house, so that he did not recognize her facial features. Nachmanides writes that the proper explanation, based on the unadorned text, is that Yehudah considered the fact that she concealed her face as proof that she was a whore, as this is what all the whores did in those days They all used to sit at road junctions where there was a lot of traffic. Their shawl would cover part of their hair and leave only a mall part of their faces exposed, revealing their throats and part of their necks. Their lips and eyes were made up. They needed to accost prospective customers, speak to them, even kiss them, so that their faces could not be fully covered by their shawls. Seeing that they did not mind engaging in relations with their relatives, they had to worry about keeping their identities secret.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 70-72

“For she had covered her face” [38:15]. He thought she was a whore because she had covered herself. Bahya writes that it was the custom of the whores to cover their faces, in the expectation that they would sleep with every man, even with relatives, and they would not be recognized. (Bahya, Genesis, 38:15.) Rashi also writes another explanation. She covered her face in the house of her father-in-law, Judah, and was very modest. Therefore, he did not think that it could be her, and he did not recognize her. (Rashi, Genesis, 38:15.) From here our sages learn that a person should accustom himself to see their relatives and to recognize them, in the expectation that he should not commit a transgression, as happened with Judah and Tamar. (Bahya, Genesis, 38:15.)

Midrash

Judah saw Tamar and mistook her for a harlot because she covered her face, but she was actually his daughter-in-law. Tamar, who was chaste in her father-in-law's house, was rewarded with the birth of kings and prophets descended from her. Judah, who initially did not recognize Tamar, later acknowledged her and was rewarded for his actions. This story highlights the importance of modesty and humility in relationships, as well as the consequences of recognizing and acknowledging others.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:8

“Judah saw her and thought her to be a harlot, because she covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). “Judah saw her” – Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Zavda said: A person must be very careful regarding his wife’s sister and his female relatives, that he not stumble with one of them. From whom do you derive it? From Judah – “Judah saw her…” Why? It is “because she covered her face” while she was still in her father-in-law’s house. (Yehuda did not recognize Tamar because she had always kept her face covered in his house. This was a sign of modesty, which should be emulated (Yefe To’ar). Alternatively, the midrash is saying one should take care to recognize his female relatives. Yehuda did not recognize Tamar because she had always kept her face covered in his house, and that is why he mistook her for a harlot (Etz Yosef). ) “He turned to her by the road, and he said: Please, let me consort with you, for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said: What will you give me that you would consort with me” (Genesis 38:16)? Another matter: “Judah saw her” – he did not pay attention to her. When she covered her face, he said: Were she a harlot, would she have covered her face? (Originally, when Judah saw her from a distance, he took her to be a harlot, and therefore was going to distance himself from her. But then she covered her face, leading Judah to believe she was not a harlot, and he did not distance himself from her. ) Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He sought to pass, but the Holy One blessed be He dispatched to him the angel that is responsible for desire. He said to him: ‘Judah, where are you going? From where will kings be produced, from where will the prominent ones be produced?’ “He turned to her by the road” – despite himself, against his will.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Megillah 1:9

R. Levi said again in the name of R. Jochanan: "We have a tradition handed down by our ancestors that Amoz and Amaziah were brothers." For what purpose does he inform us of this? To teach us the same lesson which R. Samuel b. Nachmeni, in the name of R. Jonathan, taught: "A bride who is chaste in the house of her father-in-law, will be rewarded that kings and prophets will descend from her." Whence do we infer this? From Tamar, concerning whom it is written (Gen. 38, 15) And Judah saw her and thought her to be a harlot, because she had covered her face. Because she had covered her face did he think her a harlot? [Is it not to the contrary?] R. Elazar said that this means, "She had covered her face when she had been in his house, hence he did not know her," therefore she was rewarded that from her descended kings and prophets — kings from David; and prophets, as R. Levi said: "We hold a tradition from our ancestors that Amoz and Amaziah were brothers, and it is written (Is. 1, 1) This is the prophecy of Isaiah, the son of Amoz who prophesied."

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 1:30

Because she had covered her face did he think her a harlot? [Is it not the contrary?] R. Elazar said that this means: She had covered her face when she had been in his house, hence he did not know her." Therefore she was rewarded that from her descended kings and prophets — kings from David; and prophets, as R. Levi said: "A bride who is chaste in the house of her father-in-law, will be rewarded that kings and prophets will descend from her." Whence do we infer this? From Tamar When she was lead forth she sent to her father-in-law. The text should have the word Meutzeas, in the passive voice [instead of Motzes in the active voice]. R. Elazar said: This means that after she produced the signs [of the signet, scarf and staff], the Angel Samael came and removed them, then the Angel Gabriel came and brought them again and this is the meaning of the passage (Ps. 56 1) To the chief musician upon Joneth elem-re-chokin." Said R. Jochanan: "This means that after the signs were removed she became numb like a dove." (Ib., ib., ib.) Unto David a Michtam, i.e., of whom David went forth, who kept himself humble and plain to everyone. Could Michtam be explained in another way that he was born circumsized? Can Michtam be explained in another way that just when in his youth he humbled himself before a superior in order to study the Torah from him, so also when he was elevated, he kept himself meek before one who was greater than he in order to study the Torah? (Ib., ib.) And she sent to her father-in-law, saying, 'By the man who owns these,' etc., why did she not call him by his name? Said Mar Zutra b. Tubia in the name of Rab; others say R. Chana b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simon, the pious; still others say R. Jochanan said it in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "It is better for a man to be thrown into a fiery furnace than be the means of bringing another to shame in public. We infer this from Tamar." (Gen. 38, 25) (Ib., ib., ib.) Acknowledge I pray thee. Said R. Chama b. Chanina: "With the word Haker (acknowledged) did Juda inform his father [concerning Joseph's disappearance] and with the word Haker (acknowledge) was Juda informed of the bad tidings [concerning the affair of Tamar]; i.e., with the word Haker did Juda inform his father, (Ib. 37. 32) Hakerna (acknowledge), we pray thee, whether it be thy son's coat or not, and with the word Haker was Juda informed Haker (acknowledge) I pray thee to whom belong the signet, scarf, and staff!" Acknowledge, I pray thee, the word Nah means nothing else but pray. She thus said unto Juda: "I pray thee acknowledge thy Creator and do not avert thy eyes from me." And Juda acknowledged them. And this is meant by R. Chama b. Bizna, who said in the name of R. Simon the pious: "Joseph, who sanctified Heaven's name in secret was rewarded with only one additional letter of the name of the Holy One, praised be He, as it is written (Ps. 81) but Juda, who sanctified Heaven's name publicly was rewarded so that his entire name was equal to that of the Holy One, praised be He." As soon as he confessed and said, a Divine voice went forth and said: "Thou hast saved Tamar with her two children from being burnt in fire, I swear by thy life that I shall save through thy merits thy three sons from being burnt in fire." Who are they? Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. She it righteous, it is from me. How did he know it? A Divine voice went forth and said: "From me went forth the secret things." (Ib., ib., ib.) Said Samuel the senior, the father-in-law of R. Samuel b. Ama: "This means that since he knew her he never forsook her, for it is written (Deut. 5, 19) A great voice v'lo yassph. [Just as in the latter case it means for ever, so also does it mean in the former case] ."

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 17:5

(Gen. 38:15:) WHEN JUDAH SAW HER, HE THOUGHT HER TO BE A HARLOT BECAUSE SHE HAD COVERED HER FACE. However, R. Johanan said: SHE COVERED HER FACE as long as she was in her father-in-law's house. (Therefore Judah did not recognize her.) From here our masters have said: A man must be acquainted with his daughter-in-law. (Gen. R. 85:8.) Judah said: This is a harlot. What concern do I have about her? He went on. When he had gone on, she raised her eyes to the Holy One. She said to him: Sovereign of the World, am I to go away empty from the body of this righteous man? Immediately the Holy One sent Michael and brought him back. Where is it shown? Where it is written here (in vs. 16): SO HE TURNED ASIDE UNTO HER. And it is written (in Numb. 22:23): THEN THE SHE-ASS SAW THE ANGEL OF THE LORD…. SO THE SHE-ASS TURNED ASIDE. (Since the verb “turned aside” appears where an angel causes the turning aside in Numb. 22:23, an angel must be involved where the same verb appears in Gen. 38:16.) (Gen. 38:16, cont.:) AND HE SAID UNTO HER: HEY THERE, PLEASE < LET ME COME UNTO YOU >. Why? (Ibid., cont.:) BECAUSE HE DID NOT KNOW THAT SHE WAS HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. (Vs. 17:) AND HE SAID: I WILL SEND YOU A GOAT KID. He said to her (in vs. 18): WHAT PLEDGE SHALL I GIVE YOU? AND SHE SAID: YOUR SEAL…. THEN HE CAME UNTO HER, AND SHE CONCEIVED < FOR HIM >. Scripture lacks nothing; so what is the meaning of SHE CONCEIVED FOR HIM? It simply means that she gave birth to kings like him. (Vs. 24:) NOW IT CAME TO PASS ABOUT THREE MONTHS LATER…. R. Judah bar Shallum the Levite said: After three months it is discernible whether a woman is pregnant or not. (Yev. 4:1 (10a); TNid. 1:7; Nid. 8b; yNid. 1:4 (49a); Gen. R. 85:10.)

Midrash Tehillim 101:2

"I will act wisely on the innocent way. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah. Rabbi Judah says, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, "Appoint for Me a priest." Moses said to Him, "What tribe?" He replied to him, "Do not put Reuben before Me, who sinned with Bilhah, his father's concubine, as it is said (Genesis 35:22), 'And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine.' " He said to him, "From the tribe of Simeon." He said to him, "They are engaged in violence, which I hate, as it is said (Genesis 49:5), 'Simeon and Levi are brothers, weapons of violence are their wares.' " He said to him, "How about the tribe of Dan?" He said to him, "They will cause My anger, for they are idolaters, as it is said (Zechariah 10:11), 'And they shall cross the sea with affliction, and smite the waves in the sea, and all the depths of the Nile shall dry up; and the pride of Assyria shall be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt shall depart.' " This is a reference to the image of Micah. Moses therefore warned Israel (Deuteronomy 29:17), "Lest there be among you a man or woman or family or tribe." And it is said (Judges 18:30), "And the children of Dan set up the graven image for themselves." He said to him, "How about the tribe of Joseph?" He said to him, "They speak evil behind their brethren's backs, as it is said (Genesis 37:2), 'And Joseph brought evil tales of them unto their father.' " He said to him, "How about the tribe of Judah?" He said to him, "He is arrogant of eye and wide of heart, as it is said (Genesis 38:15), 'And Judah saw her, and thought her to be a harlot.' " Moses then said, "Whose tribe, then, shall I appoint?" He replied, "Appoint for yourself from your own tribe." Rabbi Nehemiah said, "And there are those who say it in the name of Resh Lakish, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'One who serves Me in this world will serve Me in the World to Come, and will not sit in the midst of My house.' " Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, "A person must be modest within his own home, and needless to say in the home of his friend."

Musar

The kingdom of David, despite its seemingly unholy origins, was part of God's plan to eventually purify and restore all people and forces outside the realm of holiness to their sacred roots, as seen in the examples of Yehudah's involvement with Tamar and Ruth's actions. This process of transformation is reflected in the emergence of David and the eventual Messiah.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 104

This is the deeper significance of the kingdom of David, which at first glance does not appear to have been rooted in holiness. Simply consider Yehudah's involvement with Tamar whom he thought to be a harlot; or, if you will, think about Ruth, a descendant of an incestuous union between Lot and his daughter. Even Ruth's joining Boaz at night was not exactly the act of a model of chastity that we would have expected. If all these precedents did not disqualify David from becoming the role model of the eventual Messiah, we need not marvel at the eventual purification of those descendants of Esau who will still exist when the Messiah will be crowned king. All these apparently accidental happenings were part of G–d's plan. The tortuous developments which led to the emergence of David and eventually to the Messiah are an example of how eventually all the חצוניות, people and forces outside the realm of holiness, will be turned "outside in," and be restored to their original sacred root.

Quoting Commentary

Ramban on Deuteronomy 23:18:1 discusses the prohibition against engaging in illicit intercourse and pederasty, explaining that it is an admonition against members of the court permitting such activities. The Sifre commentary emphasizes the necessity of both admonitions against k'deishah and kadeish, with the terms symbolizing readiness for holiness or defilement. Additionally, Redeeming Relevance commentary on Genesis 38:15 highlights the importance of modesty and not revealing one's true essence publicly, as seen in the story of Tamar covering her face from Yehudah.

German Commentary on Mishnah Kelim 24:16:4

und das einer Dirne. יוצאת לחוץ ist das aram. נפקת ברא = זונח, eine Buhldirne, vgl. Ramban zu Gen. 38, 15 und מ״ש.

Ramban on Deuteronomy 23:18:1

THERE SHALL BE NO ‘K’DEISHAH’ OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL — “one who is devoted to and always prepared for illicit intercourse. NOR SHALL THERE BE A ‘KADEISH’ OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL — one who is always prepared for pederasty.” This is Rashi’s language. Now, if this prohibition constitutes an admonition against the woman so engaged and warns her against being “devoted to and always prepared for illicit intercourse,” then an unmarried woman who has [illicit] intercourse with a man unpremeditatedly and secretly is not among those guilty of transgressing a negative commandment! So also in the matter of the kadeish, why did Rashi mention that he is devoted to “and always prepared” [for such sin] — even one who permits himself to be so abused in an innermost chamber is guilty of extirpation [if there are no witnesses] and death by the court [if there are witnesses]! Moreover, it would have been proper for Scripture to state, “There shall not be among you a k’deishah, nor shall there be among you a kadeish,” for the expressions of the daughters of Israel and of the sons of Israel make it appear that the verse discusses another nation! It appears to me concerning this prohibition that it constitutes an admonition addressed to the members of the court that they should not permit one of the daughters of Israel to sit in public view at the crossroads for the purpose of illicit intercourse, or prepare herself a tent of prostitution as is customary in foreign lands where they sit at the door with timbrels and harps, similar to what is written, Take a harp, go about the city, thou harlot long forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered. (Isaiah 23:16.) And similarly Scripture warns the court concerning a kadeish. And in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, even if he should lie with women in a tent which he prepared himself for such illicit relations or that he should sit in public view at the crossroads [on the lookout for such women], he warned the court [against permitting such activities]. It appears to me that such is the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered the verse: “A woman of the daughters of Israel shall not become the wife of a slave, and no man of Israel shall marry a bondwoman”]. (Thus it is clear that Rashi’s interpretation: “a k’deishah is one who is devoted to, and always ready for illicit intercourse” is different from that of Onkelos. The same is with regard to a kadeish.) But he [Onkelos] combined with this prohibition the matter of a slave and bondwoman who live with Israelites in [common law] marriage, because everyone knows concerning this slave who married the daughter of an Israelite that his betrothal of her is invalid and yet she remains with him like a wife with her husband, and if so she is a k’deishah in broad daylight. Now, I have seen in the Sifre the following text: (Sifre, Ki Theitzei 260.) “There shall be no ‘k’deishah’ of the daughters of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Now, I could have reasoned: if the k’deishah [commits] a minor transgression [seeing that the punishment for violation of this prohibition is stripes] yet you are warned against it in Israel, is it not logical that [the crime of] the stringent kadeish [which is punished] by extirpation and death by the court, as explained above] be forbidden in Israel! [Why then was it necessary to state, nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel?] Or vice versa: if the kadeish commits a stringent [crime, yet] you are not admonished against it among the nations, is it not logical that you should not be admonished against the minor k’deishah with respect to the nations etc.” (In other words, the Sifre is stating that both admonitions were necessary. The minor transgression of k’deishah we could not have derived from the stricter kadeish, and the exclusion of the nations regarding the prohibition of kadeish we could not have derived from the same exclusion regarding the lighter prohibition of k’deishah. Hence both admonitions had to be stated.) From this text of the Sifre it would appear that the interpretation of the Rabbis does not agree with that of Onkelos, for according to his rendition there is nothing stricter about the kadeish than the k’deishah [since the prohibition against a slave marrying a Jewish woman is of equal stringency to that of a Jewish man marrying a bondwoman]. Moreover, what does the Sifre mean by, “you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations” [according to Onkelos’ interpretation]? Similarly, if the interpretation [of the Sifre] of the term kadeish were to have been “the male who is the subject of pederasty” as in the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael in Tractate Sanhedrin, (Sanhedrin 54b.) then in that case too, the Sifre could not have said “you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations,” for he who permits himself to be so abused by a heathen is liable to stoning! Rather, it appears that the opinion of the master of this Beraitha is as we have mentioned. Scripture warns the court that a woman may not stand at the crossroads for illicit intercourse, for there she will prostitute herself with those who are forbidden to her, relatives and strangers, for they cover their faces in order to have illicit relations even with their brothers and relatives, this being the sense of what Scripture states, When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face (Genesis 38:15.) Similarly he warns the court against him who is ready to be abused by males, similar to what is written, And there was also sodomy in the Land; they did according to all the abominations of the nations. (I Kings 14:24.) Now, aside from the admonition against those who commit the sin, he warns the court here that they should not permit a sodomite to stand on the road [ready for such abuse], as is known of them in the land of Egypt that they stand on the road with covered faces like women to do this abominable act. Now the Rabbis interpreted in this Beraitha [i.e., the Sifre quoted above] that we are not admonished concerning others except for ourselves if they do so with one another, for only in matters of idolatry are we admonished with respect to the nations. The terms kadeish and k’deishah, in the opinion of the commentators, (Ibn Ezra, here and R’dak, in Sefer Hasharashim, root kadeish.) are an expression of readiness, for they found this usage in the verse, I have commanded ‘lim’kudashai’ (My devoted ones). (Isaiah 13:3.) So also, ‘hikdish’ (He hath prepared) His guests; (Zephaniah 1:7.) ‘kadshu’ (prepare ye) war against her. (Jeremiah 6:4.) And in my opinion these are all expressions of “holiness” [consecration], for he who separates himself from illicit sexual relations is called “holy,” just as it is said, They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman sent away from her husband, for he is ‘holy’ unto his G-d. (Leviticus 21:7.) Thus the woman who guards herself from forbidden relations and lewdness is called k’doshah (holy), while she who separates herself from holiness and becomes defiled with illicit sexual relations is called k’deishah. This is comparable to the usage customary in the [Sacred] Language [to use the same root-letters to express the negative as well as the positive], as for example: and all mine increase ‘th’shareish’ (it would root out); (Job 31:12. Now, the word shoresh means “a root,” and here it means the opposite: “uproot.”) ‘v’dishnu’ (and they shall take away the ashes) from the altar. (Numbers 4:13. Here too the word deshen (ashes) is used to indicate the opposite: “to take away the ashes.”) For the known harlot, the defiled one of name and full of tumult (Ezekiel 22:5.) is separated from all holiness. This name [k’deishah] applies to her only because she is always ready for this abomination, for she has no moment for propriety and holiness at all. And the expression ‘hikdish’ His guests (Zephaniah 1:7.) is a figurative expression, for he who makes a feast consecrates his guests and cleanses them so that they should not defile the table and the bread, as it is said, he is unclean; surely he is not clean. (I Samuel 20:26.) So also ‘kadshu’ war against her (Jeremiah 6:4.) means that they should cleanse themselves, like one who cleanses his guests in order that scholarly people [who are meticulous in observing the laws of purity] should not separate themselves from them.

Redeeming Relevance; Exodus, CHAPTER 6 Clothing Aharon 107

Tamar’s tzeniut teaches us that even revealing our true selves should not be a public matter. Hence, when Yehudah did not recognize her “because she covered her face,” (Bereshit 38:15) (Bereshit 38:15.) it was not only her face that Tamar covered from Yehudah, but her true essence as well. Had Yehudah been more familiar with who Tamar really was, it is unlikely that he would have dismissed her after the death of his older sons in the first place. It would have been even less likely that he would have taken so little interest in her when she was his daughter-in-law that he would not have seen through her disguise later on.

Second Temple

Tamar bore divine seed without seeing the sower, veiled her face, and recognized the symbols as gifts from a divine source, leading her to declare the identity of the father of her child.

On the Change of Names 23:5

[134] And Tamar too; she bore within her womb the divine seed, but had not seen the sower.  For we are told that at that hour she veiled her face (Gen. 38:15), just as Moses when he turned aside fearing to look upon God (Ex. 3:6). But she closely scanned the symbols and tokens, and judging in her heart that these were the gifts of no mortal she cried aloud, “To whomsoever these belong, he it is by whom I am with child” (Gen. 38:25).

Talmud

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said a modest bride in her father-in-law's house will have kings and prophets emerge from her, as seen with Tamar who covered her face, contrary to a prostitute. The Gemara questions Judah's assumption of Tamar being a prostitute based on her covered face, noting that prostitutes typically uncover their faces.

Megillah 10b:14

The Gemara responds: It is in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophets will emerge from her. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, as it is written: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute; for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). Can it be that because Tamar covered her face he thought her to be a prostitute? On the contrary, a harlot tends to uncover her face.

Sotah 10b:2

The Gemara continues its discussion of the incident of Judah and Tamar. It is written: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute, for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). The Gemara asks: Because she had covered her face he thought her to be a prostitute? Prostitutes usually uncover their faces in order to attract men.

Targum

Yehudah mistook Tamar for a harlot because she had covered her face, provoking him to anger.

Onkelos Genesis 38:15

Yehudah saw her and thought she was a harlot [like one who goes outside], because she had covered her face.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 38:15

For she had enwrapped her face.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:15

And Jehuda saw her; but she seemed in his face as an harlot, because she had provoked him to anger in his house, and Jehuda did not love her.

Tosefta

The Tosefta discusses instances where multiple individuals make different statements in a sequence, emphasizing that each statement is distinct and not interchangeable. Examples include the elders, priests, and Holy Spirit in absolving Israel of bloodshed, Joshua, Caleb, and the other spies reporting on the land, Tamar, Judah, and the Holy Spirit in the matter of Judah and Tamar, and different groups reacting to the battle of Shiloh. Each set of statements is presented as unique and not interchangeable.

Tosefta Sotah 9:5

The Elders say (Deut. 21:7), "Our hands did not spill this blood, and our eyes did not see." The priests say (Deut. 21:8), "Absolve Your people Israel that You redeemed, O God, etc." And the Holy Spirit says, "And they shall be absolved of the blood." Three utterances, [and] whoever said this did not say that. Similarly, you could say [that in connection with the spies' report] (Num. 13:27-28), "We came to the land where you sent us," said Joshua; Caleb said; "Let us go up and possess it"; the [other] spies said, "However, powerful are the people settled in the land." Three utterances, this next to that, [and] whoever said this did not say that. Similarly, you could say [regarding the matter of Judah and Tamar] (Gen. 38:25-26), "And she said, 'Pray recognize, to whom does this seal [and these cords and this staff] belong?,'" said Tamar; "She is more righteous than I," said Judah; and the Holy Spirit says, "And he did not know her again." Three [utterances], this next to that, [and] whoever said this did not say that, and whoever said that did not say the other. Similarly, you could say [regarding the battle of Shiloh] (I Sam. 4:8-9), "Woe to us! Who will save us from the hand of this mighty God?" said the righteous among them; the evil ones among them said, "These are the gods who struck [the Egyptians] with ten plagues, and they paid for His plagues in the desert"* (אלה הם האלים המכים עשר מכות, ושלמו מכותיו במדבר (following Lieberman)) ; and the brave ones among them said, "Gird yourselves and be like men, O Philistines!" Three utterances, this next to that, etc. ... Similarly, you can say (Songs 8:5-6), "Under the apple tree I roused you," said the Holy Spirit; "Set me as a a seal upon your heart," said the Congregation of Israel; "For love is as powerful as death," said the idolaters. Three utterances, this next to that, etc.

וַיֵּ֨ט אֵלֶ֜יהָ אֶל־הַדֶּ֗רֶךְ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הָֽבָה־נָּא֙ אָב֣וֹא אֵלַ֔יִךְ כִּ֚י לֹ֣א יָדַ֔ע כִּ֥י כַלָּת֖וֹ הִ֑וא וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ מַה־תִּתֶּן־לִ֔י כִּ֥י תָב֖וֹא אֵלָֽי׃ 16 J So he turned aside to her by the road and said, “Here, let me sleep with you”—for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. “What,” she asked, “will you pay for sleeping with me?”
Judah did not recognize Tamar when he approached her, leading to a marriage-like arrangement instead of prostitution. Tamar covered her face as a sign of modesty, and divine intervention guided Judah to fulfill his destiny. Rashbam explains phrases like "לכו ונהרגהו" as invitations for participation in planned undertakings. Second Temple texts depict Judah as a seeker of knowledge with reverence for hidden virtues, while Targum versions differ on whether Judah propositioned Tamar knowingly or unknowingly.

Commentary

Judah did not recognize Tamar when he approached her for relations, which was part of God's plan for Tamar to bear children from Judah instead of his son. Tamar demanded a pledge from Judah before agreeing to sleep with him, showing her intentions were not as a prostitute but as a pious daughter of Israel seeking a marriage-like arrangement. This incident highlights the prohibition of relations between a father-in-law and daughter-in-law, even before the Torah was given.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:16:1

הבה נא אבא אליך, “if you please, I wish to have relations with you.” If the Torah had applied the rules of grammar here, it should have quoted Yehudah as saying הבי instead of הבה. However, seeing that Yehudah considered the woman a harlot, a woman who demands sexual relations outright in the manner males do, he changed his mode of address and treated her as if she were a male. The Torah preferred to quote Yehudah verbatim instead of observing the rules of grammar. We find a parallel to this in Genesis 19,32 when the daughters of Lot initiate sexual intercourse with their father by first making him drunk. They too acted in a manner which is usually a male prerogative, and this is why the Torah wrote לכה נשקה instead of לכי נשקה. I have explained the matter there.

Radak on Genesis 38:16:1

ויט אליה, he detoured in her direction from the direction he had been walking. אל הדרך, to the beginning of the path where she was sitting, there being an opportunity nearby to enjoy privacy.

Radak on Genesis 38:16:2

הכר נא, an expression demanding an immediate response, similar to such expressions we had explained in connection with הבה נא in Genesis 11,4.

Rashi on Genesis 38:16:1

ויט אליה אל הדרך AND HE TURNED UNTO HER BY THE WAY — from the road he was following he turned to the road where she was. In old French détourner; English to turn aside.

Rashi on Genesis 38:16:2

הבה נא COME, I PRAY THEE — Prepare yourself and your mind for this. Wherever הבה occurs it signifies “preparing oneself”, except in any passage where it must necessarily be translated by “giving”. And, indeed, those signifying “preparation” have almost the meaning of “giving”. (ערבון (17— means a PLEDGE.

Sforno on Genesis 38:16:1

כי לא ידע כי כלתו היא, he did not even recognise her after he joined her in her private quarters. Had he recognised her he would surely have spoken to her concerning why he had not given her to his surviving son. G’d has His own agenda; clearly, it was His wish that Tamar bear a child or two children sired by Yehudah who in His eyes was more acceptable than his son Shelah [whose mother‘s antecedents we know little about.] G’d wanted that the eventual Messiah should have had genetic material dating back to Tamar.

Sforno on Genesis 38:16:2

What will you give me. If he had offered immediate payment she would not have accepted it, because what she wanted was evidence that she could present later on to prove that he was the father.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:16

Because Judah was a lonely widower, when he saw her he turned to her by the road, and he said: Please, let me engage in intercourse with you; for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. By Torah law, relations between a father-in-law and daughter-in-law are strictly prohibited, even after the son’s death. Although this incident took place before the Torah was given, it is clear that the laws of the time would have prevented a father-in-law from marrying his daughter-in-law. 25 Therefore, there is no doubt that had Judah known the true identity of this woman, he would not have turned to her. She said: What will you give me that you will engage in intercourse with me? As she was impersonating a harlot, Tamar demanded payment.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 73-75

“Let me sleep with you” [38:16]. Judah said: prepare yourself and I will sleep with you. Tamar said: what will you give me if I will sleep with you? Judah responded: I will send you a kid. Tamar responded: give me a pledge. Judah said: what shall I give you as a pledge? She said: give me your signet ring that sign with and she wanted a garment with zizit that Judah should give her from his body. (Ramban, Genesis, 38:18.) She thought to herself: if he will hold on to the garment with the zizit, the zizit will hit Judah in his face and he would not want to sleep with her. There is a story about a rabbi who gave four hundred golden coins to a prostitute, so that he should sleep with her. The zizit flew in his face and he quickly removed himself from the prostitute. (Keli Yakar, Genesis, 38:18; the story is in B. Menahot, 44a.) It is said that Tamar desired these three things as pledges. She showed him that her intention was not as a prostitute, but as a pious daughter of Israel, who when she wants to have relations with a man, she needs a wedding canopy and a ring to sanctify the marriage. Therefore, she said: give me the ring, in place of the sanctification, the staff as poles for the wedding canopy and the talit with the zizit, as a cover for the wedding canopy. It is still the custom in Ashkenaz that one makes the wedding canopy from a talit with zizit. Therefore, she said: and your garment and staff; just like nobles with a staff.

Midrash

Judah mistook Tamar for a harlot because she covered her face, not recognizing her as his daughter-in-law. Tamar's act of covering her face was a sign of modesty and a lesson in recognizing female relatives. Judah's interaction with Tamar was influenced by the angel of desire, leading to the conception of kings. Despite Judah's initial intentions, he was guided by divine intervention to fulfill his destiny.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:8

“Judah saw her and thought her to be a harlot, because she covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). “Judah saw her” – Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Zavda said: A person must be very careful regarding his wife’s sister and his female relatives, that he not stumble with one of them. From whom do you derive it? From Judah – “Judah saw her…” Why? It is “because she covered her face” while she was still in her father-in-law’s house. (Yehuda did not recognize Tamar because she had always kept her face covered in his house. This was a sign of modesty, which should be emulated (Yefe To’ar). Alternatively, the midrash is saying one should take care to recognize his female relatives. Yehuda did not recognize Tamar because she had always kept her face covered in his house, and that is why he mistook her for a harlot (Etz Yosef). ) “He turned to her by the road, and he said: Please, let me consort with you, for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said: What will you give me that you would consort with me” (Genesis 38:16)? Another matter: “Judah saw her” – he did not pay attention to her. When she covered her face, he said: Were she a harlot, would she have covered her face? (Originally, when Judah saw her from a distance, he took her to be a harlot, and therefore was going to distance himself from her. But then she covered her face, leading Judah to believe she was not a harlot, and he did not distance himself from her. ) Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He sought to pass, but the Holy One blessed be He dispatched to him the angel that is responsible for desire. He said to him: ‘Judah, where are you going? From where will kings be produced, from where will the prominent ones be produced?’ “He turned to her by the road” – despite himself, against his will.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 17:5

(Gen. 38:15:) WHEN JUDAH SAW HER, HE THOUGHT HER TO BE A HARLOT BECAUSE SHE HAD COVERED HER FACE. However, R. Johanan said: SHE COVERED HER FACE as long as she was in her father-in-law's house. (Therefore Judah did not recognize her.) From here our masters have said: A man must be acquainted with his daughter-in-law. (Gen. R. 85:8.) Judah said: This is a harlot. What concern do I have about her? He went on. When he had gone on, she raised her eyes to the Holy One. She said to him: Sovereign of the World, am I to go away empty from the body of this righteous man? Immediately the Holy One sent Michael and brought him back. Where is it shown? Where it is written here (in vs. 16): SO HE TURNED ASIDE UNTO HER. And it is written (in Numb. 22:23): THEN THE SHE-ASS SAW THE ANGEL OF THE LORD…. SO THE SHE-ASS TURNED ASIDE. (Since the verb “turned aside” appears where an angel causes the turning aside in Numb. 22:23, an angel must be involved where the same verb appears in Gen. 38:16.) (Gen. 38:16, cont.:) AND HE SAID UNTO HER: HEY THERE, PLEASE < LET ME COME UNTO YOU >. Why? (Ibid., cont.:) BECAUSE HE DID NOT KNOW THAT SHE WAS HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. (Vs. 17:) AND HE SAID: I WILL SEND YOU A GOAT KID. He said to her (in vs. 18): WHAT PLEDGE SHALL I GIVE YOU? AND SHE SAID: YOUR SEAL…. THEN HE CAME UNTO HER, AND SHE CONCEIVED < FOR HIM >. Scripture lacks nothing; so what is the meaning of SHE CONCEIVED FOR HIM? It simply means that she gave birth to kings like him. (Vs. 24:) NOW IT CAME TO PASS ABOUT THREE MONTHS LATER…. R. Judah bar Shallum the Levite said: After three months it is discernible whether a woman is pregnant or not. (Yev. 4:1 (10a); TNid. 1:7; Nid. 8b; yNid. 1:4 (49a); Gen. R. 85:10.)

Quoting Commentary

Rashbam explains that the phrase "לכו ונהרגהו" in Genesis 37:20 is an invitation for others to participate in a planned undertaking, similar to other examples in the Bible such as "לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים" in Genesis 37:27 and "הבה נתחכמה לו" in Exodus 1:10. The use of words like "הבה" and "ראה" in these invitations does not necessarily involve active participation by those addressed.

Rashbam on Genesis 37:20:1

לכו ונהרגהו, the introduction לכו is an invitation for other people to participate in a planned undertaking. We have a similar example in verse 27 of our chapter when the brothers sell Joseph and Yehudah introduces the plan with the words לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים, “let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.” Another similar example is found in Exodus 1,10 when Pharaoh invites his people to outsmart the Israelites with the words הבה נתחכמה לו. In that verse the word הבה is used as such an invitation. Compare also Deuteronomy 11,26, where the word ראה is used in the same manner, except that it does not involve active participation by those addressed

Second Temple

The text discusses an investigator and lover of learning who is identified as Judah, the chief captain and king, who seeks to explore and understand things that are veiled and unexplored. Judah is characterized as one who confesses and praises God, and is depicted as approaching knowledge with reverence and a desire to understand the hidden virtues and purposes behind them (Genesis 38:16).

On Mating with the Preliminary Studies 23:2

[125] Who then is he, the investigator, the lover of learning, who refuses to leave aught of the things that are veiled, unexamined and unexplored? He can only be the chief captain, the king, whose name is Judah, who persists and rejoices in confessing and praising God. “He turned aside his path to her” (Gen. 38:16) it says, and said “Suffer me to come in unto thee.” “Suffer me,” he means (for he would not use force to her), “suffer me to see what is the virtue which veils its face from me, and what purpose it is prepared to serve.”

Targum

In Genesis 38:16 of Onkelos, Judah unknowingly propositions his daughter-in-law Tamar on the road, while in Targum Jonathan's version of the same verse, Judah does so knowingly. Tamar asks what he will give her for the privilege of being with her.

Onkelos Genesis 38:16

He turned aside to her on the road, and said, Please [Now], let me be with you, for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, What will you give me for the privilege of being with me?

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:16

And he inclined to her in the way and said, Let me now go in with thee: for he knew not that she was his daughter--in--law. And she said What wilt thou give me to go in with me?

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אָנֹכִ֛י אֲשַׁלַּ֥ח גְּדִֽי־עִזִּ֖ים מִן־הַצֹּ֑אן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר אִם־תִּתֵּ֥ן עֵרָב֖וֹן עַ֥ד שׇׁלְחֶֽךָ׃ 17 J He replied, “I will send a kid from my flock.” But she said, “You must leave a pledge until you have sent it.”
Yehudah sent a kid to Tamar as a gift, giving her his signet ring as collateral. The prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother's milk only applies to kosher domesticated animals. In Kabbalah, the mouth with a tongue represents the central column uniting the lights in the two columns. The term "גדי" refers to any young tender animal, and the prohibition against cooking a kid is mentioned three times in the Torah. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan both mention Yehudah promising to send a kid to Tamar, with her requesting security until he sent it.

Commentary

Yehudah would send a messenger to deliver a kid to Tamar as a gift, with the use of the conjugation kal indicating this intention. Tamar asked for collateral, interpreted by some as a token of betrothal, with Yehudah giving her his signet ring as a guarantee. This interpretation is debated due to the legal requirements for betrothal, but some suggest that the ring was given as a gift rather than a pledge.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:17:1

אם תתן ערבון, “if you will leave an item as guarantee.” This is an abbreviated verse, which should have concluded with the words: “then I will accept your proposition.”

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 38:17:1

ותאמר אם תתן לי ערבון, “she said: ‘if you will give me a pledge;’” some commentators claim that Yehudah did not sleep with Tamar until after he had given her a token to serve as a marriage betrothal. They interpret her question above as her asking for such a token. It was meant to mean: “what kind of token of your intention to wed me are you going to give me?” Yehudah’s answer was that he would send her a young goat. Thereupon she asked for a guarantee that he would indeed send that goat. By insisting that he would give her his signet ring she meant that this would be her wedding ring. According to Rabbi Moshe, this whole interpretation is difficult to accept as the handing over of such a token requires the presence and confirmation by two witnesses in good standing as spelled out in the Talmud, tractate Kiddushin folio 65. Some people claim that an important person such as Yehudah would never travel except in the company of at least two people who could qualify as witnesses, just as a Torah scholar in our time does not travel alone and that therefore the betrothal of Tamar had been duly witnessed. If you were to counter that the betrothal was still invalid as she had never received the promised goat from him, and the Talmud in Kiddushin folio 8 states that even if the suitor gave the bride a token worth a p’rutah (smallest copper coin) as a pledge to cover the remainder, such a betrothal is not legally valid. We would therefore have to say that he gave her his signet ring not as a pledge, but as an outright gift at that time. After having done so, he told her that when he would send her the goat he expected her to return his ring. This is how, in my opinion, the author of the above interpretation must have meant it.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:17:1

עד שלחך. The reason why we have the “weak” mode, i.e. the conjugation kal instead of the transitive conjugation hiphil, is to indicate that Yehudah would send a messenger to deliver the kid to Tamar. We find the use of the conjugation kal in connection with the sending of gifts especially, as for instance in 32,19 where Yaakov had instructed his messengers to Esau to describe the gift in such terms. (מנחה היא שלוחה) We find it again in verse 23 of our chapter where Yehudah says הנה שלחתי הגדי הזה, “here, I have sent this kid, etc.”

Rashi on Genesis 38:17:1

ערבון means a PLEDGE.

Sforno on Genesis 38:17:1

אם תתן ערבון, if you are prepared to give me such tokens I am willing to sleep with you as you requested.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:17

He said: I will send you a kid from the flock as payment. She said: If you give me collateral until your sending. To ensure that you provide payment, give me collateral to hold until I receive the kid.

Halakhah

The prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother's milk only applies to meat and milk from kosher domesticated animals, specifically including the offspring of an ox, sheep, and goat unless specified otherwise. Cooking meat of a kosher animal in the milk of a non-kosher animal or vice versa is permitted, and there is no liability for partaking in such mixtures.

Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 9:3

According to Scriptural Law, the prohibition involves only [a mixture of] meat from a kosher domesticated animal (With regard to the meat or milk of a kosher wild beast or fowl, see the following halachah and notes.) and milk from a kosher domesticated animal, as implied by the verse: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." (I.e., the prohibition involves only a kid that could be eaten and milk of which one could partake.) The term "a kid" includes the offspring of an ox, the offspring of a sheep, and the offspring of a goat unless the verse states explicitly, a goat-kid. (I.e., the term gidi translated as "kid," commonly means "a kid-goat." Nevertheless, according to the Bible, it is not necessarily restricted to this meaning unless the verse specifies so explicitly, as in Genesis 27:16; 38:20.) The term "a kid in its mother's milk" [does not exclude all other situations]. (I.e., the intent is not that one is liable only for cooking an offspring in the milk of its mother and not in any other situations. See the conclusion of the following halachah.) Instead, the Torah is speaking regarding the commonplace circumstance. With regard to the meat of a kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a non-kosher animal or the meat of a non-kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a kosher animal, by contrast, cooking is permitted, and deriving benefit is permitted. One is not liable for [transgressing the prohibition against partaking of] meat and milk if one partakes of it. (Needless to say, one is liable for partaking of the non-kosher meat or the non-kosher milk.)

Kabbalah

The mouth with a tongue speaking great words represents the central column that unites the two columns of the lips, creating a bright knot that combines the lights in the two columns. This union makes the lights clear and completes them, resulting in a sweet and lovely combination of fire and water, represented by the colors red and white blending together.

Idra Zuta 158

Everyone is waiting for this mouth with a tongue speaking great words. The tongue is the central column that unites the two columns that are the two lips with a crowning bright knot, that is, with a knot and union of the lights with the central column. It crowns them and makes them bright; for the tongue that is the central column makes clear the lights in the two columns in the lips and completes them. It is written of this, “His mouth is most sweet” (Shir Hashirim 5:15), surely, after the central column combined them with each other. His mouth is similar to, “the palate tastes food” (Iyov 24:3): after the inclusion of right and left, they become good and flavorful. “…and he is altogether lovely” (Shir Hashirim 5:15) refers to the two columns, left and right, that are called fire and water. Fire and water are beautiful, lovely and well fashioned, that is, they are lovely to behold, since the colors red and white, which are left and right, are joined together, that is, beauty appears only from the blending of white and red together.

Quoting Commentary

The term "גדי" includes a calf and a lamb, as it refers to any young tender animal, as seen in various Torah passages where it is specified as "גדי of the goats." The prohibition against cooking a kid is mentioned three times in the Torah: to prohibit eating meat with milk, deriving any other benefit from the mixture, and boiling meat with milk.

Rashi on Exodus 23:19:2

לא תבשל גדי THOU SHALT NOT COOK A KID — A calf and a lamb also are comprehended under the term גדי, for גדי means nothing more than a young tender animal, as you may gather from the fact that you will find in several passages in the Torah that the term גדי is used and that the writer felt it necessary specially to explain it by adding after it the word עזים, as, e. g., (Genesis 38:17) “I will send forth a גדי of the goats”; (Genesis 38: 20) “the גדי of the goats”; (Genesis 27:9) “two kids of the goats (גדיי עזים)”. This fact serves to show you that wherever גדי is mentioned without further description the term implies also a calf and a lamb. — In three different passages the law לא תבשל גדי is written: once for the purpose of prohibiting the eating of meat-food with milk-food, once to prohibit us from deriving any other benefit (besides eating) from such mixture, and once to prohibit the boiling of meat with milk (Mekhilta; Chullin 115b).

Rashi on Exodus 34:26:3

גדי A KID — Any tender young animal is comprehended under the term גדי, a calf and a lamb also. From the fact that the writer felt it necessary to state specifically in several passages “a kid of the goat” you may learn that the term גדי without further definition implies any suckling (young animal) (Chullin 113a; cf. Rashi on Exodus 23:19).

Targum

In Genesis 38:17, Onkelos states that Judah promised to send a kid from the flock to Tamar, who requested security until he sent it. Targum Jonathan provides a similar account, with Judah offering a kid of the goats and Tamar asking for a pledge until he sent it.

Onkelos Genesis 38:17

He said, I will send you a kid from the flock. She said, [Only] if you give me some security until you send it.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:17

And he said, I will send thee a kid of the goats from the flock. And she said, If thou wilt give me a pledge until thou shalt have sent.

וַיֹּ֗אמֶר מָ֣ה הָעֵֽרָבוֹן֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶתֶּן־לָךְ֒ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר חֹתָֽמְךָ֙ וּפְתִילֶ֔ךָ וּמַטְּךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּיָדֶ֑ךָ וַיִּתֶּן־לָ֛הּ וַיָּבֹ֥א אֵלֶ֖יהָ וַתַּ֥הַר לֽוֹ׃ 18 J And he said, “What pledge shall I give you?” She replied, “Your seal and cord, and the staff which you carry.” So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she conceived by him.
Judah gave Tamar his signet ring, outer garment, and staff as collateral, symbolizing his status and authority, leading to Tamar conceiving righteous children. Tamar's actions with Judah are seen as righteous, leading to the salvation of her descendants. The Talmud explains that Tamar's pregnancy signs were moved apart by Samael but brought back together by Gabriel to ensure her survival and the birth of King David. Judah gave Tamar his signet ring, wrap, and staff as a pledge, leading to her becoming pregnant.

Commentary

Judah gave Tamar his signet ring, his outer garment, and his staff as collateral, which were symbolic of his status and authority. Tamar requested these items as a pledge, not out of necessity, but to remind her child of Judah's status. Other interpretations suggest that the signet ring symbolized marital rights, the staff represented sustenance, and the garment indicated the obligation to provide clothing. Despite the significance of these items, Judah gave them to Tamar in a moment of folly, leading to her conceiving children who were righteous like him.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:18:1

חותמך פתילך, “your signet ring and your cord;” these were both items that he could not be without for any length of time. He needed the signet ring for confirming any transactions, and the cord to tie up the sheep. (The third item, his staff, was less important as he was in his prime.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:18:1

THY SIGNET. Because of Judah’s great lust he gave three objects as a pledge for something insignificant. I will explain the meaning of kedeshah (harlot) (v. 21) in my comments on There shall be no harlot (kedeshah) of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite (kadesh) of the sons of Israel (Deut. 23:18).

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:18:1

חותמך ופתילך ומטך אשר בידך, “your signet, your wrap, and your staff which is in your hand.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word חותמך refers to a ring used to seal documents. Possibly, Yehudah’s signet ring bore the image of a lion seeing that his father described him as גור אריה, “a lion cub” in Genesis 49,19. Rashi explains that the word ופתילך means “your wrap,” a garment with which he covered himself. Concerning this Nachmanides disagrees, saying that it is not logical that Yehudah would give a harlot a garment of his without which he would remain naked. Moreover, how is it possible that the Torah would describe a שמלה as a פתיל? Besides, why would this garment be described by Tamar as הפתילים i.e. as garments in the plural in verse 25? If one were to say that the word פתיל refers to the ציצית, the fringes, how can we assume that Yehudah would treat the fringes in such a desultory manner, i.e. giving the part of the garment which lends it some sanctity to a harlot? Nachmanides therefore concludes that פתיל is a small cloth such as a kerchief used to wear around the neck or part of the head. It is still a common practice in the Orient that distinguished people wear such a piece of attire. It is called פתיל as it is short like a שושיפא, short cloak. (Compare Onkelos on Deut. 22,17 where שמלה, bed-sheet, is translated as שושיפא.)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:18:2-4

ומטך, “and your staff.” She referred to the staff that princes and dignitaries are in the habit of carrying. It is similar to the word שבט, which is mentioned by Yaakov as a hallmark of the authority of the dynasty of Yehudah when Yaakov blessed him before his death (Genesis 49,10). Some commentators view the three items which Tamar demanded as a pledge from Yehudah as allusions to the three financial obligations a husband assumes vis-a-vis his wife as outlined in Exodus 21,10. They are named there as שאר, כסות עונה, the entitlement to food, clothing, and marital rights. The signet ring was symbolic of her marital rights, her claim on Yehudah. She alluded to the stamp of the sacred covenant which every male Jew wears on his sexual organ ever since he has been circumcised. The staff is symbolic of food, sustenance, as we know from Leviticus 26,26 בשברי לכם מטה לחם, “when I break for you the staff of bread.” פתילך, of course, is symbolic of the wife’s right to be provided with clothing by her husband. According to Bereshit Rabbah 85,9, (slightly different wording) by returning these three pledges to Yehudah, Tamar’s offspring did indeed merit to secure for itself (at different times in history) all these three items. Concerning Zerubavel, the leader of the Jews returning from exile in Babylon, we read in Chagai 2,23: ”I will take you, My servant Zerubavel son of Shaltiel- declares the Lord,- and make you as a signet for I have chosen you.” As to the פתיל, Tamar, as the mother of Peretz, became the ancestor of Betzalel, architect of the Tabernacle of whom it is written in Exodus 39,3 וקצץ פתילים, “he cut threads.” The word מטך was an allusion to King David of whom Samuel I 17,40 recorded that ויקח מקלו בידו, “he took his staff in his hand.”

Radak on Genesis 38:18:1

חותמך, as per Onkelos, the signet ring.

Radak on Genesis 38:18:2

ופתילך, your outer garment, cloak, as per Onkelos, שושיפך. Or, what is meant is the turban, i.e. a status symbol. In Numbers 19,15 the expression צמיד פתיל, “a tightly fitting lid,” describes a vessel of contours similar to a turban. The expression also occurs in the Mishnah Shabbat 28, as well as in verse 25 in our chapter [because of the plural mode, Ed.] it appears to describe attire each composed of two different cloths and colour.

Ramban on Genesis 38:18:1

THY SIGNET ‘UP’THILECHA.’ Onkelos renders it as “thy signet and thy cloak,” meaning “the ring which you use as a seal, and the cloak with which you cover yourself.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct to say that he would give his cloak, and go away from her unclothed. And how is it that a cloak is called p’thil in the Hebrew language? And how can it be referred to later on as p’thilim, (Verse 25 here.) in the plural? Now should you say that on account of its fringed strings (p’thilim), the garment was called p’thil, far be it that Judah should fulfill the Commandment of Tzitzith (Fringes), (See Numbers 15:38.) yet treat it so lightly as to give it away in unchastity! Perhaps, he had with him a small scarf which he occasionally wound around part of the head, and which was called p’thil because it was short as a p’thil (fringe), and it is this which the Targum [Onkelos] rendered as shashifa, [which Rashi incorrectly took to mean “a cloak”]. Now you will not find that Onkelos will translate simlah (a garment) as shashifa wherever it is found in the Torah. Instead, he translates it throughout by a term denoting “cover” or “garment,” excepting the verse, And they shall spread the ‘simlah’ (garment), (Deuteronomy 22:17.) concerning which he says, “And they shall spread the shashifa,” because this is the sudar referred to in the Talmud (Kethuboth 10 a: “Bring me the sudar.” See also Ramban to Deuteronomy 22:17.) through which virginity is established. So did Jonathan ben Uziel translate hama’ataphoth (Isaiah 3:22.) (the mantlets) as shashifa, these being small scarfs which they wound around the head, and distinguished persons spread them over their bonnets and headbands. This custom still prevails in eastern countries. It is further possible that Judah possessed a seal impressed with the form of a lion or some other known figure, as rulers do, and he also had fringes in his hand, woven in the same design, with which to stroll about, as well as a rod in his hand, as becomes a ruler or lord, even as it is written, A strong rod, to be a sceptre to rule, (Ezekiel 19:14.) and it is further written, The sceptre shall not depart from Judah. (Further, 49:10.) It was these that he gave into Tamar’s hand.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:18:1

חותמך, your ring.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:18:2

פתילך, your outer garment,

Rashbam on Genesis 38:18:3

ומטך, and your staff. She asked for three items none of which were necessary as garments for Yehudah, but were merely decorative, lending Yehudah a better image among his peers.

Rashi on Genesis 38:18:1

חתמך ופתילך THY SIGNET AND THY STRING — The Targum renders it by “Thy signet and thy cloak” — the ring which you use as a seal and the cloak with which you cover yourself

Rashi on Genesis 38:18:2

ותהר לו AND SHE CONCEIVED BY HIM (לו, to him) — she conceived men who were strong, similar to himself, and men who were righteous, similar to himself (Genesis Rabbah 85:9).

Sforno on Genesis 38:18:1

ופתילך, your closely fitting sash. The items Tamar chose as pledge were all things which testified to the superior standing of its owner in society. We know from Job 38,3 that a sash is evidence of someone’s manhood, i.e. someone’s superior status. She wanted to own such trinkets reminding her constantly of Yehudah’s status so that her child would be influenced by the thoughts she entertained during her pregnancy and would grow up to be like its father.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:18:1

עזקתך ושושיפך, the ring that you use as a seal... Rashi is answering the question: Why does Onkelos translate חותמך as עזקתך, which means “your ring”? In the verse it is written חותם, which means “seal.” Therefore Rashi explains that it means, “The ring that you use as a seal.” Also, why does Onkelos translate פתילך as שושיפך, which means “your cloak”? In the verse it is written פתילך, “your thread.” Therefore Rashi explains that it means, “The cloak with which you cover yourself.” This is because פתיל is written regarding tzitzis (Bamidbar15:38), and about tzitzis it is written, “Your garment with which you cover yourself” (Devarim 22:12). So too here, [פתילך means,] “The cloak with which you cover yourself.”

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:18:2

Strong men, as he was; and righteous men, as he was. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ותהר לו? Scripture should have written ותהר ממנו. Just as it says צדקה ממני (v. 26), which Rashi explains as, “‘It is from me’ that she has become pregnant.” Perforce, לו means having similar traits. And we need not ask how Rashi knew they were strong and righteous, because the answer is that [both traits are equally implied. So] which one would you exclude?

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:18

He said: What is the collateral that I should give you? She said: Your signet, which was either on his ring or otherwise held close to his body, and your belt, and your staff that is in your hand. This appears to be a ruler’s staff, as the preceding verses indicate that Judah held some minor governing capacity. He gave them to her, engaged in intercourse with her, and she conceived by him. The fact that Judah gave this unknown woman various personal items including his signet, an item not normally given out or lent, as it is used to certify legal documents, demonstrates that Judah was not acting judiciously at that time.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:18:1

ופתילך, “and your garment.” According to Rashi the word is equivalent to שמלתך, your “decorative garment.” [normally, as opposed to בגד, an outer garment, שמלה is understood to refer to undergarments. Ed.] Nachmanides disputes Rashi’s interpretation, as, if Yehudah handed over such a garment (normal usage of שמלה), he would have had to walk away naked. Furthermore, how could the Torah refer to a שמלה by the description פתיל? Besides, since when does the word פתיל occur in the plural? If you were to counter that we find this plural in connection with the commandment of ציצית, it is inconceivable that Yehudah would use a garment with sacred fringes and demean it in such a fashion. [the vowel segol in the word פתילך is taken by Nachmanides to indicate a plural form. Ed.] Perhaps he had a small cloth in his hand, something short like a פתיל, a cloth used to wind around one’s head, turban fashion, which Tamar referred to as פתיל because it was short. It is also possible that Yehudah’s signet ring had the shape of a lion, and he had pieces of short cloth that had been embossed with that ring. The staff מטה, he held in his hand in the fashion of rulers who carry a mace.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 76-77

“He gave them to her and slept with her and she conceived by him” [38:18]. He gave them to her and she conceived from him. Rashi asks a question here. What is the meaning of “she conceived by him”? The explanation is that she had children who were righteous as Judah. (Rashi, Genesis, 38:18.) Tamar went home immediately and donned her old clothes and Judah sent the kid to the woman. He wanted his pledges back, but they did not find her.

Midrash

The staff mentioned in various biblical stories, such as those of Yaakov, Yehudah, Moshe, Aharon, and David, is a symbol of kingship and messianic rule, as indicated by Psalms 110:2. The staff of Aaron that blossomed was a sign of divine approval, and it is said to be destined for the messianic king. Tamar's actions with Judah are seen as righteous, leading to the salvation of her descendants from fire, symbolized by Zerubbabel, the Temple, and the future Messiah. Joseph's refusal of Potiphar's wife is compared to Mordechai's similar ordeal, highlighting their equal greatness and trials.

Aggadat Bereshit 27:2

[2] Another explanation: "Return to your right hand, the tribe of your strength; God will send forth His loving kindness from Zion. Which tribe is it that Tamar, from Judah, took? As it says, "Your seal, your cord, and your staff" (Genesis 38:18). Once she passed them over, "About three months later" (Genesis 38:24), she was found with them, and he gave her a pledge and did not burn her. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: "Since you have admitted, 'She is more righteous than I' (Genesis 38:26), I too acknowledge that three will come forth from your descendants and will be saved from the fire: Tamar and her two sons. Your descendants will also be saved, for I will save three of your descendants from the fire - Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah - as it says, 'Then these men were released from the fiery furnace' (Daniel 3:26)." At that time, Judah took three crowns - "Your seal" refers to Zerubbabel, as it says, "On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, Zerubbabel" (Haggai 2:23), "and I will make you like a signet" (Haggai 2:23), "Your cord" refers to the Temple, as it says, "And he had a line of flax in his hand and a measuring reed" (Ezekiel 40:3), "Your staff" refers to the Messiah who is destined to arise from your descendants, as it says, "The staff of your strength, God will send forth from Zion" (Psalms 110:2)."

Bamidbar Rabbah 18:23

"And Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and all their princes gave him a staff for each prince, a staff for each prince according to their father's houses, twelve staffs, and the staff of Aaron among their staffs (Number 17:21). “It was on the next day, and Moses came into the Tent of the Testimony, and, behold, the staff of Aaron of the house of Levi had blossomed, it had produced a blossom, and had sprouted a bud, and bore almonds” (Numbers 17:23). “And Aaron’s staff” (Numbers 17:21) – some say it is the staff that was in Judah’s hand, as it is stated: “And the staff that is in your hand” (Genesis 38:18). And some say it is the staff that was in Moses’s hand and it blossomed on its own, as it is stated: “And behold, the staff of Aaron… had blossomed.” Some say: Moses took one beam and cut it into twelve planks, and he said to them: ‘All of you take your staffs from one beam.’ Why did Moses do so? “Refraining from a quarrel is honor for a man, and every fool will be exposed” (Proverbs 20:3). It is so they would not say that his staff was moist and blossomed. The Holy One blessed be He decreed regarding the staff, and the ineffable name that appeared on the frontplate [tzitz] was found upon it, as it is stated: “It had produced a blossom, and had sprouted a bud [tzitz]” (Numbers 17:23). It blossomed that night and produced a fruit, “and boree almonds [vayigmol shekedim]” (Numbers 17:23). It repaid [gamal] everyone who had striven [shoked] against the tribe of Levi. Why almonds and not pomegranates and not nuts? It is because Israel was likened to them. (Israel was likened to pomegranates and nuts, and what happened to Aaron’s staff was meant as an admonition for the people of Israel.) That staff was in the hand of each and every king until the Temple was destroyed, and it was sequestered. And that staff is destined to be in the hand of the messianic king soon, in our day, as it is stated: “The Lord will send your rod of strength from Zion; rule in the midst of your enemies” (Psalms 110:2).

Bereshit Rabbah 85:10

“It was about three months later that it was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law acted as a harlot; moreover, behold, she conceived through harlotry. Judah said: Take her out, and she shall be burned” (Genesis 38:24). Sumekhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: From where is it derived that the fetus is not noticeable in the woman’s womb until three months? From here: “It was about three months later.” Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Not at the end of three full months, but rather, most of the first, most of the last, and the entire middle one, and ultimately it is not three full ones. (If a woman conceived toward the beginning of the calendar month, her fetus will be noticeable after the remainder of that month, the entire following month, and the majority of the month after that have passed, even though that is not three full months. This is derived from the phrase “it was about three months later.” ) “Moreover, behold, she conceived through harlotry” – it teaches that she would pat her belly and say: I am pregnant with kings; I am pregnant with redeemers. (The phrase “moreover, behold, she conceived through harlotry” is understood to imply that she was not embarrassed that she had conceived; on the contrary, she was proud, even though onlookers assumed that it had occurred through harlotry (Yefe To’ar). ) “Take her out and she shall be burned” – Efrayim the cucumber seller [makshaa], (Cucumbers are kishuim; alternatively, makshaa refers to one who poses many questions [kushyot].) student of Rabbi Meir, said in the name of Rabbi Meir: Tamar was the daughter of Shem, as it is written: “The daughter of a man who is a priest, [if she shall profane herself by acting as a harlot…she shall be burned in fire]” (Leviticus 21:9); that is why [Judah said]: “Take her out, and she shall be burned.” (Shem is identified by the Sages (see Nedarim 32b) as Malkitzedek, of whom the verse states that “he was a priest to God, the Most High” (Genesis 14:18). Consequently, if a daughter of Shem had committed adultery, she would have incurred the punishment of burning. )

Bereshit Rabbah 85:9

“He said: What is the collateral that I should give you? She said: Your signet, and your belt, and your staff that is in your hand. He gave them to her and consorted with her, and she conceived by him” (Genesis 38:18). “What is the collateral that I should give…” – Rabbi Ḥuneya said: The divine spirit flashed in her. “Your signet [ḥotamekha]” – this is kingship, just as it says: “Set me as a seal [khaḥotam] upon your heart” (Song of Songs 8:6); (This verse is taken as an allusion to the kingship (see Shir HaShirim Rabba 8:6:2; Nezer HaKodesh, based on Zohar). ) “for if Konya, son of Yehoyakim king of Judah, would be a signet ring [ḥotam] upon My right hand” (Jeremiah 22:24). “And your belt [uftilekha]” – this is the Sanhedrin, which is identifiable by a thread, just as it says: “a thread of sky-blue wool” (Exodus 39:31). (The members of the Sanhedrin would always be wearing a tallit with sky-blue ritual fringes (Matnot Kehuna). Alternatively, they would wear special clothing as a sign of honor (see Rabbi David Luria; Rashash). ) “And your staff” – this is the messianic king, just as it says: “A staff will emerge from the stump of Yishai” (Isaiah 11:1); “the Lord will send your staff of strength from Zion” (Psalms 110:2). “He gave them to her…and she conceived by him” – mighty like him and righteous like him. “Judah sent the goat kid in the hand of his friend the Adulamite, to take the collateral from the woman, but he did not find her” (Genesis 38:20). “Judah sent…” – Yehuda bar Naḥman in the name of Reish Lakish: “Playing [mesaḥeket] in the world of His earth” (Proverbs 8:31), “playing [mesaḥeket] before Him at all times” (Proverbs 8:30). This is the Torah, which makes a mockery [mesaḥeket] of people. (People who seek to avoid the Torah’s judgment.) The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You deceived your father with a goat kid; as you live, Tamar will deceive you with a goat kid.’

Bereshit Rabbah 87:6

“It was as she spoke to Joseph, day after day, and he did not heed her to lie with her, to be with her” (Genesis 39:10). “It was as she spoke to Joseph, day after day” – Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Binyamin: Rachel’s children, (The reference is to Joseph and to Mordekhai, who was a descendant of Benjamin. ) their ordeal was equal and their greatness was equal. Their ordeal was equal – “it was as she spoke to Joseph, day after day”; “it was, as they spoke to him, day after day” (Esther 3:4). Their greatness was equal – “Pharaoh removed his ring” (Genesis 41:42); “the king removed his ring” (Esther 8:2). “And he placed it upon Joseph's hand” (Genesis 41:42); “and he gave it to Mordekhai” (Esther 8:2). “He dressed him in garments of linen” (Genesis 41:42); “and place the garments and the horse…Haman took [the garments and horse and dressed Mordekhai]” (Esther 6:9–11). “He placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42); “Esther placed Mordekhai over the house of Haman” (Esther 8:2). “He had him ride in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43); “he had him ride the horse through the city square” (see Esther 6:11). “They cried before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43); “he cried before him: So [shall be done to the man whose honor the king desires]” (Esther 6:11). “And he did not heed her to lie with her” – in this world, “to be with her” – to be with her in Gehenna in the future. Another matter, “he did not heed her” – even for lying [with her] without intercourse. A noblewoman asked Rabbi Yosei, she said to him: ‘Is it possible that Joseph, seventeen years old, at the height of his passion, could conduct himself in such a manner?’ (Is it really possible that he withstood the temptation? ) He took out for her the book of Genesis and began reading before her the incident of Reuben and Bilha, (Genesis 35:22.) the incident of Judah and Tamar. (Genesis 38:18.) He said to her: ‘If these two, who were adults and in their father’s domain, the verse did not cover up their actions, this one who is young and on his own, all the more so.’

Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 763:12

“Take the staff…” (Bamidbar 20:8) This is what the scripture says “The staff of your might the Lord will send from Zion…” (Psalms 110:2) This is the staff which was in the hand of our father Yaakov, as it says “…for with my staff I crossed…” (Genesis 32:11) And it is the staff which was in the hand of Yehudah, as it says “Your signet, your cloak, and the staff that is in your hand.” (Genesis 38:18) And it was in the hand of Moshe, as it says “And you shall take this staff in your hand…” (Exodus 4:17) And it was in the hand of Aharon, as it says “Aaron cast his staff…” (Exodus 7:10) And it was in the hand of David, as it says “And he took his staff in his hand…” (Samuel I 17:40) And it was in the hand of every king until the Holy Temple was destroyed, and so in the future that very staff will be given to the King Messiah and with it he will rule over the nations of the world in the future. Therefore it says “The staff of your might the Lord will send from Zion…” (Psalms 110:2)…

Second Temple

The text discusses the concept of conceiving or taking in relation to the art or science studied, emphasizing the relationship between the learner and the instructress. It also mentions the symbolism of a golden collar and royal ring in dreams, contrasting them with the adornments given to Tamar by Judah. Additionally, it highlights the idea of God giving shape and form to the substance of the universe, stamping it with His image and Word.

On Dreams, Book II 6:4

[44] In the next place he puts round his neck “a golden collar” (Gen. 41:41 f.), a manifest halter, a circlet and hoop of unending necessity, not a life of orderly sequence, not the chain which marks Nature’s doings: these are properties of Tamar, whose adornment is not a collar but a necklace  (Gen. 38:18). Yes, and he puts on his finger a royal ring (Gen. 41:42), a gift and pledge, by which nothing is given, nothing pledged, in sharp contrast once more to that which was given to Tamar by Judah, king of the nation that sees, even Israel.

On Dreams, Book II 6:5

[45] For this king gives the soul a seal (Gen. 38:18), a gift all-beauteous, by which he teaches it that when the substance of the universe was without shape and figure God gave it these; when it had no definite character God moulded it into definiteness, and, when He had perfected it, stamped the entire universe with His image and an ideal form, even His own Word. 

On Mating with the Preliminary Studies 23:3

[126] And so then after he went in to her, we read of a conceiving or taking (Gen. 38:18). Who it is who conceives or takes we are not told in so many words. For the art or science that is studied does seize and take hold of the learner and persuades him to be her lover, and in like manner the learner takes his instructress, when his heart is set on learning.

Talmud

The Talmud explains that the word "mutzet" in the verse about Tamar's court hearing indicates that her signs of pregnancy, which proved she was impregnated by Judah, were initially moved apart by the evil angel Samael but then brought back together by the angel Gabriel to ensure the survival of Tamar and the birth of King David (Sotah 10b:4).

Sotah 10b:4

The verse describes Tamar’s court hearing: “When she was brought forth [mutzet], she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:25). The Gemara comments: It should have stated: When she was mitutzet. The word mutzet also carries the implication of being found. What then, is taught by the use of that term? Rabbi Elazar says: After her signs, which she was using to prove that she was impregnated by Judah, were brought out, the evil angel Samael came and distanced them from each other in an attempt to prevent Judah’s admission and Tamar’s survival, which would enable the birth of King David. The angel Gabriel then came and moved the signs closer again. Therefore, the word mutzet is used, as it alludes to the signs being found again.

Targum

Judah asked for a pledge from Tamar, who requested his signet ring, wrap, and staff. Judah gave them to her, slept with her, and she became pregnant (Onkelos Genesis 38:18; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:18).

Onkelos Genesis 38:18

He said, What security shall I give you? She said, Your signet ring, your wrap, and your staff that is in your hand. He gave them to her and was with her, and she became pregnant by him.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:18

And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she answered, Thy seal, and thy mantle, and thy staff which is in thy hand. And he gave (them) to her, and went in with her; and she conceived by him.

וַתָּ֣קׇם וַתֵּ֔לֶךְ וַתָּ֥סַר צְעִיפָ֖הּ מֵעָלֶ֑יהָ וַתִּלְבַּ֖שׁ בִּגְדֵ֥י אַלְמְנוּתָֽהּ׃ 19 J Then she went on her way. She took off her veil and again put on her widow’s garb.
Tamar's choice to dress as a widow in Genesis 38:19 symbolized her refusal to marry and her success in becoming pregnant by Judah, changing her status from barren widow to married mother. The detailed descriptions of her changing garments highlight the importance of clothing in the story, with Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan specifically mentioning her actions of taking off her veil and putting on her widow's garb.

Commentary

Tamar dressed as a widow to show she was no longer willing to marry, having achieved her goal of becoming pregnant by Judah. This was significant as many women desired to be biologically connected to Abraham. Tamar's actions ensured Judah would marry her, changing her status from barren widow to married mother.

Radak on Genesis 38:19:1

ותסר צעיפה מעליה, from her head and face.

Radak on Genesis 38:19:2

ותלבש, her conduct proves that she had no intention of becoming pregnant by anyone other than Yehudah. Many women of that period had an overpowering desire to somehow be impregnated by the sperm of Avraham the patriarch, even though it might have been diluted with other genes. Being biologically connected to Avraham was an important status symbol.

Sforno on Genesis 38:19:1

ותלבש בגדי אלמנותה, because she was no longer willing to be married, seeing that she had achieved her purpose and was with child from the man whose seed she wanted to perpetuate.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:19

After Judah left, she arose, went, and removed her veil from upon her, and she donned the garments of her widowhood. Tamar achieved her goal: Through her actions, she effectively guaranteed that Judah would consummate a levirate marriage with her. She succeeded in changing her status from barren widow to married mother, and she fulfilled her desire to be the wife of a member of Judah’s family.

Quoting Commentary

The importance of clothing in the story of Tamar is highlighted by the detailed descriptions of her changing garments in Bereshit 38:14 and 38:19. The Zohar explains the concept of God descending from holiness to inspect the actions of humanity, using the imagery of clothing as a veil or curtain through which He observes without being seen, emphasizing the removal of all forms attributed to God in the Torah.

Ketem Paz on Zohar 75a:6

[...] And after it introduced this, it returns to explain Scripture which says: “And HaShem descended” (Genesis 11:5), and it is asked on which side [is] the designation “descent” of Him Blessed be He and the designation “seeing”, and it says: “He descended from holiness to profane, ‘and a cape-tool’ (ורדיד פריסא), to inspect what they had built, and they had established a place to wake up in the world to a deity for them” [Zohar I.75b]. He [the Zohar] says, that from the perspective of His being clothed in the garments of profanity in the secret of the six days of work, as has been explained above, [that is] that this belongs to his providence for those below, it is said with respect to Him “descent” and “seeing”. And this is רדיד פריסא, as if He has clothed Himself with a veil צעיף – veil [is in] Targum Jerusalem [on Genesis 38:19] רדידא, and similar וכן ואת הרדידים “and the capes” [Isaiah 3:23]. And פריסא is a curtain, and thus in the language of our Sages of blessed memory, a פריסא is a tool (תשמיש), of the tool the explanation [is] a curtain that one spreads in front of the [Torah] Ark, is a tool for the Ark, and the Ark is a tool for the Torah Scroll [Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 26b]. As if to say He has stretched and flattened a curtain on Himself in the shape of a robe, [in order] to observe through it what the Generation of the Dispersion had built, and they all agreed as one to inspire awe in the world and to make a god for them. And the explanation of וירד from the word רדיד is, that intention in it is to make known that He sees and is not seen, similar to one who stands behind the curtain and sees another person but he [himself] is not seen. And you already know that all that is stated on this, is from our side, not from the side of He that is blessed, God forbid! And the Rabbi of blessed memory [Maimonides] already elaborated in the Guide of the Perplexed on the removal of all forms that in the Torah are attributed to Him that is blessed.

Redeeming Relevance; Exodus, CHAPTER 6 Clothing Aharon 29

In line with the main topic of this chapter, clothing seems to take on unusual import in the story of Tamar – especially in the discussion of Tamar’s meeting with Yehudah at Petach Einayim. When the Torah goes into such great detail, telling us that she took off one set of clothing for another and then that she removed that clothing and put the first set back on (Bereshit 38:14 and Bereshit 38:19), (Bereshit 38:14, 19.) it is clearly inviting us to understand the relationship between Tamar and her clothes.

Targum

In Genesis 38:19, Targum Onkelos mentions that Tamar took off her veil and put on her widow's garb. Targum Jonathan also states that she put on the dress of her widowhood. Targum Jerusalem simply mentions her veil.

Onkelos Genesis 38:19

She got up and went away. She took off her veil, and put on her widow’s garb.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 38:19

Her veil.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:19

And she arose and went, and put her veil from her, and put on the dress of her widowhood.

וַיִּשְׁלַ֨ח יְהוּדָ֜ה אֶת־גְּדִ֣י הָֽעִזִּ֗ים בְּיַד֙ רֵעֵ֣הוּ הָֽעֲדֻלָּמִ֔י לָקַ֥חַת הָעֵרָב֖וֹן מִיַּ֣ד הָאִשָּׁ֑ה וְלֹ֖א מְצָאָֽהּ׃ 20 J Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite, to redeem the pledge from the woman; but he could not find her.
Judah sent a kid to Tamar through his friend Hira as collateral, but Hira did not find Tamar. Tamar asks for collateral from Judah before consorting with him, symbolizing kingship and the Torah's ability to mock those who seek to avoid judgment. Rashi explains that the term "גדי" includes calves and lambs, with Ibn Ezra discussing the offering of first-fruits and Bartenura clarifying excluded animals. Rabbi Elazar derives kashrut laws from Judah sending a kid of the goats, and Targum states that Judah sent a goat-kid with his friend to retrieve security from a woman but could not find her.

Commentary

Judah sent a kid to Tamar through his friend the Adulamite Hira to retrieve his collateral, trusting Hira's discretion. However, Hira did not find Tamar at the designated place.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:20

After some time, out of a sense of obligation and a desire to retrieve his collateral, Judah sent the kid to Tamar in the hand of his friend the Adulamite. Since Hira was a close friend, Judah trusted his discretion and was not ashamed to send him on this mission. However, Hira came to the place where Judah initially met the woman, to take the collateral from the woman, but he did not find her.

Midrash

Tamar asks for collateral from Judah before consorting with him, symbolizing kingship, the Sanhedrin, and the messianic king. Judah is deceived by Tamar, paralleling his deception of his father with a goat kid, symbolizing the Torah's ability to mock those who seek to avoid its judgment.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:9

“He said: What is the collateral that I should give you? She said: Your signet, and your belt, and your staff that is in your hand. He gave them to her and consorted with her, and she conceived by him” (Genesis 38:18). “What is the collateral that I should give…” – Rabbi Ḥuneya said: The divine spirit flashed in her. “Your signet [ḥotamekha]” – this is kingship, just as it says: “Set me as a seal [khaḥotam] upon your heart” (Song of Songs 8:6); (This verse is taken as an allusion to the kingship (see Shir HaShirim Rabba 8:6:2; Nezer HaKodesh, based on Zohar). ) “for if Konya, son of Yehoyakim king of Judah, would be a signet ring [ḥotam] upon My right hand” (Jeremiah 22:24). “And your belt [uftilekha]” – this is the Sanhedrin, which is identifiable by a thread, just as it says: “a thread of sky-blue wool” (Exodus 39:31). (The members of the Sanhedrin would always be wearing a tallit with sky-blue ritual fringes (Matnot Kehuna). Alternatively, they would wear special clothing as a sign of honor (see Rabbi David Luria; Rashash). ) “And your staff” – this is the messianic king, just as it says: “A staff will emerge from the stump of Yishai” (Isaiah 11:1); “the Lord will send your staff of strength from Zion” (Psalms 110:2). “He gave them to her…and she conceived by him” – mighty like him and righteous like him. “Judah sent the goat kid in the hand of his friend the Adulamite, to take the collateral from the woman, but he did not find her” (Genesis 38:20). “Judah sent…” – Yehuda bar Naḥman in the name of Reish Lakish: “Playing [mesaḥeket] in the world of His earth” (Proverbs 8:31), “playing [mesaḥeket] before Him at all times” (Proverbs 8:30). This is the Torah, which makes a mockery [mesaḥeket] of people. (People who seek to avoid the Torah’s judgment.) The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You deceived your father with a goat kid; as you live, Tamar will deceive you with a goat kid.’

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that the term "גדי" includes calves and lambs, with the law against cooking a kid mentioned three times to prohibit eating meat with milk, deriving other benefits from the mixture, and boiling meat with milk. Ibn Ezra discusses the offering of first-fruits as directed to the individual, while Bartenura clarifies that the term "kid" excludes fowl, beasts of chase, and unclean cattle based on biblical verses.

Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin 8:4:2

פרט לחיה ולעוף ולבהמה טמאה – a “kid,” excluding fowl which is not cattle. A “kid,” excluding a beast of chase, and even though a beast of chase is included within cattle. An additional Biblical verse comes to exclude it. A “kid,” and not unclean cattle, and we derive if from what is written (Genesis 27:16): “with the skins of the kids;” “Judah sent the kid [by his friend the Adullamite]” (Genesis 38:20) – here the Biblical verse explains to you that this “kid” is from the goats. But if he did not explain this, there is by implication, even the rest of the cattle, hence it was necessary for him to explain this.

Ibn Ezra on Exodus; Perush HaArokh 23:19:1

THE CHOICEST FIRST-FRUITS OF THY LAND. This is what And if thou bring a meal-offering of first-fruits unto the Lord (Lev. 2:14) refers to. As I will explain in its place, the verse (Lev. 2:14.) is directed to the individual. (Rather than the community. According to Rashi, Lev. 2:14 speaks of the Omer which the community is obligated to offer. Hence I.E.’s comment. See Rashi on Lev. 2:14.) Scripture mentions this law after Thou shalt not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread (v. 18), for the first fruits begin then. (One is permitted to start enjoying one’s first fruits from the second day of Passover. See Lev. 22:9-14.)

Rashi on Exodus 23:19:2

לא תבשל גדי THOU SHALT NOT COOK A KID — A calf and a lamb also are comprehended under the term גדי, for גדי means nothing more than a young tender animal, as you may gather from the fact that you will find in several passages in the Torah that the term גדי is used and that the writer felt it necessary specially to explain it by adding after it the word עזים, as, e. g., (Genesis 38:17) “I will send forth a גדי of the goats”; (Genesis 38: 20) “the גדי of the goats”; (Genesis 27:9) “two kids of the goats (גדיי עזים)”. This fact serves to show you that wherever גדי is mentioned without further description the term implies also a calf and a lamb. — In three different passages the law לא תבשל גדי is written: once for the purpose of prohibiting the eating of meat-food with milk-food, once to prohibit us from deriving any other benefit (besides eating) from such mixture, and once to prohibit the boiling of meat with milk (Mekhilta; Chullin 115b).

Talmud

Rabbi Elazar derives the laws of kashrut from the verse in Genesis 38:20 where Judah sent a kid of the goats.

Chullin 113a:20

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: The verse states: “And Judah sent the kid of the goats” (Genesis 38:20).

Targum

Yehudah sent a goat-kid with his friend to retrieve a security from a woman, but they were unable to find her.

Onkelos Genesis 38:20

Yehudah sent the goat-kid with his friend the Adullamite, to retrieve the security from the woman, but he could not find her.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:20

And Jehuda sent the kid of the goats by the hand of his friend the Adullemite, to bring back the pledge from the hand of the woman; but he found her not.

וַיִּשְׁאַ֞ל אֶת־אַנְשֵׁ֤י מְקֹמָהּ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אַיֵּ֧ה הַקְּדֵשָׁ֛ה הִ֥וא בָעֵינַ֖יִם עַל־הַדָּ֑רֶךְ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ לֹא־הָיְתָ֥ה בָזֶ֖ה קְדֵשָֽׁה׃ 21 J He inquired of the council of that locale, (council of that locale Or “locals.” Heb. ’anshe meqomah; cf. 26.7; 29.22; 34.20. NJPS “people of that town,” trad. “men of….” See further the Dictionary under ’ish.) “Where is the prostitute, (prostitute Meaning of Heb. qedeshah uncertain. Perhaps a type of female functionary at a religious site. Trad. “harlot.” NJPS “cult prostitute,” but the notion that ancient Near Eastern religions included prostitution as a religious act has since been discredited.) the one at Enaim, by the road?” But they said, “There has been no prostitute here.”
The term "הקדשה" refers to a woman always ready for sexual relations, with a male equivalent mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:18 and 1 Kings 14:24. Yehudah asked for the location of the harlot, but the men denied knowledge of her. Rashi explains it as a woman devoted to illicit intercourse, while Bekhor Shor compares it to being prepared for sex as in Numbers 11:18. Ibn Ezra explains "kedeshah" as a woman known for offering herself to all, and "kadesh" as the passive partner in male homosexual intercourse, connecting it to Egyptian practices. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan mention a man asking about a harlot at a junction, with the men denying her presence in Genesis 38:21.

Commentary

The term "הקדשה" refers to a woman who is always ready for sexual relations with any male, with a male equivalent mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:18 and 1 Kings 14:24. Yehudah asked the men of the alley where the harlot lived for her location, but they denied any knowledge of a prostitute being there. Rashi explains "הקדשה" as a woman devoted to illicit intercourse, while Bekhor Shor compares it to being prepared for sex as in Numbers 11:18.

Bekhor Shor, Genesis 38:21:1

The cult prostitute [hakedeisha; הקדשה]. A woman available/prepared for sex, as in "purify yourselves [hitkadshu; התקדשו] for tomorrow" (Bamidbar 11:18).

Radak on Genesis 38:21:1

וישאל..אנשי מקומה, in the alley where she lived. Yehudah must have asked her for her address; how else could he expect to redeem the items he had left with her? She had therefore named a certain alley as her address. When Chirom came there to seek her out at the address she had given Yehudah, and he did not see a harlot in that alley, he asked people of the alley if they knew where the harlot was who had been plying her trade at the road junction. The local residents told him: לא היתה בזה קדשה, that in that location there had not been any prostitute. Both the words בזה and מזה occur in the Torah as references to locations, as we know already from 37,17.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:21:1

הקדשה, the harlot; a woman who is always ready to have sexual relations with any male. The male equivalent of the term is found in Deuteronomy 23,18. where the Torah instructs the Jewish people not to tolerate this phenomenon, and in Kings I 14,24 where the presence of such male prostitutes is acknowledged with the words וגם קדש היה בארץ, a phenomenon which surfaced immediately after the death of King Solomon.

Rashi on Genesis 38:21:1

הקדשה— means a woman who is devoted to, (מקדשת) and who is ever ready for illicit intercourse.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:21

He asked the men of her place, saying: Where is the harlot, who was at Einayim on the way? They said: There was no harlot here.

Musar

The relationship between Yehudah and Tamar in Genesis 38 alludes to a future time when Israel's spiritual level will surpass that of the angels, with even outsiders becoming sanctified. This is reflected in the question of "where is the holiness?" asked by the Adulamite, hinting at a time when G-d's name will be great, as seen in the three ways the Ineffable Name can be spelled. This reflects a future time when Israel will be asked "what has G-d wrought?" in relation to their spiritual level.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr 105

One of the most prominent allusions to such a development can be seen in the relationship between Yehudah and Tamar. When Yehudah sent his partner to pay Tamar the promised kid and to retrieve his signet ring, etc., the Adulamite is reported as asking the men of her place איה הקדשה, "where is the harlot that had been at the roadside?" This can also be read as Ayeh haKedushah "where is the holiness?" He received the reply that there had not been a harlot in that place (Genesis 38,21-22). This is an allusion to the angels who are constantly asking each other for the site of G–d's holiness, and who, in the future, are going to address this question to Israel. Israel's spiritual level in those days will be so far superior to that of the angels that even those who had been considered as חצונים, will have become sanctified outsiders, from a spiritual point of view. At that time the name of G–d will be as we say in the קדיש prayer: י"הא שמיה רבא, His name will be great. The letters י"הא are an allusion to the three ways in which the Ineffable Name can be spelled as words, using either the method with the א, the method with the ה, or the method with the letter י. [Example: the letter ה can be spelled ה"א, or ה"ה, or ה"י. ] When all three methods are used G–d's name is "great." We have pointed out on another occasion that the question the angels ask Israel is: מה פעל א-ל I have elaborated on this when discussing the meaning of the קדושה.

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains that the term "kedeshah" refers to a woman known for offering herself to all, while "kadesh" refers to the passive partner in male homosexual intercourse. He also connects the term to Egyptian practices and suggests that the law regarding a harlot's hire follows because the previous section deals with a bondman.

Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 23:18:1

[THERE SHALL BE NO HARLOT] The law of the kedeshah (harlot) follows because the previous section deals with a bondman. (Slaves were considered to be promiscuous.) The transmitters of tradition say that the term kadesh (sodomite) refers to the one who is slept with. (The one who takes the passive position in male homosexual intercourse.) The phrase of the sons of Israel is proof of this. (That the reference is to the passive partner in male homosexuality, for the term “of” implies passivity. Otherwise Scripture would have used the term “among” (Krinsky, Meijler). I.E.’s point is that “of” means belonging to. Hence within the context of our verse it alludes to the docile sex partner.) Elihu said, [Their soul perisheth in youth] And their life as that of the depraved (kedeshim) (Job 36:14); their soul corresponds to their life and kedeshim corresponds to in youth. (I.E. renders this like youth; that is, their soul perishes like the souls of young men who are sodomites.) Scripture also states, And there were also sodomites (kadesh) in the land (I Kings 14:24); the house of the sodomites (kedeshim) II Kings 23:7). Scripture there continues, where the women (I.E. takes this reference to be to prostitutes (Krinsky).) wove coverings (Ibid.). I do not understand the meaning of the word kedeshah. (harlot). When we investigate carefully the meaning of the word we find that it refers to a woman who is known to be prepared to offer herself to all who come and go. Where is the harlot (kedeshah) (Gen. 38:21) is proof of this. If this is so, (If the term kedeshah refers to a female engaged in heterosexual intercourse, then so must the term kadesh, for kadesh is the masculine form of the noun.) then the term kadesh refers to an Egyptian-like practice. (I.E. believed that the ancient Egyptians were weak, and when they reached the age of forty they did not have the strength to deflower a virgin. They therefore had to turn to an individual who had the ability to do so on their behalf. This individual was called a kadesh. See I. E. on Haggai 2:12.) The intelligent will understand. (What I.E. is alluding to.) The law dealing with a harlot’s hire follows because our section deals with a harlot.

Targum

Both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:21 mention a man asking about a harlot at a junction, with the men of the place denying her presence.

Onkelos Genesis 38:21

He asked the men of her place, Where is the harlot that was at the junction, on the road? They said, There was [is] no harlot here.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:21

And he asked the men of the place, saying, Where is the harlot who was in the sight of the eyes by the way? And they said, There is no harlot here.

וַיָּ֙שׇׁב֙ אֶל־יְהוּדָ֔ה וַיֹּ֖אמֶר לֹ֣א מְצָאתִ֑יהָ וְגַ֨ם אַנְשֵׁ֤י הַמָּקוֹם֙ אָֽמְר֔וּ לֹא־הָיְתָ֥ה בָזֶ֖ה קְדֵשָֽׁה׃ 22 J So he returned to Judah and said, “I could not find her; moreover, the local council (local council Heb. ’anshe ha-maqom; NJPS “the townspeople.” See the first note at v. 21.) said: There has been no prostitute here.”
The men of the place told Judah they did not find the woman he was seeking, warning him of potential damage to his reputation. Midrash Tanchuma compares Jacob and Joseph's experiences, both born circumcised, exiled, exalted through dreams, and Joseph rewarded for not kissing in sin. Rabbeinu Bahya explains Reuven disarranging his father's bed as dishonoring both his father and God, highlighting the partnership in creating a person. Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan state that the men of Tamar's place confirmed there was no harlot there.

Commentary

The men of the place confirmed to Judah that they did not find the woman he was looking for, warning him that his pursuit could damage his reputation.

Sforno on Genesis 38:22:1

וגם אנשי המקום אמרו, in their uninhibited conversation. Chirom warned Yehudah that his pursuit of this search would be liable to hurt his image

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:22

He returned to Judah, and said: I did not find her. The men of the place also said: There was no harlot here.

Midrash

The Midrash Tanchuma states that Jacob and Joseph had similar experiences, as both were born circumcised, referred to as firstborns, exiled, exalted through dreams, and Joseph was rewarded for his actions by not kissing in sin.

Midrash Tanchuma, Miketz 3:7

Our sages interpreted the verse Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons (Ps. 45:17) to mean that everything that occurred to Jacob likewise happened to Joseph. Jacob was born circumcised, and so too was Joseph, as is said: These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph (Gen. 37:2). The former was called The son of my firstborn, Israel (Exod. 4:22), and the latter was spoken of as the firstborn was Joseph’s (I Chron. 5:2). The former was exiled to Haran, and the latter to Egypt. Jacob was exalted through a dream, as it is said: And He dreamed, and behold, a ladder set upon the earth (Gen. 38:22). Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream. R. Simeon the son of Gamliel said: Joseph was rewarded for his actions, for his mouth did not kiss in sin. Thus, according to thy mouth shall all my people be ruled (ibid. 41:40).

Quoting Commentary

Rabbeinu Bahya explains that when Reuven "slept with Bilhah," it actually means he disarranged his father's bed, symbolically desecrating both his father and the Divine Presence. This demonstrates that honoring one's father is also honoring God, as both are partners in creating a person. This is seen in Yaakov sleeping with Leah and the conception of Yissachar, showing the presence of the Divine Presence even on Yaakov's couch.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 49:4:1

כי עלית משכבי אביך, “because you mounted the couch of your father.” Yaakov revealed here that when the Torah wrote of Reuven that he “slept with Bilhah” (Genesis 38,22) that that verse is not to be taken literally, but that all he did was to disarrange the sheets on his father’s couch, compare Shabbat 55 where it is made clear that Yaakov criticised Reuven only for mounting the bed. This in itself was an act of desecration. According to the Talmud the words אז חללת...אביך must be understood as “then you desecrated your father (in heaven) whose Presence was associated with my bed.” Proof of the validity of this interpretation is the fact that Yaakov spoke of משכבי אביך, “your father’s beds (pl).” On the same folio of the Talmud our sages also said that this means that Reuven desecrated two couches, two sheets, that of his father, and that of the Divine Presence. The authors of that interpretation were forced to say this as they were of the opinion that the Divine Presence, שכינה, was ever present in Yaakov’s vicinity. G’d was never out of Yaakov’s thoughts. We have an interesting nuance in Genesis 30,16 where the Torah speaks of Yaakov sleeping with Leah on a night which was not originally her turn [in return for her giving Reuven’s dudaim to Rachel. Ed.]. The Torah does not write וישכב עמה בלילה ההוא, “he slept with her on that night,” but it writes: וישכב עמה בלילה הוא, “He (G’d) slept with her at night.” This is proof that the Divine Presence was present even on Yaakov’s couch. Leah’s conceiving on that night may well have been helped by that Divine Presence. She may have been aware of this when she called the son born to her as a result יששכר. This episode also teaches that anyone who honours his father also honours G’d vicariouly. Conversely, anyone who dishonours his father dishonours G’d at the same time. All of this corresponds to what our sages (Kidushin 30) taught that every human being is the result of input by three partners, i.e. his father, his mother, and G’d (who provides the soul). As a result, G’d accounts it as a meritorious deed when someone honours his father and mother, seeing that by honouring His partners such people honour G’d Himself. By doing this they treat G’d as if He were present in the company of his parents.

Targum

Onkelos Genesis 38:22: Yehudah was told by the men of Tamar's place that there was no harlot there. Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:22: The men of the place confirmed to Yehudah that there was no harlot there.

Onkelos Genesis 38:22

He returned to Yehudah and said, I did not find her, and the men of her place also said that there was [is] no harlot there [here].

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:22

And he returned to Jehuda and said, I could not find her: and the men of the place also said that no harlot was there.

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוּדָה֙ תִּֽקַּֽח־לָ֔הּ פֶּ֖ן נִהְיֶ֣ה לָב֑וּז הִנֵּ֤ה שָׁלַ֙חְתִּי֙ הַגְּדִ֣י הַזֶּ֔ה וְאַתָּ֖ה לֹ֥א מְצָאתָֽהּ׃ 23 J Judah said, “Let her keep them, lest we become a laughingstock. I did send her this kid, but you did not find her.”
Judah decides to let Tamar keep the pledge to avoid public embarrassment and uphold his promises, showing noble conduct and fulfilling obligations. Selichot prayers focus on Reuben and Judah's repentance for their sins involving Tamar. Targum highlights Judah's concern about humiliation if Tamar took the pledge. Virtue, represented by Tamar, is not found, leading to embarrassment for Judah.

Commentary

Judah decides to let Tamar keep the pledge, including a signet, cord, and staff, to avoid public embarrassment and because she did not make herself available for payment. This decision is based on his own previous deception involving a goat, as well as his desire to uphold his promises. The commentary emphasizes that Judah's actions were driven by a desire to avoid further disgrace and fulfill his commitments.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:23:1

LET HER TAKE IT. Forget about her and let her keep the pledge.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:23:2

LEST WE BE PUT TO SHAME. Lest I be a laughing stock, for giving a signet, cord and staff for something so insignificant.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:23:3

[BEHOLD, I SENT THIS KID, AND THOU HAST NOT FOUND HER.] This is a sign that she wants to keep the pledge. (Her not making herself available for payment is a sign that she intends to keep the pledge.)

Radak on Genesis 38:23:1

תקח לה, “let her keep it for herself so that we will not look like fools chasing these trinkets and the fact that I slept with a prostitute will become public knowledge.” In Bereshit Rabbah 85,9 the Midrash quotes Proverbs 8,31 משחקת בתבל ארצו as the Torah rejoicing (making fun) of people. Yehudah who had deceived his father by inviting him to guess Joseph’s fate by showing him the bloody and tattered remains of his striped coat, now had in turn been deceived and would become publicly embarrassed through the incident with Tamar. It is remarkable that in both instances the male goat, שעיר עזים, is featured as part of the process of deception, i.e. as the sin. [perhaps this accounts for that animal being a prime species for sacrifices meant to atone for sin. Ed.]

Rashbam on Genesis 38:23:1

תקח לה, not literally “let her take it,” but “let her keep it.” Yehudah said that he would not make an additional effort to find her and to redeem his pledges.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:23:2

פן נהיה לבוז, so we will not make ourselves laughing stocks by chasing after harlots.

Rashi on Genesis 38:23:1

תקח לה Let that remain hers which she has in her possession (i.e. LET HER KEEP IT).

Rashi on Genesis 38:23:2

פן נהיה לבוז LEST WE BECOME A SCORN — if you seek her further the matter will become public and disgrace will follow, for what more can I do to redeem my promise? (for I have sent this kid etc and I can do no more).

Rashi on Genesis 38:23:3

הנה שלחתי את הגדי הזה BEHOLD, I SENT THIS KID — Because Judah had deceived his father through a kid of the goats — for he had dipped Joseph’s coat in its blood — therefore he, too, was deceived through a kid of the goats (Genesis Rabbah 85:9).

Sforno on Genesis 38:23:1

הנה שלחתי, so that I have not betrayed my promise.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:23:1

Let her keep what she has. Rashi is answering the question: He already gave her it. Why does it say, “Let her take it?” Thus Rashi explains, “Let her keep...”

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:23:2

The thing will become public and will result in disgrace. Rashi is saying that the disgrace is not due to leaving the security with her.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:23:3

For what else is there for me to do to be true to my word? Rashi is answering the question: How is, “Behold I sent her...” a reason for what preceded? Thus Rashi explains that Yehudah meant: If you say I must [search for her] since I promised her a goat-kid, [this is not so]. For what else is there for me to do? “Behold, I sent her this kid...” I.e., Rashi inserted the phrase, “For what else is there for me to do,” before, “Behold I sent her,” to explain the connection between, “Let her take it,” and, “Behold I sent her.”

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:23

Judah said: If so, let her take it, the collateral, for her, lest we become a laughingstock; behold, I sent this kid, and you did not find her. If she does not want or is unable to claim her payment, then let the collateral remain with her. Although the items Judah deposited with the woman were of importance to him, he did not wish to continue searching for her.

Jewish Thought

Sexual intercourse is only permitted within marriage to prevent deception, as seen in the example of Boaz in Ruth 4:2. Judah's actions in Genesis 38 demonstrate noble conduct and uprightness in judgment, as he preferred to lose money than bring shame by discussing sexual matters publicly. This incident teaches the importance of keeping one's word and fulfilling obligations, whether it be in financial agreements or marital commitments. The ketubah payment in divorce is compared to the payment made to a harlot in ancient times, highlighting the importance of fulfilling financial obligations in relationships.

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 49:4

and sexual intercourse was only permitted when man has chosen a certain female, and married her openly; for if it sufficed merely to choose her, many a person would bring a prostitute into his house at a certain time agreed upon between them, and say that she was his wife. Therefore it is commanded to perform the act of engagement by which he declares that he has chosen her to take her for his wife, and then to go through the public ceremony of marriage. Comp. “And Boaz took ten men,” etc. (Ruth 4:2).

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 49:9

In the action of Judah we may perhaps notice an example of a noble conduct, and uprightness in judgment. He said: “Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her” (Gen. 38:23). For before the Lawgiving, the intercourse with a harlot was as lawful as cohabitation of husband and wife since the Lawgiving; it was perfectly permitted, nobody considered it wrong. The hire which was in those days paid to the harlot in accordance with a previous agreement, corresponds to the ketubah which in our days the husband pays to his wife when he divorces her. It is a just claim on the part of the wife, and the husband is bound to pay it. The words of Judah, “Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed,” etc., show that conversation about sexual intercourse, even of that which is permitted, brings shame upon us; it is proper to be silent about it, to keep it secret, even if the silence would lead to loss of money. In this sense Judah said: It is better for us to lose property, and to let her keep what she has, than to make our affair public by inquiring after her, and bring still more shame upon us. This is the lesson, as regards conduct, to be derived from this incident. As to the uprightness to be learned therefrom, it is contained in the words of Judah when he wanted to show that he had not robbed her, that he has not in the least departed from his agreement with her. For he said, “Behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her.” The kid was probably very good, therefore he points to it, saying, “this kid.” This is the uprightness which he had inherited from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: that man must not depart from his given word, nor deviate from what he agreed upon; but he must give to others all that is due to them. It makes no difference whether he holds a portion of his neighbour’s property as a loan or a trust, or whether he is in any other way his neighbour’s debtor, owing him wages or the like. The sum which the husband settles upon his wife (ketubah) is to be treated in the same way as the wages of a hired servant. There is no difference whether a master withholds the wages of a hired servant, or deprives his wife of that which is due to her; whether a master wrongs a hired servant, and brings charges against him with the intention to send him away without payment, or a husband treats his wife in a manner that would enable him to send her away without the payment of the promised sum.

Liturgy

Selichot prayers from different Nusachim emphasize the repentance of Reuben and Judah for their sins involving Tamar at Enaim, with a focus on pouring out their hearts in repentance to avoid condemnation and seek justification from God. The prayers call for a return to God and express a desire for forgiveness.

Selichot Nusach Ashkenaz Lita, Fast of Gedaliah 10:6

He [Reuben] who profaned his father’s bed, was unstable as water, his feet had almost slipped (He was almost condemned to Gehinom for his sin.) had he not poured out his heart as water. (Before You in repentance.) The young lion [Judah] sinned with Tamar at Enaim, (See Genesis 38:15–23.) when he confessed his sin, You inclined the scale to justify him. Cause us to return to You, Adonoy, and we shall return.

Selichot Nusach Lita Linear, Fast of Gedaliah 10:44

with Tamar at Enaim, (See Genesis 38:15–23.)

Selichot Nusach Polin, Fast of Gedaliah 9:6

He [Reuben] who profaned his father’s bed, was unstable as water, his feet had almost slipped (He was almost condemned to Gehinom for his sin.) had he not poured out his heart as water. (Before You in repentance.) The young lion [Judah] sinned with Tamar at Enaim, (See Genesis 38:15–23.) when he confessed his sin, You inclined the scale to justify him. Cause us to return to You, Adonoy, and we shall return.

Second Temple

Invincible Virtue, represented by Tamar, is not found by the messenger sent to seek her, leading to embarrassment for Judah as the woman he sent the kid of goats to was not there as expected (Gen. 38:20-23).

On Flight and Finding 27:1

[149] Again, it is in perfect keeping with the nature of things that invincible Virtue, bitterly vexed at men’s absurd aims—Tamar is her name—is not found by the messenger dispatched to seek her; for it is said, “And Judah sent the kid of the goats by the hand of his shepherd the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman’s hand: and he found her not. And he asked the men of the place, ‘Where is the harlot that was at Enaim by the wayside?’ And they said, ‘There was no harlot here.’ And he returned to Judah and said, ‘I have not found her, and the men of the place say that there is no harlot here.’ And Judah said ‘Let her have them, but let us never be laughed to scorn; I have sent this kid, and thou hast not found her’ ” (Gen. 38:20–23).

Targum

Yehudah was concerned about being humiliated if Tamar took the pledge, so he sent a kid or goat instead, but she was not found.

Onkelos Genesis 38:23

Yehudah said, Let her take it, lest we are humiliated [become a laughingstock]. Behold I sent her this kid, and you could not find her.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:23

And Jehuda said, Lest she should have taken the pledge, lest we become a laughing stock, behold, I have sent this goat, and thou canst not find her.

וַיְהִ֣י ׀ כְּמִשְׁלֹ֣שׁ חֳדָשִׁ֗ים וַיֻּגַּ֨ד לִֽיהוּדָ֤ה לֵֽאמֹר֙ זָֽנְתָה֙ תָּמָ֣ר כַּלָּתֶ֔ךָ וְגַ֛ם הִנֵּ֥ה הָרָ֖ה לִזְנוּנִ֑ים וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוּדָ֔ה הוֹצִיא֖וּהָ וְתִשָּׂרֵֽף׃ 24 J About three months later, Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot; in fact, she is pregnant from harlotry.” “Bring her out,” (out I.e., for a hearing in the local court of law. (Judah had no jurisdiction over someone living in another household, but he could sue as an aggrieved party.)) said Judah. “She should be burned!”
Judah ordered Tamar to be burned for harlotry based on her pregnancy and the moral depravity of the generation, with the tribunal sentencing her to death as a deterrent. Non-Jewish courts can use circumstantial evidence to administer justice, and the Talmud emphasizes the importance of maintaining dignity and the severity of adultery. In Kabbalah, the repair of BaN occurs when Nukva receives completion from Yesod, reflecting the mystery of male and female. Judah, Isaac, and Jacob judged Tamar, but she was saved from burning, with Judah's lineage connected to important figures. Rabbeinu Bahya criticizes Malki Tzedek for blessing Avram before God, and Rav Hirsch discusses the concept of Yibbum. The Gemara discusses avoiding public embarrassment and recognizes pregnancy after three months, with an objection raised about licentious intercourse with a gentile. Leviticus 21:9 states the punishment for a priest's daughter defiling herself, and Targum recounts Judah ordering Tamar to be burned for her pregnancy. In Tosefta, a virgin for niddah purposes is defined, and criteria for recognizing pregnancy are outlined.

Commentary

Judah ordered Tamar to be burned based on the belief that she was the daughter of Shem, a priest, and therefore subject to a stricter punishment for harlotry. Despite the lack of witnesses, Tamar was condemned due to her pregnancy and the moral depravity of the generation. The judgment was meant as a deterrent to sinners, and Tamar's status as a widow awaiting levirate marriage made her liable for the death penalty. The tribunal led by Judah, Yitzchok, and Yaakov sentenced Tamar to death, with Yehudah's vote being the first due to the rules of Jewish law. Tamar's pregnancy revealed her guilt, leading to the severe punishment of burning as a warning to others.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:24:1

זנתה תמר כלתך, “Tamar, your daughterinlaw, has committed an act of infidelity.” She observed the norms of a woman awaiting the levirate marriage, and therefore was out of bounds to any other male pending the resolution of her problematic marital status. She would be released only if her prospective “redeemer” refused to honour this obligation.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:24:2

וגם הנה הרה, “and she is also visibly pregnant.” She can no longer hide her condition.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:24:3

ויאמר יהודה, “Yehudah, acting as judge ruled;” was there no one more qualified to sit in judgment of Tamar than her fatherinlaw? Both Yitzchok and Yaakov were still alive! The fact is that they all sat in judgment of her. The reason why Yehudah was the first one to announce his opinion was because according to the rules of Jewish law when sins or crimes involving capital punishment are discussed the most junior of the judges is asked for his vote first.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:24:4

הוציאה ותשרף, “take her outside so that she will be burned to death!” Rashi comments that Tamar was the daughter (offspring) of Shem who had been a priest, and the Torah prescribes the death penalty by burning for women of priestly descent if they are found as having committed incest before marriage while betrothed. (Leviticus 21,9). In this particular instance, Tamar had not legally been betrothed to anyone, so that even after the Torah had been given she would not have been guilty of a capital offence. However, in those days people imposed severe penalties for infidelity in order to act as deterrent to eventual sinners. Besides, as pointed out, Tamar’s ancestor had been deprived of the title “priest” after when Avraham had defeated the four mighty kings of his era he blessed both Avraham and G-d but committed a fatal error by naming Avraham ahead of naming G-d. (Compare Genesis 14,1920) Nonetheless, (assuming Tamar was Shem’s his real daughter she would have been quite old. [Shem died in the year 2156 or 2157 B. C. E. having been born in the year 15567 B. C. E., and Yehudah, Tamar’s fatherinlaw was born in 2186 or 2185 B. C. E. At the time Shem was deprived of his status as a priest Avraham was between 75 and 87 years old, seeing that he had been born in the years 1948 B. C. E. If Tamar had been alive, then it does not require a mathematician to figure out how old a lady Tamar must have been when Yehudah selected her as his daughterinlaw for his son Er. Ed.] Some commentators (Talmud Avodah Zarah, folio 36) claim that even if Tamar had not been a daughter of Shem she would have deserved the death penalty if she had committed adultery with someone other than a partner in a levirate marriage ceremony. This is based on the assumption that she slept with a Canaanite. Even though Shem was dead, the court established by him continued to function after his demise. The court continued to be named after its founder. If you were to say that if Tamar was guilty of the death penalty then so was her partner Yehudah, we would have to answer that in that era an adult surviving would perform the levirate marriage rites, but if only brothers who were minors were available, the father would perform that duty.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 38:24:1

זנתה תמר כלתך, “your daughter-in-law Tamar has committed an act of adultery.” Why did the informant have to add that Tamar had also become pregnant as a result of her act of adultery? Perhaps we can answer that in that era when acts of adultery did not result in the woman becoming pregnant as a result, no legal proceedings were instituted against her. Alternately, proceedings used to be instituted after such a woman had committed adulterous acts with more than one individual.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 38:24:2

הוציאהו ותשרף, “take her outside so that she may be burned.” Ephrayim from Kahse, (location) says that Tamar was the daughter of Shem who we heard was the priest of Shalem, and as such if she had committed adultery while still in her father’s house, if sentenced to death for harlotry would die by burning; (Leviticus 21,9) (compare also B’reshit Rabbah 85,10). Yehudah’s judgment is hard to understand as there had been no witnesses to the adultery Tamar had been accused of. Neither had she been warned not to commit such an act and been advised of the potential penalty, as is required by Jewish law. Rabbi Joseph, a resident of the land of Israel, answered this by saying that the generation in which Yehudah lived was morally deprived, and in such circumstances warnings and witnesses are dispensed with when her pregnancy was proof enough of how it had come about. In times like that, the Torah applies additional measures to counteract serious crimes as no one would commit such acts in the presence of acceptable witnesses and after being warned. Rabbi Joseph based himself on the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin folio 46, where we read as follows: “Rabbi Eliezer son of Yaakov said that the Jewish Court is authorized to decree death penalties not according to the legislation of the Torah when the circumstances demand it, in order to be deterrents to potential sinners.” The Talmud quotes several historical instances when this occurred, including the carrying out of a death penalty against 80 witches on a single day, in spite of the generally accepted rule not to carry out more than one such sentence per day. This happened already during the first hundred years of the period of the second Temple. Joshua’s executing Achan ben Karmi for stealing from the loot of Jericho, obviously without witnesses, why else had lots to be cast to find the guilty party, (Joshua chapter 7) is further proof of the authority of the leader appointed by G–d in circumstances that are not normal. We are still left with the problem that if Tamar was indeed the daughter of Shem, and according to the historical data given to us by the Torah for the time when her father died, this occurred long before the sons of Yehudah were born, how could Yehudah have told her to return to the house of her father and spend there the years of her widowhood there? (Genesis 38,11) [According to the chronology of the Torah, Shem was born about 1557 after Adam was created, and died at the age of 500, i.e. in .2007 after the creation of Adam. Avraham was born in the year 1949 after the creation of Adam, he sired Yitzchak 100 years later. Yitzchok was 60 years old when he fathered Yaakov and Esau, and Yaakov was at least 88 years old when he fathered Yehudah, Tamar’s father in law. You, the reader do not need a calculator to understand the problem created by Rabbi Joseph quoted by our author. Ed.] He must have meant that “her father’s house,” was not to be understood literally, but he meant the family from which she stemmed.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:24:1

ABOUT THREE MONTHS LATER. When one speaks of three months a mem is prefixed to the word three. (Hence the term mishlosh (three months) in our verse.) When one speaks of three days a mem is suffixed to the word three. (Hence the term shilshom (three days ago) (Cherez). The Hebrew word for three is shalosh.)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:24:1

הוציאוה והשרף, "take her out and let her be burned!" The reason for this is that it is the prescribed penalty for adultery amongst the Gentiles as we know from Avodah Zarah 36. It is clear from there that even if the sin did not involve a sexual union forbidden by Biblical law either to Israelites or to Gentiles, the tribunal headed by Noach's son Shem appears to have legislated that a woman who was destined for her brother-in-law was liable to death if she had relations with someone else. As soon as Yehudah realised that he had been her partner, he knew she was free from that decree as it applied only to Gentiles amongst Gentiles, not to partners in a levirate union. Since a father-in-law was not culpable for sleeping with his Noachide daughter-in-law, no crime had been committed seeing Tamar was Jewish. Sotah 10 understands the words ולא יסף עוד לדעתה to mean that Yehudah did not discontinue being intimate with Tamar. This proves that their relationship had not been sinful, i.e. that the father of the deceased could legally perform the rite of the levirate marriage with his daughter-in-law.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:24:1

הוציאוה ותשרף, “take her outside to be burned.” All the onlookers accepted Yehudah’s verdict without argument. This teaches that Yehudah was the local judge of that community. It was the custom in that place that any woman found committing adultery would be burned. Bereshit Rabbah 85,10 quoted by Rashi 38,24 claims that Tamar was the daughter of Shem (the son of Noach whom we know as a Priest for the Supreme G’d from the time of Avraham). Seeing that the Torah provides the death penalty by burning for the daughters of Priests, (Leviticus 21,1) she was sentenced to be burned.

Radak on Genesis 38:24:1

ויהי כמשלש חדשים, after, or at the end of. The letter כ is used to describe a quantity, a measure, as in Samuel I 14,14 כעשרים איש, “approximately 20 people.” There are numerous similar examples in Scripture for the use of the prefix כ in that sense. In Bereshit Rabbah 85,10 Sumchus quotes Rabbi Meir as having said that this verse is the source of the statement that we cannot tell by looking at her that a woman is pregnant until 3 months after she conceived. Rabbi Hunna, quoting Rabbi Yosseph, added that what is meant is not that until the end of the third month of pregnancy no signs are visible. The pregnant woman herself can perceive signs after as little as 2 weeks, but outsiders cannot. [I amended the text of Rabbi Hunna’s comment in order to make it understandable. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 38:24:2

הוציאוה, to the site reserved for such executions by fire.

Radak on Genesis 38:24:3

ותשרף, for in accordance with the local practice a widow awaiting to be wed to her brother-in-law was subject to the same rules of adultery as a regularly married woman, i.e. death by burning. At the same time, she was not out of bounds to her father-in-law if he wanted to marry her in order to have seed from his deceased son. Both other sons of the surviving father and the father himself were close relatives of the deceased, after all. The surviving brother of the deceased had the first claim on such a widow, but Tamar, under the circumstances had been forced to become the wife of Yehudah seeing that Shelah had been denied her.

Ramban on Genesis 38:24:1

AND JUDAH SAID: BRING HER FORTH, AND LET HER BE BURNT! Ephraim Makshoah, (There are two interpretations for the name ‘Makshoah’: (a) he was a watchman in a cucumber field (kishuim); (b) he was a scholar famous for his great ability in debate (kasheh). See Commentaries to Bereshith Rabbah 84:11.) a disciple of Rabbi Meir, said in the name of Rabbi Meir: “Tamar was the daughter of Shem who was a priest. (See Ramban above, 14:18.) They therefore sentenced her to be burnt.” (See Leviticus 21:9.) Rashi quoted this Midrash but did not explain it. And I do not know this law, for a priest’s daughter is not liable to be burned except for harlotry in conjunction with a binding relation to a husband, either espoused or married, as is explained in the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin. (Sanhedrin 51b.) However, a priest’s daughter who is waiting to be married by a brother-in-law is not at all liable to death for harlotry. Whether she is an Israelite’s daughter or a priest’s daughter, her punishment is only that of having violated a simple negative precept. (This would be stripes, but not the death penalty.) And should you say that marrying a childless brother’s wife was customary among the Sons of Noah, and that she was regarded by them as having the status of a married woman, and that their prohibitions were punishable by death, it would not be correct. The Rabbis say in Bereshith Rabbah (85:6.) that Judah was the one who first inaugurated the observance of the commandment that a brother marry a childless brother’s widow. And again, in the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin, (Sanhedrin 58a.) it is made clear that a childless brother’s widow of the Sons of Noah is not at all liable to any punishment for harlotry. It appears to me that since Judah was a chief, an officer, and a ruler of the land, his daughter-in-law who committed harlotry against him was not judged by the same law as other people, but as one who degraded royalty. It is for this reason that it is written, And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt, for the people came before him to do unto her in accordance with his command, and he declared her guilty of a capital crime because of the superior rank of royalty. Thus he judged her as if she had profaned her father in respect of his priesthood, but this was not the judgment meted out to commoners. In line with the literal interpretation of Scripture, it is possible that their law was similar to that which is presently customary in some of the countries of Spain, i.e., that a married woman who commits a faithless act is turned over to her husband who decrees death or life for her, as he wishes. Now Tamar was designated for his son Shelah, and in the eyes of their laws she was considered as a married woman.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:24:1

זנתה תמר כלתך, if you were to ask why Yehudah would believe such accusations which would be hard to prove, the informant added that the signs of her pregnancy spoke for themselves as proof of the accusation being justified.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:24:2

ותשרף, according to the plain meaning of the text this was the standard penalty for a widow of Tamar’s status who had engaged in illicit sex.

Rashi on Genesis 38:24:1

כמשלש חדשים ABOUT THREE MONTHS AFTER — the greater part of the first, the greater part of the third and the entire middle (second) one (Genesis Rabbah 85:10). The expression כמשלש חדשים signifies “when the months repeated themselves three times”. The word משלש is similar in form to (Ester 9:19) “and sending (ומשלח) portions”; (Isaiah 11:14), “sending (משלח) forth their hand”. Onkelos renders it similarly כתלתות ירחיא (where תלתות is the infinitive of תַּלַּת “when the months become three”).

Rashi on Genesis 38:24:2

הרה לזנונים SHE IS WITH CHILD BY HARLOTRY — The word הרה is an adjective, meaning pregnant, like (Exodus 21:22) “a pregnant (הרה) woman” (where הרה can be only an adjective) and as (Song. 7:10) “Clear (ברה) as the sun” (where ברה is an adjective; Rashi perhaps quotes this example to prove also that הרה is from root הרר just as ברה is from ברר)

Rashi on Genesis 38:24:3

ותשרף AND LET HER BE BURNT — Ephraim the Disputant said in the name of Rabbi Meir: She was the daughter of Shem who was a priest (see Rashi on Genesis 14:18) on this account they sentenced her to be burnt (cf. Leviticus 21:9) (Genesis Rabbah 85:10).

Sforno on Genesis 38:24:1

וגם הנה הרה, she did not even bother to hide her condition which reflects negatively on you. This is similar to a statement by our sages in Yevamot 35 “when a woman had illicit sex she engages in all kinds of bodily convulsions to avoid becoming pregnant and thereby revealing her shame and that of her husband or lover.”

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:24:1

Most of the first and most of the last... Although the fetus is discernable only after three months, a third of the pregnancy, that is for [a full term, i.e.,] nine month pregnancy. But Tamar had a seven-month term. For it is written about her, “When the time came for her to give birth” (v. 27). It is not written, “When her days of pregnancy were completed,” as it does about Rivkah. So explains Rashi on 25:Because of this, the fetus was discernable before three months.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:24:2

And the entire middle month. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the opposite is true: it was the entire first and second month, and part of the third. Or, it was part of the first month, and the entire second and third month. The answer is: If so, it would be two months and just ten days [when the child would be discernable]. One of the months would be only ten days, i.e., a third of a month. This is a minority of a month, and cannot be considered a month, whereas the verse says: “About three months later,” implying three whole months. Re’m answers: Perhaps a fetus is discernable after a third of the pregnancy only if it includes the majority of the first month, the whole second month, and the majority of the third month. Since the majority is considered like all, it is counted like three whole months — and the months themselves have an effect [on the fetus’ development].

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:24:3

An adjective — pregnant... Rashi means as follows: Although הרה is sometimes a future tense verb, such as in, “Behold you will conceive (הרה) and give birth to a son” (16:11), here it cannot mean this. For how would they know that Tamar will conceive? Thus Rashi explains it as an adjective.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:24:4

She was the daughter of Sheim who was a Kohein... Not literally a daughter, for Sheim had died when Yaakov was fifty, and now Yaakov was over one hundred and ten. Rather, she was from Sheim’s family.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:24:5

They, therefore, sentenced her to be burned. You might ask: Why was she liable for burning? She was neither married nor betrothed, and only then is a Kohein’s daughter burned. Although she needed yibum, this does not make her liable for death because [promiscuity in such a case] is merely a Biblical prohibition: “The wife of the deceased shall not marry out” (Devarim 25:5). The answer is: They sentenced her to death so as to cast fear on the people and save the generation from becoming immoral. And once she had been sentenced to death, it was by burning because we find elsewhere that the execution of a Kohein’s daughter was by burning. Also Rashi holds this view, as he explains, “They, therefore, sentenced her to be burned.” This is as Re’m explained. But Maharshal asks: Was she not unmarried [and not liable for death]? He answers: She [was liable because she] needed yibum.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:24

It was some three months later, after Judah’s encounter with Tamar, that it was told to Judah, saying: Tamar, your daughter-in-law, acted licentiously; moreover, this is evidenced by the fact that behold, she conceived through harlotry. Tamar had no qualms about what she had done, as she felt that she had fulfilled the spirit of the law of levirate marriage. She therefore made no attempt to conceal her pregnancy. Nevertheless, since she seduced Judah in a deceitful manner, such that the identity of the father of the fetus was unknown to all except Tamar, she was susceptible to severe consequences, as she was tethered to Judah’s family with a marriage-like bond. The Sages refer to such a woman as a widow awaiting her brother-in-law. 26 Since it was assumed that she became pregnant through a man not from Judah’s family, her fate was to be that of an adulterous woman. Therefore, Judah, her father-in-law, the patriarch of his family, and a distinguished member of his community, said: Take her out, and she shall be burned.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:24:1

הוציאוה ותשרף, “take her outside to be burned.” Rashi explains this unusual type of the death penalty as due to the fact that Tamar was the daughter of Shem whom we know as the priest of the Supreme G’d from when he blessed Avraham, as well as the fact that he was King of Jerusalem, (Genesis 14) she was subject to this more severe death penalty for adulterous conduct, as per Leviticus Nachmanides questions this, saying that the legislation referred to in Leviticus is reserved for the daughter of a priest who is betrothed but not yet married properly. A widow waiting to be married to her brother-in-law, and therefore forbidden to any other male, is subject to the penalty imposed on violators of a normal negative commandment, not the death penalty. Besides, every capital crime committed by non-Jews is subject to death by the sword, never by burning. Furthermore, Yehudah’s statement צדקה ממני, after becoming aware of his almost fatal error, appears to reinforce Tamar’s guilt even more, a) because he, as the local leader of the region, should have lived a life completely beyond reproach, and certainly should not have slept with a whore; b) she, by engaging in extramarital relations had expressed disdain for the local authority. Keeping these two points in mind, he condemned her to death by burning. [some of these aspects are based on the opinion that Yehudah had realised that the woman he had presumed to have been a whore, was actually a virgin, something that in retrospect made him aware that his sons Er and Onan had never consummated their marriage to Tamar. The people who had brought Tamar before the tribunal had only known that she had become pregnant from someone not her husband and that she had not claimed to have been the victim of rape. Ed.] Looking at the plain unadorned text, we must remember that the law concerning women who had had illicit sexual relations while married, would have been handed over to her husband for him to do with her as he saw fit. Seeing that legally, Tamar was destined to be married to Shelah as soon as Shelah was old enough, she was in the category of a married woman according to local custom. Rabbi Yehudah the pious, explains that Yehudah did not actually condemn Tamar to be burned at the stake, but that she should be branded with a branding iron which would leave an indelible mark on her face so that she would be disgraced for all to see for the rest of her life. As soon as Yehudah found out that he was the father of the child Tamar was carrying, and that therefore she had not been a whore at all, he did not do anything to her. Many raise the question how Yehudah could pronounce judgment, saying: “take her outside and burn her,” seeing that according to Jewish law, a King is not subject to being judged by a court of his subjects, nor is he himself allowed to sit in judgment of anyone. In addition to this legal point, according to Jewish law, whenever a capital crime is dealt with in the court, and a vote is taken as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the first person polled is the youngest and not the most senior, so as not to sway the judgment of the junior judges. Here we were told only about the presiding judge’s Yehudah’s vote on the subject. A third difficulty is how could Yehudah, a relative, and therefore a biased participant, be allowed to be present at these proceedings at all? [all of the preceding is of course, based on the assumption that just as the brothers observed Torah law although it was not yet revealed to them as legislation, they complied also with the wider ramifications of Torah laws as found in the written text. Ed.] The answers suggested to these various reservations of our sages about Yehudah’s conduct, is that the trial of Tamar was conducted by Yitzchok, Yaakov and Yehudah being the tribunal. Seeing that Yehudah was the junior member of this tribunal, we are told about his vote first, something completely in accordance with Jewish law.. Another view voiced by a Midrash, claims that Tamar’s father, Shem, personally sat in judgment of her. With all due respect, this is chronologically impossible. A review of the relevant historical data will reveal that Shem had long been dead at that time. [According to Genesis 11,11 Shem died 501 years after the deluge, i.e. in the year 2157 after the creation of Adam. The Exodus occurred in the year 2448, after the Israelites had been in Egypt for 210 years. In other words, when Yedudah came to Egypt in the year 2238 he was about 3 years older than Joseph, who we know was 39-40 years at the time as testified by the Torah. This means that Yehudah was born in or around the year 2195, 27 years after the death of Shem. Ed.] As to the statement in Avodah Zarah 36 that the tribunal of Shem decreed that an unmarried male who has sexual relations with an unmarried female is subject to the death penalty, [seeing that for gentiles there is no other penalty, Ed.] and the origin of that law is attributed to the incident between Yehudah and Tamar, this does not mean that Shem, the founder of that tribunal was still alive, but that the academy and tribunal which he founded continued to bear the name of its founder, Shem.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 78-79

“Judah was told, Tamar has played the harlot” [38:24]. It was told to Judah that Tamar, his daughter-in-law, had become pregnant. Judah said that Tamar should be burned in the fire. Rashi writes that she was the daughter of Shem, who was a priest. That is why he ordered her to be burned. (Rashi, Genesis, 38:24.) Ramban writes. The custom was in some lands that a woman who engages in illicit sexual relations and is married, that woman is given into the hands of her husband. He can do whatever he wants with her. Tamar was supposed to marry Shelah. She was like a married woman. Therefore, he ordered her to be burned. (Ramban, Genesis, 38:24.)

Halakhah

Noachide courts may accept circumstantial evidence in meting out punishment, as they are empowered to administer "the king's justice" like Jewish courts. Non-Jewish monarchs have the authority to impose extra-statutory penal sanctions and legislative prerogatives to establish a just society, based on the commandment concerning dinin and the principle dina de-malkhuta dina. Non-Jewish governments can adopt laws binding upon Jews and gentiles to preserve stability, as seen in the Gemara's explanation of Judah's readiness to burn Tamar at the stake based on an edict of the Bet Din of Shem.

Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol II, Part II, Chapter XVII Capital Punishment in the Noachide Code 33

Quite apart from the thesis advanced by Or Sameaḥ, if it can be demonstrated that the king is empowered to accept circumstantial evidence in meting out punishment, a strong argument could be made in support of the position that Noachide courts may legitimately accept such testimony as well. Noachide courts may accept such evidence, it may be argued, not because in doing so they would be executing the provisions of the Noachide Code, but rather because, as the creatures of the state, they are also empowered to administer "the king's justice." It may well be argued that gentile governing bodies enjoy prerogatives identical to those of the Jewish king, including execution of the death penalty even when not prescribed by statutory law. (The authority of gentile kings, and hence of non-Jewish courts, to impose capital punishment upon Jews is another matter entirely. Rabbenu Nissim, a fourteenth-century scholar, Ḥiddushei ha-Ran, Sanhedrin 46a, refers to imposition of capital punishment by autonomous Jewish courts (a practice not entirely unknown in the medieval period; see sources cited by Simchah Assaf, Ha-Onshin Aḥarei Ḥatimat ha-Talmud [Jerusalem, 5684] and Menahem Elon, Ha-Mishpat Ha-Ivri [Jerusalem, 5738], I, 435 and 648) and decries this practice other than at the direct license of the civil government, since, insofar as Jewish law is concerned, capital punishment has lapsed. Ḥiddushei ha-Ran does however recognize the authority of Jewish courts “to judge by the authority of the license of the king,” i.e., to impose the king’s justice when warranted. This position clearly acknowledges a) the penal authority of non-Jewish kings; and b) the legitimate exercise of this authority over Jews as well as gentiles. See R. Saul Israeli, Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, IV, 73, who interprets Ran (incorrectly, in my opinion) as meaning that under such circumstances the Bet Din acts as if it were endowed with the authority of a Jewish monarch rather than as an agent of a gentile king. Cf., also Tur Shulḥan Arukh, Ḥoshen Mishpat 3. Similarly, Maharam Ḥalavvah, Pesaḥim 25b, recognizes the authority of gentile courts to enforce the death penalty upon Jews. This is also the position of Ritva and Teshuvot ha-Rashba as cited above, note 11, and appears to be the position of Teshuvot Maharam me-Lublin, no. 138. Me’iri, Sanhedrin 72b and Baba Meẓi‘a 83b, apparently acknowledges that non-Jewish monarchs are empowered to impose the death penalty upon Jews only for crimes which carry the death penalty under Jewish law. See also the position of R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, Torat Nevi’im, ch. 7, cited below, note 24.) This extension of the authority of Noachide courts is explicitly affirmed by Teshuvot Maharam Schick, Hoshen Mishpat, no. 50. (Maharam Schick is, however, troubled by the phraseology employed by Rambam, Hilkhot Roẓeaḥ 2:4: “If a king of Israel wishes to kill them in accordance with the law of the monarchy and [for] the benefit of the world, he has authority [to do so].” Maharam Schick suggests that Rambam means that even a king of Israel may impose extra-statutory punishment and certainly a non-Jewish king, who is not subject to provisions of the Sinaitic Code, is permitted to do so. See also Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 208, s.v. ad ka’n.) For Ramban, these prerogatives may be derived from the mizvah of dinin. For Rambam they are inherent in the powers of the monarch. The phrase in I Samuel 8:20, "we shall be like all the nations," which serves as a preamble to the delineation of the royal responsibilities, certainly indicates that such responsibilities were shouldered by gentile kings prior to the establishment of a monarchy among Jews. A literal reading of this passage would indicate that Scripture recognizes that any prerogatives enjoyed by a Jewish monarch may be legitimately exercised by a gentile king as well. (Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 9:14, states that Noachides are obliged to appoint “dayyanim ve-shoftim” in every district. The terms “dayyanim” and “shoftim” are ostensibly synonymous and hence employment of both terms seems redundant. I would suggest that, for Rambam, each word has a distinct meaning. Although the term “shofet” is employed in Scripture as meaning “a judge,” in rabbinic Hebrew a judge who administers biblical law is known as a “dayyan.” Rambam frequently uses the term dayyan in this context and presumably uses it with the same connotation in this instance as well. Rambam may then have used the earlier and more general term “shofet” in the sense of a judge who administers a broader code of law, i.e., “the king’s law.” Contemporary Hebrew usage mirrors this distinction: a judge in a rabbinic court is a dayyan; a judge in an Israeli civil court is a shofet. Understood in this manner, Rambam declares that gentiles are obligated to appoint dayyanim to enforce the Noachide Code as well as shoftim who may exercise extra-statutory power similar in nature to that which for Jews constitutes mishpat ha-melekh or “the king’s justice.”) Indeed, quite apart from the right of non-Jewish rulers to impose extra-statutory penal sanctions, it is clear that non-Jewish monarchs also enjoy legislative prerogatives and may promulgate laws designed to establish a just and enduring society. For Ramban, this authority may be predicated upon the commandment concerning dinin. Rashi, Gittin 9b, has been understood as expressing the view that the principle dina de-malkhuta dina is rooted in the commandment of dinin. (See R. Iser Zalman Meltzer, Even he-Azel, Hilkhot Malveh ve-Loveh 27:1. This does not necessarily contradict the opinion of those authorities who maintain that dinin must be understood as binding Noachides to the same system of jurisprudence as Jews; see above, note 3. Noachides must enforce biblical law in areas where such legislation exists, but may legislate with regard to matters for which no specific provision is made.) The principle dina de-malkhuta dina empowers non-Jewish governments to adopt laws designed to preserve political and social stability which are binding upon Jews as well as upon gentiles. However, even for Rambam, such authority must exist even though its source may be somewhat obscure. Evidence for the authority of Noachides to promulgate legislation regulating areas of conduct not encompassed by the Noachide Code may be found, for example, in the Gemara's explanation, Avodah Zarah 36b, of Judah's readiness to burn Tamar at the stake on the basis of an edict of the Bet Din of Shem which prohibited fornication. (Cf., R. Yitzchak Ze’ev Soloveitchick, Ḥiddusheiha-Griz al ha-Torah, Genesis 38:25, who describes Tamar as a “proselyte” and the edict as banning cohabitation between a gentile and a “Jewess.” Nevertheless, the Bet Din of Shem certainly did not enjoy the halakhic status of a Jewish court; it would therefore appear that the validity of any edict promulgated by that Bet Din must be predicated upon Noachide law. See R. Hayyim ibn Atar, Or ha-Ḥayyim, Genesis 38:24, who declares, “Perhaps they were in possession of a tradition [empowering them] to promulgate edicts and to execute one who transgresses the edict.”) The incident concerning Tamar also makes it clear that non-Jewish kings enjoy the power to punish those who violate these edicts. Indeed, in the absence of accompanying penal power legislative authority would be vacuous. Since Rambam understands the concept of dinin in an entirely different manner, as noted earlier, such legislative and penal power must be understood as being inherent in the institution of the monarchy. It would then stand to reason that non-Jewish monarchs may also invoke the monarchical prerogative in punishing violations of the Noachide Code.

Jewish Thought

The Talmud recounts a story of Mar 'Ukva providing charity to a poor man in secret to avoid shaming him, highlighting the importance of maintaining the dignity of others. Adultery is considered a serious offense, second only to taking a life, and is punishable by death for both parties involved.

Akeidat Yitzchak 45:1:21

This prohibition is second in importance only to the wrongful taking of a life. Adultery, a common method of creating such life, is therefore prohibited on pain of death of both partners in that crime.

What is the Talmud, VII What is written in the Talmud?, 8 Charity 14

Mar ‘Ukva had a poor man in his neighborhood into whose door-socket he used to throw four zuz every day. Once [the poor man] thought: ‘I will go and see who does me this kindness.’ On that day [it happened] that Mar ‘Ukva was late at the house of study, and his wife was coming home with him. As soon as [the poor man] saw them moving the door he went out after them, but they fled from him and ran into a furnace from which the fire had just been swept. Mar ‘Ukva’s feet were burning and his wife said to him: Raise your feet and put them on mine. As he seemed diappointed, she said to him, ‘I am usually at home and my charity gifts are direct’. And what [was the reason for] all that? — Because Mar Zutra ben Tuviah said in the name of Rav (others state: R. Huna ben Bizna said in the name of R. Shimeon the Pious; and others again state: R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimeon ben Yohai): Better had a man throw himself into a fiery furnace than publicly put his neighbor to shame. From where do we derive this? From [the action of] Tamar; for it is written in Scripture (Gen 38:24), When she was brought forth, [she sent to her father-in-law privately]. Ketubot 67b

Kabbalah

The repair of BaN is completed when Nukva receives completion from Yesod, leading to the joining of the male with her. This process follows the order of repair of the worlds through the mystery of male and female, with MaH encompassing the overall male and Nukva receiving from MaH. This rectified order is reflected in the construction of all worlds.

Kalach Pitchei Chokhmah 58:17

...and she herself arouses delight in the male himself... The repair of BaN was so instituted that when the Nukva receives completion from the side of Yesod (MaH), the male (Zeir Anpin) immediately comes and joins with her, i.e. AV, SaG and MaH join with BaN in the mystery of “about three months after” (Genesis 38:24) as explained in the teachings of the ARI. This is the order of repair of the worlds at all times through the mystery of male and female. But the overall male is included entirely in MaH, and the Nukva – BaN – receives from MaH. Initially she receives the radiation of Yesod which completes her construction, after which she also receives the flow of sustenance and blessing. All the worlds were afterwards built in accordance with this rectified order.

Midrash

Judah, Isaac, and Jacob judged Tamar for her actions, but she was saved from being burned. Judah's descendants, including Tamar and her sons, were saved from the fire as well. Judah's lineage is connected to the Messiah and other important figures who were saved, such as Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The text also discusses the importance of Judah in Israel and the significance of Judah's descendants in various aspects, such as leadership and redemption.

Aggadat Bereshit 27:2

[2] Another explanation: "Return to your right hand, the tribe of your strength; God will send forth His loving kindness from Zion. Which tribe is it that Tamar, from Judah, took? As it says, "Your seal, your cord, and your staff" (Genesis 38:18). Once she passed them over, "About three months later" (Genesis 38:24), she was found with them, and he gave her a pledge and did not burn her. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: "Since you have admitted, 'She is more righteous than I' (Genesis 38:26), I too acknowledge that three will come forth from your descendants and will be saved from the fire: Tamar and her two sons. Your descendants will also be saved, for I will save three of your descendants from the fire - Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah - as it says, 'Then these men were released from the fiery furnace' (Daniel 3:26)." At that time, Judah took three crowns - "Your seal" refers to Zerubbabel, as it says, "On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, Zerubbabel" (Haggai 2:23), "and I will make you like a signet" (Haggai 2:23), "Your cord" refers to the Temple, as it says, "And he had a line of flax in his hand and a measuring reed" (Ezekiel 40:3), "Your staff" refers to the Messiah who is destined to arise from your descendants, as it says, "The staff of your strength, God will send forth from Zion" (Psalms 110:2)."

Aggadat Bereshit 83:1

Chapter (82) 83: Prophets [1] "I will assemble Jacob, all of you; I will bring together the remnant of Israel;. (Micah 2:12). Like it is said in scriptures: Assemble and listen, and complete [note: last word גומר doesn't exist in verse] (Genesis 49:2). Although the exact time of judgment day is unknown, I say to you that when you gather and assemble, at that moment you will be redeemed, as it is said, "I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will set them together like sheep in a fold, like a flock in its pasture, a noisy multitude of men" (Micah 2:12). "Reuben, you are my firstborn" (Genesis 49:3), I have not seen a blemish in you since I was born. "My might and the beginning of my strength" (same verse), since the day I was born I have been saying, "Perhaps Reuben will go up to the roof and die, or he will go down and fall." You were the beginning of my strength. "Excelling in dignity and excelling in power" (same verse), and because of the sin you committed, they took three crowns away from you and gave them to your brothers: the firstborn to Joseph, the priesthood to Levi, and the kingdom to Judah. Otherwise, you would have been the firstborn. "Excelling in dignity," that is the priesthood, as it is said, "And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things" (Exodus 28:38). "Excelling in power," I was worthy of purifying them, as it is written, "To cleanse and to sprinkle" (Leviticus 14:56). "Unstable as water" (Genesis 49:4), our rabbis have taught that three liquids are forbidden because of exposure: water, wine, and milk. If one finds exposed milk, water, or wine, they should be spilled out, just as you are unstable as water. Alternatively, "unstable" means that you acted recklessly, disgracefully, and insulted others. Just as the vessels in which liquids are poured out or stored become unusable, but the liquids themselves remain, so too you, because of your sin, should not remain. Another thing: is raging like water. Just as water purifies for everyone, so too will you purify your sins when the one who is saved from the water comes to give you blood, and who is this but Moses, as it is written, "She called his name Moses, for I drew him out of the water" (Exodus 2:10). And when does he give you blood? When you spread out your bed (Genesis 49:14), when he comes to ascend Mount Nebo, as it is written, "Let Reuben live and not die" (Deuteronomy 33:6). "Simeon and Levi are brothers" (Genesis 49:5), and not only were they brothers, but they became brothers to do justice, as it is said, "And two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, took each man his sword" (Genesis 34:25). Their weapons are instruments of violence (Genesis 49:5). The Greek language is their swords. Jacob said, "If these two tribes sit together, they will destroy the world. But I will scatter them, divide them among Jacob and disperse them among Israel" (Genesis 49:7). "Judah, your brothers will praise you; your hand will be on the neck of your enemies" (Genesis 49:8), referring to his killing of Esau. Similarly, Moses said, "His hands are his to contend with; you helped him against his foes" (Deuteronomy 33:7). "Judah, your lion's cub; from prey, my son, you have gone up" (Genesis 49:9), which is as you were named. So did your mother say, "This time I will thank God" (Genesis 29:35), and she praised God in the story of Tamar, and all the tribes praised her. "The sons of my concubine have risen against me" (Genesis 49:29), Tamar's tragedy, that she and her two sons were already doomed, as it says "they brought her out and burned her" (Genesis 38:24), but she confessed and saved herself and her two sons, just as Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were saved whole when they were thrown into the furnace. "He crouches like a lion, like a lioness--who dares to rouse him?" (Genesis 49:9), referring to David, the anointed one from you, as it says "whose heart is like that of a lion" (2 Samuel 17:10). "Forbidding the vine its fruit [and the donkey's colt to drink] (Genesis 49:11). This refers to the Messiah who will arise from you, as it is written, 'humble and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey' (Zechariah 9:9). And to the flute and the finisher. Where are the Israelites forbidden and their sins atoned for? In the territory of Judah in Jerusalem. 'The scepter shall not depart from Judah' (Genesis 49:10) refers to the kingdom, 'nor a lawgiver' (ibid.) refers to the leader, 'until Shiloh comes' (ibid.) refers to the Messiah, 'and to him shall be the obedience of the people' (ibid.). 'And the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king' (Hosea 3:5), and similarly it says, 'and she ate and was satisfied, and left over' (Ruth 2:14). 'And she ate' refers to the leader, as it is written, 'and from among your brothers you shall appoint a leader' (Deuteronomy 17:15), 'and was satisfied' refers to the kingdom, and 'left over' refers to the leadership. Zebulun shall dwell by the seashore, and he shall be a haven for ships (Genesis 49:13)." "He who makes ships, goes forth and comes back and brings sufficiency to the tribe of Yissachar, who occupy themselves with Torah, as it is said, Yissachar is a strong-boned donkey, crouching among the sheepfolds. And he saw a resting place that was good, and the land that it was pleasant, and he inclined his shoulder to bear, and became a servant to tribute. (Genesis 49:14-15). Those who toil in Torah, as it is said, "And of the children of Yissachar, who had understanding of the times, to know what Yisrael ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brothers were at their commandment." (1 Chronicles 12:33). This teaches that two hundred members of the Sanhedrin stood from the tribe of Yissachar, and all of them were with the power of Zebulun, who go out to the sea and bring them [Yissachar] what they need, as it is said, "Rejoice, Zebulun, in your going out, and Yissachar, in your tents." (Deuteronomy 33:18)." "Dan will judge his people" (Genesis 49:16). This refers to rest. "Let Dan be a serpent" (ibid. v. 17) refers to Samson, who, just as a serpent bites on its own, so too Samson fought and killed on his own. Another interpretation is that just as a serpent doesn't die if it is bitten on its tail or belly, because it only dies if it is bitten on the head (as it says, "You will strike his head," Genesis 3:15), so too Samson, when he was bound with his hands and feet, and his strength was not known, as soon as his hair was cut, his strength left him (Judges 16:19). Yet, even so, he bit the heels of a horse and its rider fell backward (Genesis 49:17), as he grasped both pillars and brought the house down (Judges 16:29), and Jacob exclaimed, "I have waited for Your salvation, O Lord" (Genesis 49:18). "Gad, a troop shall tramp upon him" (ibid. v. 19) refers to Elijah, who crushed the gang of a certain ruler. "He shall provide the first part for himself" (ibid. v. 20) refers to Asher, whose land produces rich fruits and excellent oil, and he brings olive oil as an offering (ibid.). "Naphtali is a hind let loose" (ibid. v. 21) refers to all those who study the Torah and are beloved to the Almighty like deer, as it says, "A loving hind and a graceful doe" (Proverbs 5:19). "Joseph is a fruitful bough, a fruitful bough by a fountain" (Genesis 49:22). When Pharaoh heard Joseph's interpretation of his dreams, he said that Joseph was wise and discerning (Genesis 41:39). "His eyes are darker than wine" (Genesis 49:12) refers to Joseph's children, whom the other tribes did not begrudge, and the children of Joseph say to Joshua, "We are a numerous people and God has blessed us until now" (Joshua 17:14). Joshua said to them, "This is what you say, and yet you are not afraid of the evil eye?" They replied, "Jacob our father already prayed for us that the evil eye should not rule over us, as it is said, 'Against me [Jacob] was the evil eye' (Genesis 49:27), and Benjamin is compared to a wolf that tears (Genesis 49:27). In the Temple, which was built within its borders, they would sacrifice there one lamb, etc. (Numbers 28:4). Once he blessed each person according to their needs, he made them into tribes, as it is said, 'These are the tribes of Israel' (Genesis 49:28). He said to them, "Behold, I have blessed you," as it is said, 'And this is what their father spoke to them and blessed them' (Genesis 49:28). A faithful man will come and seal my blessings, and who is this? It is Moses, as it is said, 'And this is the blessing with which Moses blessed' (Deuteronomy 33:1)."

Bamidbar Rabbah 13:4

“Who presented his offering… [Naḥshon, son of Aminadav, of the tribe of Judah]” – that is what is written: “God is known in Judah…” (Psalms 76:2). This is what the verse said: “That which the wise tell…” (Job 15:18), this is Judah, who confessed and said: “She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26), and did not withhold the truth [about his actions with Tamar] from Jacob and from Shem. (This is a reference to Shem’s court. Tamar’s father, Shem son of Noah, was no longer alive, but his court continued to function.) Because he rescued Tamar and her twin sons from the inferno, as it is written [before he confessed]: “Judah said: Take her out and burn her” (Genesis 38:24); that is why Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya were rescued from the fiery furnace, as it is written: “Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying: Blessed is the God of Shadrakh, Meshakh, and Aved Nego…and from me is issued a decree that any people, nation, or language [that says anything amiss against the God of Shadrakh, Meshakh, and Aved Nego will be rendered into pieces]…” (Daniel 3:28–29). That is why it says: “God is known in Judah…” Another matter, “God is known in Judah” – when Daniel descended into the lion’s den and was rescued, as it is written: “Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, the nations…. A decree is issued before me, that in the entire dominion of my kingdom, men shall tremble [and fear before the God of Daniel]…. He rescues and delivers, and performs signs and wonders [in the heavens and on earth. He saved Daniel from the grasp of the lions]” (Daniel 6:26–28). That is, “God is known in Judah.” Why was Daniel rescued from the lions? It is because he prayed before the Holy One blessed be He, who is called “lion,” as it is written: “They will follow the Lord, He will roar like a lion” (Hosea 11:10). And Daniel is from the tribe of Judah, that is called “lion,” as it is stated: "Judah is a lion cub” (Genesis 49:9), and it is written: “Among them from the children of Judah were Daniel…” (Daniel 1:6). Let a Lion come and rescue a lion from the mouth of a lion. Alternatively, it is because he resembled the lions, as he is a lion; therefore, they did not harm him. Why was he not cast into the fiery furnace? It is because he was Nebuchadnezzar’s god, as it is written: “He prostrated himself to Daniel, and said for a meal offering and fragrances be poured to him” (Daniel 2:46). Alternatively, it is because he would have been burned, as it is written: “The idols of their gods you shall burn in fire” (Deuteronomy 7:25). Therefore, the Holy One blessed be He introduced into Darius’s heart that he should not cast him into the fiery furnace, so as to make known His might. Another matter, “God is known in Judah” – that is what is written: “Ephraim will become desolation [on the day of rebuke; among the tribes of Israel I proclaim certainties]” (Hosea 5:9). “Ephraim will become desolation,” in its plain sense; “on the day of rebuke,” just as it says: “It is a day of trouble, rebuke and execration” (Isaiah 37:3). “Among the tribes of Israel,” as I reside in their midst, as I dwell in their midst. “I proclaim certainties”; just as it says: “The testimony of the Lord is trustworthy” (Psalms 19:8). When the [ten] tribes were exiled, but Judah and Benjamin were not exiled, the nations of the world began saying: ‘He showed then favor because they were the residents of his residence and he did not exile them.’ When they were exiled, God announced that sin in the world: “The princes of Judah were like movers of boundaries; I will pour My ire like water upon them” (Hosea 5:10). That is, “God is known in Judah.” Another matter, “known in Judah,” just as it says: “If an army besieges me, my heart will not fear. [If war comes upon me, I will put my trust in this]” (Psalms 27:3). What is, “if war comes upon me, I will put my trust in this”? In what “this”? It is in what Moses said: “This for Judah, and he said: [Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah…and You will be a helper against his adversaries]” (Deuteronomy 33:7). “His name is great in Israel” (Psalms 76:2) – that is what is written: “Punishments are prepared for cynics, [and blows [mahalumot] for the back of fools]” (Proverbs 19:29). Punishments are for those who commit transgressions. This is analogous to one who was riding on an animal. If it does not stray, he will not strike it, but if it strays, he strikes it. So, the Holy One blessed be He said: “Punishments are prepared for cynics.” The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘Before I created Man, I prepared five rods for him: Spot, scab, bright spot, rash, and burn.’ Some say: Leprosy and scall. This corresponds to five “laws,” as it is stated: “This is the law for any leprous mark, and for a scall…and for the spot, for the scab, and for the bright spot” (Leviticus 14:54, 56). This is analogous to a bad slave who was being sold. An individual went to purchase him. He knew that he was bad. He brought chains and rods with him, so if he misbehaved, he could subjugate him with them. When he misbehaved, he brought the chains and chained him, and struck him with the rods. The slave said to him: ‘You knew from the outset that I am a bad slave. Why did you purchase me?’ He said to him: ‘Because I knew that you were bad in your conduct; therefore, I also prepared to bind you and to strike you, so that if you misbehaved, you would be struck with them.’ So, the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘Before I created Man, I knew him: “As the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth”’ (Genesis 8:21). Woe to dough whose baker testifies in its regard that it is bad. That is why it is stated: “Punishments are prepared for cynics.” What is mahalumot? Three words, Rabbi Berekhya said. What are these? It is for the nations [ma lo mot]. (Meaning, ma - what are these severe punishments? lo mot - the letters that spell mot (mem, vav, tav) can also be read mavet, meaning death. Thus, the response to the question, ma, is lo mavet - the death is for them, not for you. ) Rabbi Avin said: This is analogous to a noblewoman who entered the palace and saw whips and rods and she was afraid. The residents of the palace said to her: ‘Fear not, these are for the slaves and the maidservant. You are here to eat, drink, and be honored.’ So, the congregation of Israel, when they heard the portions of curses and leprosy, they began to be afraid. Moses said to them: ‘These are for the idolaters. You are here to eat, drink, and engage in Torah study.’ “She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar” (Proverbs 31:14). That is, “His name is great in Israel.” Another matter, “His name is great in Israel” – that is what is written: “For, from the rising of the sun to its setting, My name is great among the nations [and in every place burnt offerings and pure meal offerings [uninḥa] are burned [muktar], presented [mugash] to My name, for My name is great among the nations, said the Lord of hosts]” (Malachi 1:11). Is it so, that in every place they present incense and meal offering in the name of the Holy One blessed be He? It is, rather, that everywhere that Israel stands and recites the afternoon [minḥa] prayer, regarding that, it says minḥa in its plain sense. And it says: “It was at the time of offering up the afternoon offering that Elijah the prophet approached” (I Kings 18:36). (He prayed at the time of the afternoon offering.) “Presented [mugash],” this is the morning prayer, just as it says: “Abraham approached [vayigash]…” (Genesis 18:23), in prayer. (Genesis 19:27 states that Abraham went in the morning to the place where he had stood before God. From that verse we learn (Brachot 26b) that Abraham founded the morning service. Since the verse refers to the place in which he had stood before God, it is presumably referring to Genesis 18:23, where he is described as approaching God to plead for Sodom. The presumption is that this took place at the time of the regular prayer, namely, in the morning.) “Burned [muktar],” this is the evening prayer, just as it is stated: “Let my prayer stand as incense [ketoret] before You; [the lifting of my hands, an evening offering]” (Psalms 141:2). That is, “His name is great in Israel” – anywhere that Israel is standing there. That is why it is stated: “My name is great among the nations.” “God is known in Judah” – when he takes revenge against their enemies. Just as it says: “Egypt will become desolation and Edom will become a desolate wilderness, due to the villainy against the children of Judah…” (Joel 4:19). “I will cleanse; their blood I will not cleanse…” (Joel 4:21). That is, “God is known in Judah,” just as it says: “The Lord is known through the judgments He executes; [the wicked one is snared] in his handiwork…” (Psalms 9:17). “God is known in Judah” – Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Ilai said: When Israel stood at the sea, the tribes were deliberating with each other. This one says: ‘I will descend first,’ and this one says: ‘I will descend first.’ Naḥshon leapt into the waves of the sea and descended. In his regard, David said: “Rescue me, God, for the waters have come up to my soul” (Psalms 69:2). The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘My friend is sinking in the sea, and you are praying? “Speak to the children of Israel, and let them travel”’ (Exodus 14:15). That is, “God is known in Judah.” That is why the Holy One blessed be He exalted the name of Naḥshon in Israel, as he was privileged to present his offering first, as it is stated: “The one who presented his offering on the first day was [vayhi] [Naḥshon].” That is, “His name is great in Israel.”

Bereshit Rabbah 85:10

“It was about three months later that it was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law acted as a harlot; moreover, behold, she conceived through harlotry. Judah said: Take her out, and she shall be burned” (Genesis 38:24). Sumekhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: From where is it derived that the fetus is not noticeable in the woman’s womb until three months? From here: “It was about three months later.” Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Not at the end of three full months, but rather, most of the first, most of the last, and the entire middle one, and ultimately it is not three full ones. (If a woman conceived toward the beginning of the calendar month, her fetus will be noticeable after the remainder of that month, the entire following month, and the majority of the month after that have passed, even though that is not three full months. This is derived from the phrase “it was about three months later.” ) “Moreover, behold, she conceived through harlotry” – it teaches that she would pat her belly and say: I am pregnant with kings; I am pregnant with redeemers. (The phrase “moreover, behold, she conceived through harlotry” is understood to imply that she was not embarrassed that she had conceived; on the contrary, she was proud, even though onlookers assumed that it had occurred through harlotry (Yefe To’ar). ) “Take her out and she shall be burned” – Efrayim the cucumber seller [makshaa], (Cucumbers are kishuim; alternatively, makshaa refers to one who poses many questions [kushyot].) student of Rabbi Meir, said in the name of Rabbi Meir: Tamar was the daughter of Shem, as it is written: “The daughter of a man who is a priest, [if she shall profane herself by acting as a harlot…she shall be burned in fire]” (Leviticus 21:9); that is why [Judah said]: “Take her out, and she shall be burned.” (Shem is identified by the Sages (see Nedarim 32b) as Malkitzedek, of whom the verse states that “he was a priest to God, the Most High” (Genesis 14:18). Consequently, if a daughter of Shem had committed adultery, she would have incurred the punishment of burning. )

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 17:6

(Gen. 38:24, cont.:) THAT IT WAS TOLD TO JUDAH, SAYING: YOUR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW TAMAR HAS PROSTITUTED HERSELF; AND SHE IS ALSO PREGNANT FOR LEWDNESS. What is the meaning of FOR LEWDNESS? That she would enter a bathhouse and say to her women friends: Go away from me because I am bearing kings. But Isaac, Jacob, and Judah were sitting there in judgment. They said (ibid., cont.): BRING HER OUT AND LET HER BE BURNED. R. Johanan said: In property cases one begins with the eldest, but in capital cases one begins with the youngest and finishes with the eldest. (Sanh. 4:2; Git. 59a. Thus the younger judges would not be unduly influenced by their elders.) And why does one say: WITH THE YOUNGEST? Because one ascribes corruption to the youngest. Why did he say (in Gen. 34:24): LET HER BE BURNED, and not say: "Let her be killed"? Ephraim the Disputant said in the name of R. Me'ir: She was Shem's daughter, and Shem was a priest. For this reason he said: BRING HER OUT, AND LET HER BE BURNED. (See Lev. 21:9.) Now they were dragging her and bringing her out against her will, as stated (in Gen. 38:25): AS SHE WAS BEING BROUGHT OUT. Now while she was being brought out, she sought < the tokens of > the pledge but did not find them. In that hour she raised her eyes to the heavens. Immediately the Holy One sent her others.

Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 145:5

......

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains that a captive woman converting to Judaism must mourn her parents and be purified in a mikveh, as stated in Numbers 31:19. Rabbeinu Bahya criticizes Malki Tzedek for blessing Avram before God, resulting in him losing his position as High Priest. He also discusses the significance of the tetragram appearing in specific sequences in the Torah, symbolizing Justice and Mercy. Rav Hirsch discusses the concept of Yibbum, where a man marries his deceased brother's widow to continue the family line, highlighting the importance of marriage for procreation and family unity.

Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 21:13:8

The meaning of and bewail… is, she shall mourn her parents if they were killed while she was taken captive in the same manner that an Israelite women mourns, for she is converting to Judaism. Scripture had no need to mention that she shall bathe, (In a mikveh, a pool of water which purifies the impure. All converts have to immerse themselves in a mikveh.) for it is necessary for her to be purified by the waters of sprinkling, (Hebrew, me niddah. According to Rabbinic interpretation the reference is to a mikveh.) as Scripture earlier states, ye and your captives (Num. 31:19). (Shall purify yourselves in the “waters of sprinkling.”)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 14:19:4

ויברכהו ויאמר ברוך אברם לקל עליון קונה שמים וארץ, וברוך קל עליון, “Blessed be Avram to the Supreme G’d who owns heaven and earth, and blessed be the Supreme G’d, etc.” Malki Tzedek first blessed Avram and only then did he bless G’d. He was guilty of a sin by doing so. He should first have blessed G’d just as David did in a similar situation in Samuel I 25, 32-33. David first blessed G’d before he blessed Avigail who had prevented him from becoming guilty of bloodshed. Malki Tzedek was punished for this lack of respect for G’d by losing his position of High Priest. This position was accorded to Avraham instead as is recorded in Nedarim 32. A reference to this is found in Psalms 110,1 נאם ה' לאדני שב לימיני where the man who is described as sitting on G’d’s right hand side is understood to be Avraham. He is the only person to whom David ever referred as אדני, “my master.” David considered Avraham as his personal patriarch. In verse 4 of the same Psalm David says: נשבע ה' ולא ינחם אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק, “The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever, because of what I have said, taking the place of Malki Tzedek.” It had been inadmissible to praise someone of flesh and blood before praising the Eternal. When Yehudah was about to condemn Tamar, Malki Tzedek’s daughter to death by burning (Genesis 38,24), he had not been aware that G’d had already removed the priesthood from Malki Tzedek [so that death by burning would not have been applicable to his daughter according to Jewish law even if she had been guilty of harlotry. Ed.]

Rabbeinu Bahya, Devarim 32:43:6

You will find a total of 18 sequences in the written Torah in which the tetragrammaton has been spelled either forward or backward either in the last letters of the words or the first letters of the words of a sequence of four words, such as the ones we showed you in verse 39. Seeing that our verse (39) is the last of these 18 examples, I have used the opportunity to list all of them and to elaborate a little about them. The following is the sequence in which these 18 groups of four words each appear in the Torah; I am listing first four examples in which the first letters of the respective words read forward spell the tetragram 1) (Genesis 1,31) יום הששי ויכולו השמים. 2) (Genesis 38,24-25) יהודה הוציאוה ותשרף היא. 3) )Exodus 4,14) ידבר הוא וגם המה. 4) (Deut. 11,2) ידו החזקה וזרועו הנטויה. These are the four examples in which the letters of the tetragram appear in the proper sequence, i.e. right to left and as the first letters in each of the words. The next 4 examples refer to the last letters of the four words respectively, but they too are read from right to left. They are: 5) Genesis 19,13) .פנ'י ה-' וישלחה-ו ה-'. 6) (Ex. 3,13) ל-י מ-ה שמ-ו מ-ה. 7) (Deut. 24,8) נק-י יהי-ה לבית-ו שנ-ה. 8* מ-י יעל-ה לנ-ו השמימ-ה, (Deut. 30,12). The next 10 examples all feature the sequence of the letters of the tetragram from left to right, i.e. backward. (sometimes these letters are at the beginning of the words in question, sometimes at the end, such as in our example in the verse above). In all these examples the allusion is to the attribute of Justice. You can figure these out for yourselves by looking at: 9) Genesis 11,9 ו-משם ה-פיצם י'-ה;ה-ארץ it is clear from the context that the attribute of Justice had been poised to strike at all these people at that time. The same is true of 10) (Genesis 44, 3-4) ה-מה ו-חמוריהם ה-ם י-צאו. The Torah already alludes to the impending crisis when the goblet will be found in Binyamin’s sack. [I am only pointing to the verses now without elaborating. Ed.] Exodus 4,15; Exodus 4,14; Exodus 4,3; Exodus 16,7; Exodus 26, 21-22; Numbers 1,51 (compare commentary by author). Numbers 5,18 (compare commentary by author). Numbers 14,24-25 (compare commentary by author). Numbers 14,43. Finally, there is our verse here completing the ten occasions when he Torah provides allusions that the attribute of Justice, as an appendix of the tetragram, was invoked by G’d. By way of contrast, the eight examples we quoted first, in which the respective letters of the tetragram appear in their usual order, i.e. from right to left, are indications that the subject matter is the attribute of Mercy. Seeing that between them we have a total of 18 such 4-word sequences, the easy way to remember this is by reference to the short line חי ה'.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 38:1:3

Daß die Ehe ihren sittlichen Charakter nur in ihrem Endziel, der Erzeugung und Heranziehung der Kinder (פרו ורב) findet; daß eine Ehe, die dieses Ziel nicht erreicht, wesentlich in ihrem sittlichen Charakter getrübt erscheint; daß ferner der Begriff eines Familienkreises, d. i, eines Vaterhauses mit den ihm entstammenden Zweigen zusammen eine spezifische Individualität am Baume der Menschheit, eine charakteristisch einheitliche moralische Person dergestalt bilde, das alle in ihm und aus ihm entstehenden Häuser an dem Ausbau eines bestimmten Grundtypus menschlicher Geistigkeit und Gesittung gemeinschaftlich arbeiten, also, daß, wenn eine Ehe in eben diesem ihrem höchsten sittlichen Endzweck, dem Fortbau des Menschengeschlechtes in einer bestimmten durch die Familieneigentümlichkeit gegebenen Richtung, mit dem kinderlosen Tode eines Gliedes mangelhaft geblieben, dieser sittliche Charaktermangel der Ehe durch Fortsetzung derselben mit der hinterbliebenen Wittwe von einem der nächsten Familienglieder nachträglich ergänzt werden kann und soll: diese, den höchsten sittlichen Charakter der Ehe und die höchste sittliche Dignität der Familie aussprechenden Gedanken scheinen der großen Institution des Jibbum zu Grunde zu liegen, der wir schon hier, in dieser frühesten Zeit des Jakobshauses, in vollster Geltung begegnen. Obgleich Witwe des Verstorbenen, erscheint Thamar als die noch Angetraute des überlebenden Hauses (זיקה) und zwar in solcher Schärfe, daß ihr vermeintliches Vergehen (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 38: 24) als Ehebruch geahndet werden soll, in Beziehung zu einem nächsten Familiengliede aber so sehr das ursprünglich durch den Verstorbenen geknüpfte Eheband fortdauert, daß es zur Fortsetzung derselben keiner besonderen Anehelichung bedarf, sondern dieselbe sich einfach vollzieht: הבא על יבמתו בין בשוגג וכו׳ קנה Jebamot 43b; ein Verhältnis, das zur gerechten Würdigung Tamars nicht unberücksichtigt bleiben dürfte. — Ob übrigens die Wurzel יבם ihre Grundbedeutung in der Lautverwandtschaft mit קום (vergl. z. B. קול יבל — יין יון גפן, —) findet, und demgemäß יַבֵם der Grundbedeutung nach so viel als קַיֵם, aufrecht halten, aufrichten, wäre — הקם זרע לאחיו — wollen wir nur als eine Möglichkeit berühren.

Talmud

The Gemara discusses the extreme lengths people went to avoid embarrassing others in public, citing the example of Tamar appealing privately to Judah to avoid public embarrassment (Ketubot 67b:14). The Mishna and Gemara discuss when a pregnancy is recognized, with Symmachos stating it is after three months, and the case of a woman giving birth after 180 days leading to a debate about bastardy (Niddah 8b:17, Jerusalem Talmud Niddah 1:3:5). The Gemara raises an objection about the prohibition of licentious intercourse with a gentile, citing the example of Tamar and Judah (Avodah Zarah 36b:7).

Avodah Zarah 36b:7

The Gemara raises an objection: Licentious sexual intercourse was also prohibited earlier, as they decreed a prohibition in this regard in the court of Shem, as it is written: “It was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry. And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burned” (Genesis 38:24). This proves that the prohibition against licentious intercourse with a gentile was in force long before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.

Jerusalem Talmud Niddah 1:3:5

(From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text parallels Yebamot 4:11, Notes 130–155.) How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months, etc.” Rebbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind,” “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw”, etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete. Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness. A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated: “How long can labor be? Rebbi Meïr said, even 40 to 50 days. Rebbi Jehudah said, her month is sufficient. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, no labor lasts longer than two weeks.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months. Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.”

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:11:2

HALAKHAH: “No sister-in-law should be a party to ḥalîṣah,” etc. (The text of Symmachos is also in Babli Niddah 8b, but the meaning is different there. In the Babli, the discussion is not about recognizing a pregnancy for the question of remarriage; that question is settled by the proviso that a woman must wait 90 days after her husband’s death (as explained in the Mishnah here) and, if she turns out to be pregnant, she cannot remarry as long as the child is not weaned (Ketubot 5:6, Sotah 4:4; Babli Ketubot 60a/b). The statement there is to the effect that if a woman has missed her period three times and is visibly pregnant, then, starting three months after her last period, any bleeding does not follow the general rules of menstrual flow but the special rules of pregnant women. There is no discussion of the rule and it is not claimed that the rule represents any medical validity. But in the Yerushalmi it appears from the sequel that one sees in the rule a statement of biological fact. The Halakhah, up to Note 155, is copied in Niddah 1:4.) How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? (Tosephta Niddah 1:7, including the statement attributed here to Rebbi Yudan.) Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meїr: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months. (Gen. 38:24.) ” Rebbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind, (Is. 26:18; as the Babli points out, this statement is addressed to males and therefore not a good support. In the interpretation of the Babli (Note 131), a fake delivery (“delivery of wind”) after recognition of the pregnancy does not change the status of the woman in matters of impurity.) ” “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw (Is. 33:11.) .” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete (If the pregnancy is recognizable, the rules of pregnancy are applicable after 61 days.) . Rav Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness (Samuel says the same of Rav Assi, three full (i. e., 30days long) months.) . A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy (A woman gave birth to a live baby exactly 180 days after her marriage. The rabbis wondered whether such a short pregnancy was possible for a live baby or whether the short time was proof that the woman had committed adultery in the time between qiddushin and her actual marriage, which would make the child a bastard.) . Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba (The most famous of Jewish medical men of his age. Presumably Samuel, also a doctor by profession, learned most of his medical knowledge from his father.) and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated (Mishnah Niddah 4:5.) : “How long can labor be (As a matter of principle, blood lost during labor is neither menstrual nor of the impure type known as zivah (Lev. 15:25). The disagreement is on how long the exemption from impurity can be claimed.) ? Rebbi Meїr said, even 40 to 50 days. Rebbi Jehudah said, her month is sufficient. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, no labor is longer than two weeks”. “Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months (See above, Note 63, and in the next paragraph.) . Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.”

Ketubot 67b:14

The Gemara asks: And what is all this? Why did they go to such extreme lengths to avoid being discovered? The Gemara answers: It is as Mar Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said, and some say that Rav Huna bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said, and some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is preferable for a person to deliver himself into a fiery furnace so that he not whiten the face of, i.e., embarrass, his friend in public. From where do we derive this? From the conduct of Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man, whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:24–25). Although Tamar was taken to be executed by burning, she privately and directly appealed to Judah, rather than publicly identifying him as the father of her unborn children and causing him embarrassment.

Niddah 8b:17

§ The mishna teaches: The time of a pregnant woman is sufficient from the point in her pregnancy when the existence of her fetus is known to all who see her. The Gemara asks: And how much time must pass for the fetus to be known? Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Three months. And although there is no explicit proof for the matter, that a fetus is discernable after three months of pregnancy, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot” (Genesis 38:24).

Tanakh

In Leviticus 21:9, it is stated that if the daughter of a priest defiles herself through harlotry, she defiles her father and should be put to death by fire.

Leviticus 21:9

When the daughter of a priest defiles herself through harlotry, it is her father whom she defiles; she shall be put to the fire.

Targum

Three months later, Judah was informed that Tamar, his daughter-in-law, was pregnant from promiscuity. Judah ordered for her to be brought out and burned due to her actions, despite her being the daughter of a priest (Onkelos Genesis 38:24, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:24).

Onkelos Genesis 38:24

About three months later, Yehudah was told, Tamar, your daughter-in-law, has been promiscuous, moreover, her promiscuity has resulted in pregnancy. Yehudah said, Take her out and let her be burned.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:24

And it was at the time of three months, that she was known to be with child: and it was told to Jehuda, saying Tamar thy daughter--in--law hath committed fornication and, behold, she is with child by fornication. And Jehuda said, Is she not the daughter of a priest. Let her be brought forth and burned.

Tosefta

A virgin for niddah purposes is a girl who has not experienced menstruation, even if married and with children; a pregnant woman is one whose pregnancy is known for three months; if a presumed pregnant woman sees blood or miscarries, impurity is reckoned from her set time.

Tosefta Niddah 1:4

Who is [considered to be] a virgin [for purposes of niddah] (see Niddah 1:3)? Any girl who has not seen blood in her days, even if she is married and she has children, I call her a virgin, until her eyes have seen the first. Do not call her a virgin with respect to virginity, rather a virgin with respect to blood. Who is [considered to be] a "pregnant woman"? Summachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir, one whose status of being pregnant is known [to those around her] for three months, as it is said (Gen. 38:24): "And about three months had passed [after which it was told to Yehuda, Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the whore and indeed, behold, has become pregnant from whoring...]." [If] there was a presumption of pregnancy, and then she saw [blood], or she miscarried, [or] afterwards she [gave birth to] something that was not a child, it suffices [to reckon here impurity from] her set time (Eduyot 1:1, Kulp tr.). And even though there is no explicit proof about the matter, there is at least a hint (Is. 26:18), "Behold, we travailed as though we had given birth to the wind."

הִ֣וא מוּצֵ֗את וְהִ֨יא שָׁלְחָ֤ה אֶל־חָמִ֙יהָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לְאִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁר־אֵ֣לֶּה לּ֔וֹ אָנֹכִ֖י הָרָ֑ה וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַכֶּר־נָ֔א לְמִ֞י הַחֹתֶ֧מֶת וְהַפְּתִילִ֛ים וְהַמַּטֶּ֖ה הָאֵֽלֶּה׃ 25 J As she was being brought out, she sent this message to her father-in-law, “It’s by the man (man Or “party.” Lit. “[salient] participant.” See further the Dictionary under ’ish.) to whom these belong that I’m pregnant.” And she added, “Examine these: whose seal and cord and staff are these?”
Tamar chose to avoid publicly embarrassing Judah by privately appealing to him when facing execution, demonstrating the importance of avoiding humiliation in public. This ethical principle is derived from Tamar's actions in the Torah, where she did not reveal that she was pregnant with Judah's child to spare him public embarrassment. This concept is also reflected in other instances in the Torah where individuals chose to avoid humiliation in public, even at great personal cost, emphasizing the importance of memory in performing mitzvot and reinforcing trust in God.

Commentary

Tamar, about to be burned for her pregnancy, sent items to Judah without directly accusing him, demonstrating a willingness to be burned rather than publicly shame him. The Torah hints at this theme through word choices and acrostics, emphasizing the importance of avoiding public embarrassment at all costs. The sages derived from this incident the principle that it is better to endure personal harm than to publicly disgrace another person.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:25:1

והיא שלחה, “and she had sent;” the word is spelled with the letter י, [although usually we find it spelled with the letter ו, just like its masculine counterpart הוא, “he.” Ed.]

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:25:1

WHEN SHE WAS BROUGHT FORTH. If the alef of mutzet was not quiescent as is the grammatical rule, the word would have followed the paradigm of muda’at (made known) in This is made known (muda’at) (Is. 12:5). (If a chet or ayin would have been used then our word would be so vocalized since it is a hofal participle. The alef is vocalized with a tzere because it is a quiescent letter (Cherez).)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:25:1

היא מוצאת, “when she was taken out,” to be burned. We learn from this verse that a person should rather allow himself to be burned than to cause a fellow man to blanch from public embarrassment. Tamar reasoned to herself: “if he will admit his part in my pregnancy, all well and good; If not, I will rather allow myself to be burned in the furnace than to shame him in public.” Although the word מוצאת, has been spelled with the letter א, (whereas if it meant “being burned,” it should have been spelled without that letter) one may interpret it homiletically as being derived from הצתה, subjecting something to fire. Incidentally, the first letters in the words of the verse ו-יאמר י-הודה ה-וציאוה - ו-תשרף when read backwards yield the acrostic י-ה-ו-ה, the Ineffable Name of G’d. This suggests that at the time Tamar was concerned with saving Yehudah’s “face,” G’d was busy saving her life by invoking the attribute of Mercy.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:25:2-3

שלחה אל חמיה לאמור, “she sent to her father-in-law to convey, etc.” She meant for her messengers to tell Yehudah in her name: “for the man to whom these items belong I am pregnant, etc.,” the messengers themselves did not know what she had in her hand. She did this in order to protect Yehudah’s reputation in the event he chose to ignore her. When she realised that this indirect message was ineffective, she thought that possibly Yehudah had forgotten the encounter with her. At that point she confronted Yehudah face to face (in private) adding the words הכר נא, “please identify.” This is why the Torah mentions the items in question individually at this point. She was still determined not to reveal him as the father of her unborn child if he chose to deny his involvement in her pregnancy. The Jerusalem Targum on the words היא מוצאת, claims that Samael had hidden the three items which she could have used to clear her name. The author mentions a prayer of Tamar in which she expressed the hope that in return for having preferred a fiery death in order to protect Yehudah’s public image, G’d would arrange for these items to be found so that three persons’ lives would be saved thereby, (hers and that of her two unborn sons). G’d gave the angel Gavriel a hint and he returned these items to Tamar and she threw them at the feet of the judges. This is the meaning of the words הכר נא למי החותמת וגו', “please identify the owner of the signet ring, etc.”

Rabbeinu Chananel on Genesis 38:25:1

היא מוצאת, our sages in Sotah 10 conclude from this verse that a person prefers to be thrown into a fiery furnace to being publicly embarrassed. They derive this from the words of Tamar, who said (to herself): “if he will own up to the truth, Ok, if not, I will rather allow myself to be burned at the stake than to shame him in public.” Even though the word מוצאת is spelled with the letter א in the middle, thus not being derived from the root הצת, to cause a conflagration, to set fire, one may explain it along that line here as being phonetically connected to Lamentations 4,11 ויצת אש ציון, “He set fire to Zion.”

Radak on Genesis 38:25:1

היא מוצאת, she did not make the matter public even when she was on the point of being executed. Therefore she only hinted at the owner of the trinkets she wanted Yehudah to recognise without accusing him outright as having given them to her after he had slept with her.

Radak on Genesis 38:25:2

לאיש אשר אלה לו, this prompted our ages in Sotah 10 to say that it is better for a person to throw himself into a burning furnace than to cause public embarrassment to a fellow human being. Tamar demonstrated this by the conduct the Torah attributes to her in our verse. The word לו, a reference to an unnamed third party left Yehudah the option to ignore her accusation, and for any future embarrassment on that score to be wiped out with her death.

Radak on Genesis 38:25:3

ותאמר, this she said to the messenger she sent to Yehudah with the pledges that he had given her.

Radak on Genesis 38:25:4

הכר נא, Bereshit Rabbah 85,11 notes how the Torah “plays” with people. She hinted to Yehudah that he had used the same words to deceive his father into believing that Joseph had been devoured by a wild animal. Now it was his turn to be deceived. The punishment matches the crime. (37,32) The Torah, knowing what was to happen in the future, smiled to itself thinking: “wait until you will be deceived by these same words.”

Rashbam on Genesis 38:25:1

היא מוצאת, after she had taken out the pledges given to her by Yehudah and sent them to him via a messenger, she did not want to directly confront him, but said: ”I am pregnant for the man who owned these.”

Rashi on Genesis 38:25:1

הוא מוצאת WHEN SHE WAS BROUGHT FORTH to be burnt.

Rashi on Genesis 38:25:2

והיא שלחה אל חמיה SHE SENT TO HER FATHER-IN-LAW — she did not wish to put him to shame in public by saying “It is by thee that I am with child”, but she said only “By the man whose these are”. She thought: “if he is to acknowledge it, let him acknowledge it voluntarily, and if not, let them burn me and let me not put him to shame in public”. From this passage our Rabbis derived the teaching: Far better that a man should let himself be cast into a fiery furnace (even as Tamar was ready to be burnt to death) and let him not publicly put his fellow to shame (Sotah 10b).

Rashi on Genesis 38:25:3

הכר נא RECOGNISE, I PRAY THEE — The word נא is used as an expression of entreaty: Acknowledge (הכר) I beg of you, your Creator and do not destroy three lives (Genesis Rabbah 85:11).

Sforno on Genesis 38:25:1

היא מוצאת והיא שלחה, even at this late stage in the trial when she was already on the way to the site of her execution, Tamar did not despair, as she had a heart as stout as that of a lion.

Sforno on Genesis 38:25:2

לאיש אשר אלה לו, even though she was in extreme danger she did not want to publicly embarrass Yehudah. She is the person who inspired our sages to declare that one ought to prefer to be burned in public to publicly embarrassing a fellow human being (Sotah 10

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:25:1

From here they concluded: Better for a person to be thrown into a fiery furnace... You might ask: How did Chazal know this? Perhaps Tamar did not inform [that it was Yehudah] because she was not yet thrown into the fire, neither was it burning. But had the fire been burning she would have informed. The answer is as Rabbeinu Tam explains in Tosafos, Bava Metzia 59a: It is written here היא מוצת, missing an א, which is similar to, “He has kindled (ויצת) a fire in Zion” (Eichah 4:11). This implies that the fire was burning and still she did not inform. This is why Chazal concluded as they did.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:25:2

Please recognize your Creator and do not destroy... She did not know there were three lives. Rashi says this because in truth it was so, but she mentioned only two lives. Maharshal, however, explains that Rashi knew this because it is written הכר נא. Why is נא written in the middle [of her plea]? It should be at the beginning or the end. From this Rashi deduces that she first said: “הכר (recognize) that I conceived from you,” [i.e., there are two lives]. Then she added נא, as if to say, “I have another request: Do not destroy the additional life.” I.e., do not destroy three lives.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:25

She was taken out to receive her punishment. Since she was imprisoned, she wrapped the items she received from Judah and she sent them by messenger to her father-in-law, saying: By the man whose these are I am with child. She said: Recognize, please, whose signet, belt, and staff are these.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 80-81

“As she was being brought out” [38:25]. Tamar was being taken out to be burned and she said to her father-in-law. I am pregnant from the person to whom these three things belong. Tamar wanted to shame her father-in-law before being burned. She said: if Judah, my father-in-law, would recognize them then it is good. If he does not want to recognize them, then I will allow myself to be burned. From here our sages learn that a person should not shame his friend, but he should allow himself to be thrown into a fire. (Rashi, Genesis, 38:25.) Ba’al ha-Turim writes. Judah had ordered that a sign should be burned in her face that people should know that she was a whore. However, he did not order her to be burned completely. (Ba’al ha-Turim, Genesis, 38:25.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 82

“Examine these” [38:25]. Tamar said: examine the signet, the garment and the staff, and Judah recognized them.

Halakhah

It is forbidden to humiliate anyone, especially in public, as it can result in losing a share in the World to Come. Noachide courts may accept circumstantial evidence in meting out punishment, as they are empowered to administer "the king's justice," similar to the authority of Jewish kings. Non-Jewish monarchs have the authority to impose extra-statutory penal sanctions and legislative prerogatives to establish a just society, which may be rooted in the principle of dinin and dina de-malkhuta dina. The incident of Tamar illustrates that non-Jewish kings have the power to punish violators of edicts, showing the connection between legislative and penal power in maintaining societal order.

Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol II, Part II, Chapter XVII Capital Punishment in the Noachide Code 33

Quite apart from the thesis advanced by Or Sameaḥ, if it can be demonstrated that the king is empowered to accept circumstantial evidence in meting out punishment, a strong argument could be made in support of the position that Noachide courts may legitimately accept such testimony as well. Noachide courts may accept such evidence, it may be argued, not because in doing so they would be executing the provisions of the Noachide Code, but rather because, as the creatures of the state, they are also empowered to administer "the king's justice." It may well be argued that gentile governing bodies enjoy prerogatives identical to those of the Jewish king, including execution of the death penalty even when not prescribed by statutory law. (The authority of gentile kings, and hence of non-Jewish courts, to impose capital punishment upon Jews is another matter entirely. Rabbenu Nissim, a fourteenth-century scholar, Ḥiddushei ha-Ran, Sanhedrin 46a, refers to imposition of capital punishment by autonomous Jewish courts (a practice not entirely unknown in the medieval period; see sources cited by Simchah Assaf, Ha-Onshin Aḥarei Ḥatimat ha-Talmud [Jerusalem, 5684] and Menahem Elon, Ha-Mishpat Ha-Ivri [Jerusalem, 5738], I, 435 and 648) and decries this practice other than at the direct license of the civil government, since, insofar as Jewish law is concerned, capital punishment has lapsed. Ḥiddushei ha-Ran does however recognize the authority of Jewish courts “to judge by the authority of the license of the king,” i.e., to impose the king’s justice when warranted. This position clearly acknowledges a) the penal authority of non-Jewish kings; and b) the legitimate exercise of this authority over Jews as well as gentiles. See R. Saul Israeli, Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, IV, 73, who interprets Ran (incorrectly, in my opinion) as meaning that under such circumstances the Bet Din acts as if it were endowed with the authority of a Jewish monarch rather than as an agent of a gentile king. Cf., also Tur Shulḥan Arukh, Ḥoshen Mishpat 3. Similarly, Maharam Ḥalavvah, Pesaḥim 25b, recognizes the authority of gentile courts to enforce the death penalty upon Jews. This is also the position of Ritva and Teshuvot ha-Rashba as cited above, note 11, and appears to be the position of Teshuvot Maharam me-Lublin, no. 138. Me’iri, Sanhedrin 72b and Baba Meẓi‘a 83b, apparently acknowledges that non-Jewish monarchs are empowered to impose the death penalty upon Jews only for crimes which carry the death penalty under Jewish law. See also the position of R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, Torat Nevi’im, ch. 7, cited below, note 24.) This extension of the authority of Noachide courts is explicitly affirmed by Teshuvot Maharam Schick, Hoshen Mishpat, no. 50. (Maharam Schick is, however, troubled by the phraseology employed by Rambam, Hilkhot Roẓeaḥ 2:4: “If a king of Israel wishes to kill them in accordance with the law of the monarchy and [for] the benefit of the world, he has authority [to do so].” Maharam Schick suggests that Rambam means that even a king of Israel may impose extra-statutory punishment and certainly a non-Jewish king, who is not subject to provisions of the Sinaitic Code, is permitted to do so. See also Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 208, s.v. ad ka’n.) For Ramban, these prerogatives may be derived from the mizvah of dinin. For Rambam they are inherent in the powers of the monarch. The phrase in I Samuel 8:20, "we shall be like all the nations," which serves as a preamble to the delineation of the royal responsibilities, certainly indicates that such responsibilities were shouldered by gentile kings prior to the establishment of a monarchy among Jews. A literal reading of this passage would indicate that Scripture recognizes that any prerogatives enjoyed by a Jewish monarch may be legitimately exercised by a gentile king as well. (Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 9:14, states that Noachides are obliged to appoint “dayyanim ve-shoftim” in every district. The terms “dayyanim” and “shoftim” are ostensibly synonymous and hence employment of both terms seems redundant. I would suggest that, for Rambam, each word has a distinct meaning. Although the term “shofet” is employed in Scripture as meaning “a judge,” in rabbinic Hebrew a judge who administers biblical law is known as a “dayyan.” Rambam frequently uses the term dayyan in this context and presumably uses it with the same connotation in this instance as well. Rambam may then have used the earlier and more general term “shofet” in the sense of a judge who administers a broader code of law, i.e., “the king’s law.” Contemporary Hebrew usage mirrors this distinction: a judge in a rabbinic court is a dayyan; a judge in an Israeli civil court is a shofet. Understood in this manner, Rambam declares that gentiles are obligated to appoint dayyanim to enforce the Noachide Code as well as shoftim who may exercise extra-statutory power similar in nature to that which for Jews constitutes mishpat ha-melekh or “the king’s justice.”) Indeed, quite apart from the right of non-Jewish rulers to impose extra-statutory penal sanctions, it is clear that non-Jewish monarchs also enjoy legislative prerogatives and may promulgate laws designed to establish a just and enduring society. For Ramban, this authority may be predicated upon the commandment concerning dinin. Rashi, Gittin 9b, has been understood as expressing the view that the principle dina de-malkhuta dina is rooted in the commandment of dinin. (See R. Iser Zalman Meltzer, Even he-Azel, Hilkhot Malveh ve-Loveh 27:1. This does not necessarily contradict the opinion of those authorities who maintain that dinin must be understood as binding Noachides to the same system of jurisprudence as Jews; see above, note 3. Noachides must enforce biblical law in areas where such legislation exists, but may legislate with regard to matters for which no specific provision is made.) The principle dina de-malkhuta dina empowers non-Jewish governments to adopt laws designed to preserve political and social stability which are binding upon Jews as well as upon gentiles. However, even for Rambam, such authority must exist even though its source may be somewhat obscure. Evidence for the authority of Noachides to promulgate legislation regulating areas of conduct not encompassed by the Noachide Code may be found, for example, in the Gemara's explanation, Avodah Zarah 36b, of Judah's readiness to burn Tamar at the stake on the basis of an edict of the Bet Din of Shem which prohibited fornication. (Cf., R. Yitzchak Ze’ev Soloveitchick, Ḥiddusheiha-Griz al ha-Torah, Genesis 38:25, who describes Tamar as a “proselyte” and the edict as banning cohabitation between a gentile and a “Jewess.” Nevertheless, the Bet Din of Shem certainly did not enjoy the halakhic status of a Jewish court; it would therefore appear that the validity of any edict promulgated by that Bet Din must be predicated upon Noachide law. See R. Hayyim ibn Atar, Or ha-Ḥayyim, Genesis 38:24, who declares, “Perhaps they were in possession of a tradition [empowering them] to promulgate edicts and to execute one who transgresses the edict.”) The incident concerning Tamar also makes it clear that non-Jewish kings enjoy the power to punish those who violate these edicts. Indeed, in the absence of accompanying penal power legislative authority would be vacuous. Since Rambam understands the concept of dinin in an entirely different manner, as noted earlier, such legislative and penal power must be understood as being inherent in the institution of the monarchy. It would then stand to reason that non-Jewish monarchs may also invoke the monarchical prerogative in punishing violations of the Noachide Code.

Kitzur Shulchan Arukh 29:17

It is forbidden to humiliate anyone either by word or by deed, especially in public. And our Rabbis of blessed memory said, (Bava Metzia 58b.) "A person who humiliates someone in public will have no share in the World to Come." Our Rabbis of blessed memory said furthermore, (Ibid, 59a.) "It is better for a man to throw himself into a fiery furnace than to put his fellow man to shame," for it is said: (Genesis 38:25. This refers to the incident of Tamar and Yehudah.) "When she was being taken out [to be executed] she sent word to her father-in-law, saying: "By the man who is the owner of these articles I am pregnant." She did not say to him openly [that it was of him that she conceived] she merely hinted, [thinking] if he admits it, fine, if not, I will not expose him publicly." Therefore, you should be very careful not to humiliate anyone in public, whether he is a minor or an adult, nor to call anyone by a name of which he is ashamed, and do not relate in his presence anything of which he is ashamed. And if anyone sinned against you and it is necessary for you to admonish him [for it], do not humiliate him, for it is said: (Leviticus 19:17.) "Do not sin through him." (Do not embarass him publicly. (Rashi)) This law applies only to a case where he [sinned] against his fellow man, but if he [sinned] against God, and does not retract [and repent] when you admonish him privately, you may disgrace him publicly, and publicize his transgression, and you may revile him to his face, you may insult him and curse him until he returns to the good [path], as all the prophets in Israel have done. Regarding such a person [the law prohibiting] the making of disparaging remarks does not apply for it is said: (Leviticus 25:17.) "Do not speak slightingly to one another," (Alternately translated “Do not cheat one another.” Rashi explains that this verse contains the prohibition against verbal abuse, i.e. not to taunt anyone, nor give bad or unsuitable advice.) and the Rabbis of blessed memory explain, that the word amiso [to your fellow man], applies to those who are of one mind with you in their observance of the Torah and the mitzvos. The Torah forbids you to abuse them verbally, but you are not [prohibited from verbally abusing] those persons who violate [the Torah] and do not repent [even] after they have been admonished privately, and with gentle words.

Jewish Thought

Kiddush haShem is the sanctification of God's name, often associated with martyrdom, but originally meant acknowledging the presence of God, as seen in the story of Tamar and Judah in the Talmud. It is better to throw oneself into a fiery furnace than shame one's neighbor in public, as exemplified by Mar 'Ukva's charity and Tamar's actions. Memory is important in performing mitzvot and strengthening character traits, as seen in interpretations of Tamar's words to Judah and the importance of memory joggers in fulfilling commandments. The Talmud emphasizes the importance of memory in reinforcing trust in God and overcoming fear, as exemplified by David and Moses.

Akeidat Yitzchak 51:1:5

From all the above we conclude that memory applies in the true sense only to those of our actions that are the result of teaching and instruction. If so, it is hard to understand that the Torah commands memory in connection with all the aforementioned three categories. If the mitzvah applies to things which are natural and automatic to us, the commandment to remember it, seems superfluous. If, on the other hand, it concerns matters opposed to our nature, if one remembers to perform such mitzvah all well and good; if one fails to perform it, what sin is there since memory itself is one of the things that is activated automatically and is not subject to willpower? How can we be culpable for lack of, or inadequacy of such brainpower? Just as no shame attaches to a person who loses his eyesight or his hearing, why should someone who loses his memory be considered as morally deficient? This is why our sages interpret Tamar saying to Yehudah "hakker na le-mee hachotemet" as meaning "give recognition to your Creator, make a confession etc." (Bereshit Rabbah 85,Genesis 38,25) If memory were subject to one's will, the meaning of the verse would simply be "examine the ring to see if it is yours!"

Akeidat Yitzchak 90:1:4

Joseph's brothers say to their father: "recognise whether this is the coat of your son or not." (Genesis 37,32) We are told to remember what Amalek did to us. (Deut. 25,17) We are told not to fear nations surrounding us. (Deut 7,18-21) Since we are human beings, not just animals, it is expected that we can refine certain characteristics, are not limited to instinctive reactions. If one can learn to compensate for the weakness of certain of one's senses, then surely one can find means to reinforce certain character traits. A blind man develops a more acute sense of hearing. A shortsighted person can improve his vision by the use of spectacles. A person suffering from certain character weaknesses must also find means to compensate for this. Using one's power of imagination, one can imagine situations that make one's phobias seem unjustified and ridiculous. The process of thought association with specific objects is known to be an excellent memory jogger. These aids must be applied when we are asked to observe certain commandments involving remembrances. Seeing the tzitzit reminds us of other mitzvot such as kilayim, forbidden mixtures. This has been discussed at greater length in chapter sixty five. Awareness of the importance of memory joggers may have led some prophets to find common denominators for certain mitzvot, and thus make it easy for us to have these short summaries constantly at our command. Isaiah manages to condense Torah into two slogans, "observe justice and perform righteousness." (chapter 56) Chabakuk manages to sum it up in a single slogan, "the righteous will live by his faith" (2,4). No doubt the purpose of these apparent over simplifications is simply to provide a constant reminder, which when triggered will remind us of all the other mitzvot which are incumbent upon us to perform. When the Talmud (Ketuvot 30) tells us that all is in the hands of Heaven except the contracting of colds and heatstrokes, we know very well that both those phenomena are natural phenomena and as such not subject to our control. In fact, no remedy has yet been found for the common cold. Nevertheless, the sages are telling us that if one falls victim to those two ailments, this is due to negligence on the part of man, to wilful over-exposure etc, and cannot be blamed on outside forces. Just as one can control colds and heatstrokes, so, by employing memory properly, one can reinforce one's senses of trust and confidence in the help of G'd, no matter what the circumstances. This is what David said (Psalms 27,1) "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?, The Lord is the source of my strength, of whom shall I be afraid?" He means that if his attitude is based on remembering G'ds many past acts of kindness and assistance, why would he be afraid of anyone in the future? In the same vein, Moses tells the people: "you are today about to cross the Jordan in order to dispossess people greater and more powerful than you etc." (9,1). This calls for faith and confidence based on the recollection of all the past triumphs achieved through Divine intervention. The foremost memory jogger is the keriyat shema, which for that reason has been included in our daily prayers three times. We will examine the passage in detail to gain a better understanding of its significance. The following questions suggest themselves:

What is the Talmud, VII What is written in the Talmud?, 2 Fellow man 9

Mar Zutra ben Toviah said in Rav’s name — others state: R. Hana ben Bizna said [this] in the name of R. Shimeon the pious — others again state: R. Yohanan said [it] on the authority of R. Shimeon ben Yohai: Better had a man throw himself into a fiery furnace than put his neighbor to shame in public. Where do we know this from? — From Tamar. For it is written, When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law (Gen. 38:25, rather than shame him in public). Bava Metzia 59a

What is the Talmud, VII What is written in the Talmud?, 8 Charity 14

Mar ‘Ukva had a poor man in his neighborhood into whose door-socket he used to throw four zuz every day. Once [the poor man] thought: ‘I will go and see who does me this kindness.’ On that day [it happened] that Mar ‘Ukva was late at the house of study, and his wife was coming home with him. As soon as [the poor man] saw them moving the door he went out after them, but they fled from him and ran into a furnace from which the fire had just been swept. Mar ‘Ukva’s feet were burning and his wife said to him: Raise your feet and put them on mine. As he seemed diappointed, she said to him, ‘I am usually at home and my charity gifts are direct’. And what [was the reason for] all that? — Because Mar Zutra ben Tuviah said in the name of Rav (others state: R. Huna ben Bizna said in the name of R. Shimeon the Pious; and others again state: R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimeon ben Yohai): Better had a man throw himself into a fiery furnace than publicly put his neighbor to shame. From where do we derive this? From [the action of] Tamar; for it is written in Scripture (Gen 38:24), When she was brought forth, [she sent to her father-in-law privately]. Ketubot 67b

With God in Hell, 7 To Live or to Survive 28

What then is Kiddush haShem, sanctification of God’s name? The concept is charged with deep emotion for the Jew, as it carries within itself both the tragedy and the glory of Jewish martyrdom through the ages. It is with great hesitancy that one dares undertake even only a cursory discussion of this awesome subject. Because of the idea of martyrdom has become so closely attached to it, Kiddush haShem is commonly understood to mean dying a martyr’s death as a Jew. But this does not appear to be its original meaning. For example, the phrase occurs in the talmudic interpretation of the biblical story of Tamar who, disguised as a prostitute, had been made pregnant by her father-in-law, Judah. Accused of harlotry by Judah, but not wanting to put him to shame, instead of naming him she sent him the pledges that he had left in her hands with the words: “I am pregnant by the man to whom these belong…Recognize, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff.” (Genesis 38:25.) The teachers in the Talmud considered the Hebrew hakker, na, “recognize, I ask you,” rather too strong a phrase for the identification of such objects as a signet, cords, and a staff. Usually, the root hakker (to recognize) in the Bible implies personal recognition. Therefore, here too, the midrashic interpretation attaches a personal form of acknowledgment to both phrases. Thus Tamar was asking Judah: “Please, acknowledge the presence of your Creator and do not hide your eyes from me.” The Bible then continues: Vayakker Yehudah, “And Judah recognized.” This phrase supports the midrashic interpretation for if the act of recognition referred to the objects before him, the syntax would have required the phrase: Va’yakirem Yehudah, “And Judah recognized them.” As it stands, it is better rendered “And Judah acknowledged,” i.e., acknowledged “the presence of his Creator” and confessed. By his acknowledgment, the Talmud says, Judah “sanctified the Divine Name.” This deed of Judah is then compared to the conduct of Joseph who withstood temptation by the wife of Potiphar and thereby also “sanctified the Divine Name.” Yet Judah’s deed was greater than that of Joseph, for he performed the act of Kiddush haShem in public, whereas Joseph did so in private. (T.B. Sotah 10b.)

Midrash

The Midrash juxtaposes the story of Judah's actions with those of Joseph to highlight the consequences of their deeds. Judah's involvement in selling Joseph led to his own humiliation when Tamar asked him to identify his possessions. This is compared to Potifar's wife's actions, suggesting that both were for the sake of Heaven. The text also compares the stories of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshatzar, and Darius the Mede to emphasize the divine inspiration behind the events. Additionally, the Rabbis offer interpretations on the reasons for the narrative structure, such as to show that the punishment for collective sins can fall on one individual, and to highlight the consequences of Judah's actions.

Aggadat Bereshit 61:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Bamidbar Rabbah 13:14

Another matter, “vekorbano…” – what did the princes see that led them to present offerings in this manner? The Rabbis say: Even though each of them presented an identical offering, they offered it regarding significant matters, and each and every one presented according to his perspective. Naḥshon began and presented regarding the protocol of the monarchy, just as his father crowned him over his brothers, just as it says: “Judah, you, your brothers will acknowledge you…[your father's sons will prostrate themselves to you]. Judah is a lion cub…” (Genesis 49:8–9). Likewise it says: “For Judah prevailed over his brothers, as the prince would come from him” (I Chronicles 5:2). There was a tradition in the hand of the tribe of Judah, their Sages, and their prominent leaders, from Jacob our patriarch, regarding everything that is destined to befall each tribe until the messianic era. Likewise, there was a tradition in the hand of each and every tribe regarding what would befall it until the messianic era, from Jacob their father. “Vekorbano…” – he presented the dish and the basin corresponding to the kings of the house of David, who are destined to emerge from him, who ruled over the entire world, over the sea and over the land, e.g., Solomon and the messianic king. Solomon, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “For he ruled over the entire region beyond the river, from Tifsaḥ to Gaza” (I Kings 5:4). Rav and Shmuel, one said Tifsaḥ is at one end of the world and Gaza is at the other end of the world. One said: They stand adjacent to one another; just as he ruled over Tifsaḥ and over Gaza, so he ruled over the entire world. And it says: “All the world sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom…. Each would bring his tribute…” (I Kings 10:24–25). From where is it derived that he ruled over the sea? It is as it is written: “Also the fleet of Hiram, which had carried gold from Ophir…” (I Kings 10:11). “For the king had a fleet of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years…” (I Kings 10:22). And it says: “I will set his hand upon the seas, his right on the rivers” (Psalms 89:26). The messianic king, from where is it derived? It is, as it is written: "He will rule from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the land" (Psalms 72:8). Over the land, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “And all the kings, all the nations will bow to him, will serve him” (Psalms 72:11). And it says: “And behold, among the clouds of the heavens…. To him was given dominion, [honor, and kingship, and all the peoples, nations, and languages would serve him]” (Daniel 7:13–14). “The stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and filled the entire earth” (Daniel 2:35). This is why he presented a dish, corresponding to the sea that surrounds the entire world and resembles a dish. Why was “its weight one hundred and thirty”? (Numbers 7:13). It is because when the Holy One blessed be He gathered all the waters to one place on the third day of the formation of the world, he called them seas, as it is stated: “And to the gathering of the waters, He called seas [yamim]” (Genesis 1:10). The numerical value of yamim is one hundred; yod, yod are twenty, mem, mem are eighty, that is one hundred. Solomon came and added a sea to the construction of the Temple in which the priests could immerse themselves, just as it says: “He crafted the sea, of cast metal, ten cubits from brim to brim, [circular around, and its height was five cubits; a thirty-cubit line would wrap around it]” (I Kings 7:23). Corresponding to those thirty cubits that was the circumference of the sea that Solomon crafted, he added thirty shekels to the weight of the dish corresponding to the sea of Solomon. That is one hundred and thirty shekels, the weight of the dish, corresponding to the seas and to the sea of Solomon. “One silver basin” (Numbers 7:13), it is corresponding to the world, that is shaped like an orb that is tossed from hand to hand. Why was its weight “seventy shekels”? (Numbers 7:13). It is because both of them (Solomon and the Messianic king.) ruled over seventy nations, which exist from one end of the world to the other end. From where is it derived that the sea is shaped in the form of a dish and the world is shaped like an orb? It is like that which we learned: The Rabbis say: Only one that has in its hand a staff, a bird, an orb, a dish, a sword, a crown, or a ring is forbidden. (A statue of a person in whose hands one of these objects appears is considered an idol, and it is forbidden to benefit from it in any way.) A staff, as it rules the entire world with it. A bird: “My hand has grasped the riches of the peoples like a nest” (Isaiah 10:14). An orb, as the world is shaped like an orb. Rabbi Yona said: Alexander of Macedonia, when he sought to ascend heavenward, he would rise and rise until he would see the world as an orb and the sea as a dish. That is why, when they draw him, it is with an orb in his hand. Should they draw him with a dish in his hand? He does not have dominion over the sea. But the Holy One blessed be He has dominion over the sea and has dominion over the land, recues at sea and rescues on land; that is why they brought a dish corresponding to the sea and a basin corresponding to the land. “Both of them full [of high quality flour]" (Numbers 7:13), as the nation brought tributes [menaḥot] (The word menahot can also refer to meal offerings, which typically consist of high quality flour.) to Solomon; likewise they are destined to bring it to the messianic king, just as it says: “[The kings of Tarshish and of the islands will bring tribute [minḥa]]; the kings of Sheba and Seva will offer gifts” (Psalms 72:10). “Full [mele’im]” means nothing other than gifts, just as it says: “And gave them all [vaymalum] to the king” (I Samuel 18:27). “High quality flour [solet]" (Numbers 7:13), just as it says: "valued [hamesulaim] like gold" (Lamentations 4:2). "Mixed with oil” (Numbers 7:13), just as it says: “A good name is better than fragrant oil” (Ecclesiastes 7:1), and it says: “Your name is like poured oil” (Song of Songs 1:3), as their good name would go forth throughout the world. Why were they of silver? It is just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, [full of incense]” (Numbers 7:14), corresponding to the ten generations from Peretz to David, as it is stated: “These are the generations of Peretz: [Peretz begot Hetzron]; and Hetzron begot [Ram, and Ram begot Aminadav;] Aminadav begot Naḥshon, [and Naḥshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Oved]; and Oved begot [Yishai], and Yishai begot David” (Ruth 4:18–22). “One…ladle,” as they were all like one hand, all full-fledged righteous men. That is, “full of incense” (Numbers 7:14), as their actions were pleasant like the fragrance of the incense. “One young bull” (Numbers 7:15), corresponding to Abraham, who was the primary progenitor, and who, in his regard, it is stated: “Abraham ran to the cattle [and took a young bull]” (Genesis 18:7). “One ram” (Numbers 7:15), this is Isaac, as, in his regard it is stated: “He took the ram and he offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son” (Genesis 22:13). “One sheep” (Numbers 7:15), corresponding to Jacob, in whose regard it is stated: “Jacob separated the sheep” (Genesis 30:40). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:16), corresponding to Judah, who brought Joseph’s fine tunic that he had immersed in the blood of the goat, as it is stated: “They slaughtered a goat [and they dipped the tunic in the blood]" (Genesis 37:31). Judah brought it to his father and said: “Identify this, please, is it your son’s tunic?” (Genesis 37:32). That is why it was meted to him with the same measure, as Tamar said to him: “Identify, please, whose signet, belt, [and staff are these?]” (Genesis 38:25). That is why sin offering is stated in this regard, as they brought it as atonement for him, because he brought anguish to his father. “And for the peace offering [hashelamim], two cattle” (Numbers 7:17) – these are David and Solomon, as they initiated the monarchy, as cattle [bakar] is nothing other than an expression of monarchy, just as it says: “Butter of cattle [bakar] and milk of sheep…” (Deuteronomy 32:14), and we translate it: Give them the plunder of their kings. (Targum Onkelos on the verse. Shelamim) , because they were full-fledged righteous men, (Shelamim is expounded as though it is written shelemim, complete.) and in their days, Israel were flawless [mushlamim], and in the days of Solomon, the kingdom was complete [shelema], as it is stated: “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23). The two of them built the Temple; David made the foundation, and Solomon built it. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:17) – these are fifteen corresponding to the fifteen kings who were from Reḥavam until Zedekiah, king son of a king. Some were full-fledged righteous men, some were middling, and some were full-fledged wicked men. “This was the offering of Naḥshon son of Aminadav” (Numbers 7:17). When the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering corresponding to the order of the patriarchs and the royal dynasty, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Naḥshon son of Aminadav.”

Bereshit Rabbah 84:19

“Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he rent his garments” (Genesis 37:29). “Reuben returned to the pit” – where had he been? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua: Rabbi Eliezer said: In his sackcloth and his fasting. (He was preoccupied with his repentance for his action involving Bilha (Genesis 35:22).) When he was free, he went and peered into that pit. That is what is written: “Reuben returned to the pit.” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘A person has never sinned before Me and repented, and you are the first to initiate repentance. As you live, your descendant will arise and be the first to initiate repentance.’ (He will be the first to teach about the full power of repentance, such as the fact that repentance out of love can cause one’s sins to be considered as merits (Yefe To’ar). ) Who is that? It is Hosea, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hosea 14:2). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat” – why a goat? Because its blood is similar to that of man. “They sent the fine tunic, and they brought it to their father and said: We found this. Identify, please: Is it your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:32). “They sent the fine tunic…” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said: “Identify, please”; as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please”’ (Genesis 38:25). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him; Joseph has been mauled” (Genesis 37:33). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic” – he said: I do not know what I am seeing. (Jacob was used to a high level of perception, fueled by the Divine Spirit. But from this incident until he reunited with Joseph, that clarity left him, and he was unsure of the exact facts or full ramifications of what he was seeing (Maharzu). ) “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him…” – Rav Huna said: The Divine Spirit flashed in him: “A savage beast devoured him” – this is Potifar’s wife. (Rav Huna explains that although Jacob himself was unsure what had occurred, he said something that alluded to future events (Maharzu). )

Bereshit Rabbah 85:11

“She was taken out, and she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man to whom these belong I am with child. She said: Identify, please, whose signet, and belt, and staff these are” (Genesis 38:25). “She was taken out [mutzet]…” – Rabbi Yudan said: [It may be derived] from here that [Judah’s items] were lost, and the Holy One blessed be He provided [himtzi] her with others in their place, just as it says: “Or found [matza] a lost item…” (Leviticus 5:22). Rav Huna said: “She was taken out” – he and she should be taken out. (This is expounded from the fact that “she [hi]” is spelled heh vav alef, which can also be read “he [hu].” The point is that just as she would ostensibly be killed for her violation, so would the man with whom she had committed adultery. ) “She sent to her father-in-law, saying…[identify, please [haker na]…]” – he sought to deny it. She said to him: ‘Acknowledge now [haker na] your Creator; they belong to you and your Creator.’ (This is because the items had been miraculously recreated after they were lost, as explained above (Yefe To’ar). ) “Identify, please, whose signet” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said to your father: “Identify, please” (Genesis 37:32); as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please.”’

Bereshit Rabbah 85:2

“It was at that time” – the verse should have said only: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). (This verse, describing the sale of Joseph to Potifar in Egypt, is the direct continuation of chapter 37, which concludes with Joseph being brought down to Egypt. This narrative is interrupted by the story of Judah in chapter 38. ) Why, then, did it juxtapose this portion to that one? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Elazar said: In order to juxtapose descent to descent. (The story of Judah’s descent is embedded within the story of Joseph’s descent to imply that Judah lost stature among his brothers due to the sale of Joseph, when they saw how much pain it caused their father (Yefe To’ar). ) Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In order to juxtapose “identify” (Genesis 37:32) to “identify” (Genesis 38:25). (Because Judah was responsible for the sale of Joseph, in which the brothers asked Jacob to identify Joseph’s tunic, he experienced the embarrassment of having to admit his error when Tamar asked him to identify the possessions he had left with her (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose the incident of Tamar to the incident of Potifar’s wife. Just as this one, [Tamar, acted] for the sake of Heaven, so too, that one, [Potifar’s wife, acted] for the sake of Heaven, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: She saw through her astrology that she was destined to bring forth a child from him, but she did not know whether it would be from her or from her daughter. That is what is written: “[The astrologers, the stargazers,] who foretell by the new moons of that which will befall you” (Isaiah 47:13). Rabbi Aivu said: [They foretell] “of that which [will befall you]” but not all that [will befall you]. (They do not provide all the details.) Similarly, “[They were both naked, the man and his wife,] and they were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25), “the serpent was…cunning” (Genesis 3:1). The verse should have said only: “The Lord God made for Adam and for his wife [hide tunics, and clothed them]” (Genesis 3:21). (Why is the story of the serpent inserted in between the verse stating that Adam and Eve were naked and the verse stating that God clothed them? ) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: It is to inform you for what reason that wicked one [the serpent] accosted them; because it saw them engaged in conjugal relations, it lusted after them. Rabbi Yaakov of Kefar Ḥanin said: So as not to end with the portion of the serpent. (The verse regarding the hide tunics was placed after the incident of the serpent so as not to conclude a passage with God’s curses, given in the aftermath of the story of the serpent. ) Similarly, “[Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt, and glorify the King of heaven…] and He is able to humble those who walk in arrogance” (Daniel 4:34), “King Belshatzar” (Daniel 5:1) and “Darius the Mede” (Daniel 6:1). Where is Evil Merodakh? (The text proceeds from discussing Nebuchadnezzar to King Belshatzar and to Darius the Mede, while skipping Evil Merodakh, who reigned between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshatzar. ) Rabbi Elazar said: To juxtapose a wicked one to a wicked one, a tormentor to a tormentor, a conceited one to a conceited one. (Both Nebuchadnezzar and his grandson Belshatzar were wicked, tormentors, and conceited.) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose a reign that was truncated to a reign that was truncated. Similarly, “During that night, Belshatzar the Chaldean king was killed” (Daniel 5:30), “and Darius the Mede [received the kingdom]” (Daniel 6:1). Where is [the chapter beginning:] “In the third year of the reign of King Belshatzar” (Daniel 8:1)? (Why does this chapter, which is set during the reign of Belshatzar, not precede the transition in the text to the reign of Darius? ) Rav Huna said: So that they will not say that this is mere literature; so that everyone will know that he said it through the divine spirit. (At times, works composed with the divine spirit arrange events out of chronological order for esoteric reasons (Maharzu). ) The Rabbis say: In order to indicate regarding the whole book that it was stated through the divine spirit. Here too, it should have said: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1), but it is written: “Judah descended from his brothers.” [Judah] said [to his brothers]: (This is an additional insight into the phrase “Judah descended from his brothers” (Yefe To’ar). ) ‘Let us disperse ourselves, for so long as we are together, the promissory note is liable to be collected.’ (Since we sinned together in the sale of Joseph, it would be fitting for the punishment to occur when we are all together (Etz Yosef). Alternatively, the promissory note refers to the prophecy to Abraham that his descendants would be oppressed in a foreign land. Judah sensed that the departure of Joseph might eventually lead to their all descending to exile. That would be more likely to occur if they were all together (Yefe To’ar). ) The Holy One blessed be He said to them: If ten people were implicated for robbery, can one not be apprehended for the act of them all? (I can punish each of you separately, or I can punish even just one of you for the entire episode. ) When they were implicated regarding the goblet, they said: “God has found [matza] the iniquity of your servants” (Genesis 44:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The creditor has found the opportunity to collect on his promissory note. Rabbi Levi said: Like this one who empties [mematze] the barrel and leaves it with only its dregs. (God is punishing us for the sin in its entirety, to the last drop. ) The Rabbis say: (The Rabbis say another reason for the juxtaposition of the story of Judah descending from his brothers and marrying, to the story of the sale of Joseph. ) [Judah said:] ‘Come and let us provide for ourselves. In the past, he [Jacob] would have felt obligated to arrange for us to marry wives, but now he is preoccupied with his sackcloth and fasting. It is not right that he should engage in [arranging for us to marry wives.’ They said to Judah: ‘Are you not the leader of us all? You arise and provide for yourself.’ Immediately, “Judah descended” – it is a descent for him that he married a gentile woman. It is a descent for him that he buried his wife and his sons.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Bava Metzia 4:4

A disciple has taught before R. Nachman b. Isaac: "He who exposes his neighbor to shame in public is considered as if he shed blood." "Your statement is correct," remarked R. Isaac, "for we see in the man who is exposed to shame in public that the red color of his face disappears and he becomes white." Abaye said to R. Dimi: "What is the thing which is strictly observed in Palestine?" And he answered: "To be careful [not] to make pale the face (i.e., putting people to shame); for R. Chanina said that all descend to Gehenna, except three. All! Is it possible? Say thus: All who descend to Gehenna return hence, except the following three descend and do not return: An adulterer, one who exposes his fellowman to shame in public, and one who applies vile names to his neighbor." But is applying vile names not the same as exposing his fellowman to shame in public? The former refers even when he was already used to be named so. Rabba b. b. Chana said in the name of R. Jochanan: "(Fol. 59) A man should rather commit adultery than expose his fellowman to shame in public." Whence is it inferred? From Raba's lecture: What is the meaning of the passage (Ps. 35, 15) But when I halt they rejoice, and gather themselves together; … they tear me, and cease not. Thus said David before the Holy One, praised be He! "Sovereign of the Universe, it is known and revealed before Thee that if they would tear my flesh the blood would not run. Even when they are occupied in the study of Negaim and Ahaloth they say to me: 'David, who is an adulterer, with what kind of a death must he be punished?' And I answered them: 'He is to be hanged: he, however, has a share in the world to come, but he who exposes his fellowmen to shame in public has no share in the world to come.'" Mar Zutra b. Tubia in the name of Rab, according to others R. Chana b. Bizna in the name of R. Simeon the Pious, and still according to others, R. Jochanan in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai, said: "It is better that one throw himself in a burning furnace than expose his fellowman to shame in public. Whence do we infer it? From the act of Tamar, concerning whom it is written (Gen. 38, 25) When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, etc."

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Berakhot 6:6

(Fol. 43b) One more thing said R. Zutra b. Tubia in the name of Rab; others say R. Chanan b. Bizna said it in the name of R. Simon; still others say R. Jochanan said it in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "It is better for a man to be thrown into a fiery furnace than be the means of bringing another to shame in public. We infer this from Tamar, as is written (Gen. 38, 25.) She sent to her father-in-law saying, 'By the man who owns these, am I with child.' and she said. 'Acknowledge, I pray thee, the ownership of these, the signet, the scarf, and the staff. And Juda acknowledged it and said, 'She has been more righteous than I.'" [Tamar thus preferred to be burnt rather than to disclose Juda's name for fear of bringing public shame upon him.] Our Rabbis taught: "Six things are a disgrace to a learned man: He shall not go out perfumed; he shall not wear patched shoes; he shall not walk alone at night; he shall not talk with a woman on the street; he shall not sit at the table with ignorant men; he shall not enter the synagogue late." Some add to this, "He shall not take long steps when walking, and he shall not walk with a proud unbending gait." He shall not go out perfumed. R. Abba, the son of R. Chiya b. Abba, in the name of R. Jochanan said: "This refers to places where immorality prevails." R. Shesheth said it refers only to his clothes, but not to his body, as it is healthful. Regarding the hair [as to perfume], R. Papa says it is in the same class as clothes; others contend it is part of the body. He shall not wear patched shoes. This will support the opinion of R. Chiya b. Abba who said that it is a disgrace for a scholar to go out with patched shoes. Is it really so? Behold! R. Chiya b. Abba himself used to go out with patched shoes. Mar Zutra the son of R. Nachman said: "This is prohibited only when there is a patch upon a patch, then only on the leather, not on the sole, and only during the summer and in the street; but, during the winter or in the house it does not matter. He shall not walk alone at night. Because of suspicion. He shall not talk with a woman on the street. R. Chisda said: "This refers even to his own wife." We have also a Baraitha to the same effect: "Even to his own wife, to his own daughter or to his own sister; for not every one is acquainted with his family." He shall not enter the synagogue late; for he may be called lazy; He shall not sit at the table with ignorant men, for he may adopt their bad manners. He shall not walk fast, because the master said: "Big steps take away one five hundredth of the light of a man's eye," [and if his eyes suffer] what shall be the remedy? Let him drink the cup of Habdala, and he will become well. He shall not walk with proud, unbending gait., because the master said, "He who walks even four cubits with a proua, unbending gait is considered to have spurned [with his haughty head] the feet of the Shechinah, for it is written (Is. 6, 3.) The whole earth is full of His glory."

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Ketubot 6:5

Mar Ukba had a poor man in his vicinity for whom he used to put four zuzim in the slot underneath the door every day. One day the poor man said: "I will go and watch who does me such a favor." On that day Mar Ukba was detained until late in the college, whereupon his wife accompanied him [to the house of the poor man.] As soon as the poor man noticed that they stooped downward, as if to put something in the slot underneath the door, he went out to meet them. The latter commenced to run from him until they entered a fireplace from which the fire had been scraped. Mar Ukba's feet commenced to burn, when his wife said to him: "Take thy feet and place them upon my feet." After he had done so he felt discouraged [that his wife had to protect him.] His wife said to him: "It is because I am constantly in the house and the charity which I offer to the poor is ready to enjoy [like bread and other foods."] But why did they go to such an extent? Because Mar Zutra b. Tubia said in the name of Rab; (others say R. Chanan b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simon the pious, still others say R. Jochanan said it in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai): "A man should rather have himself surrendered [to be thrown] into a furnace than put his neighbor to shame in public." We infer this from Tamar, concerning whom it is written (Gen. 38, 25) When she was brought forth, etc.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 1:30

Because she had covered her face did he think her a harlot? [Is it not the contrary?] R. Elazar said that this means: She had covered her face when she had been in his house, hence he did not know her." Therefore she was rewarded that from her descended kings and prophets — kings from David; and prophets, as R. Levi said: "A bride who is chaste in the house of her father-in-law, will be rewarded that kings and prophets will descend from her." Whence do we infer this? From Tamar When she was lead forth she sent to her father-in-law. The text should have the word Meutzeas, in the passive voice [instead of Motzes in the active voice]. R. Elazar said: This means that after she produced the signs [of the signet, scarf and staff], the Angel Samael came and removed them, then the Angel Gabriel came and brought them again and this is the meaning of the passage (Ps. 56 1) To the chief musician upon Joneth elem-re-chokin." Said R. Jochanan: "This means that after the signs were removed she became numb like a dove." (Ib., ib., ib.) Unto David a Michtam, i.e., of whom David went forth, who kept himself humble and plain to everyone. Could Michtam be explained in another way that he was born circumsized? Can Michtam be explained in another way that just when in his youth he humbled himself before a superior in order to study the Torah from him, so also when he was elevated, he kept himself meek before one who was greater than he in order to study the Torah? (Ib., ib.) And she sent to her father-in-law, saying, 'By the man who owns these,' etc., why did she not call him by his name? Said Mar Zutra b. Tubia in the name of Rab; others say R. Chana b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simon, the pious; still others say R. Jochanan said it in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "It is better for a man to be thrown into a fiery furnace than be the means of bringing another to shame in public. We infer this from Tamar." (Gen. 38, 25) (Ib., ib., ib.) Acknowledge I pray thee. Said R. Chama b. Chanina: "With the word Haker (acknowledged) did Juda inform his father [concerning Joseph's disappearance] and with the word Haker (acknowledge) was Juda informed of the bad tidings [concerning the affair of Tamar]; i.e., with the word Haker did Juda inform his father, (Ib. 37. 32) Hakerna (acknowledge), we pray thee, whether it be thy son's coat or not, and with the word Haker was Juda informed Haker (acknowledge) I pray thee to whom belong the signet, scarf, and staff!" Acknowledge, I pray thee, the word Nah means nothing else but pray. She thus said unto Juda: "I pray thee acknowledge thy Creator and do not avert thy eyes from me." And Juda acknowledged them. And this is meant by R. Chama b. Bizna, who said in the name of R. Simon the pious: "Joseph, who sanctified Heaven's name in secret was rewarded with only one additional letter of the name of the Holy One, praised be He, as it is written (Ps. 81) but Juda, who sanctified Heaven's name publicly was rewarded so that his entire name was equal to that of the Holy One, praised be He." As soon as he confessed and said, a Divine voice went forth and said: "Thou hast saved Tamar with her two children from being burnt in fire, I swear by thy life that I shall save through thy merits thy three sons from being burnt in fire." Who are they? Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. She it righteous, it is from me. How did he know it? A Divine voice went forth and said: "From me went forth the secret things." (Ib., ib., ib.) Said Samuel the senior, the father-in-law of R. Samuel b. Ama: "This means that since he knew her he never forsook her, for it is written (Deut. 5, 19) A great voice v'lo yassph. [Just as in the latter case it means for ever, so also does it mean in the former case] ."

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 17:6

(Gen. 38:24, cont.:) THAT IT WAS TOLD TO JUDAH, SAYING: YOUR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW TAMAR HAS PROSTITUTED HERSELF; AND SHE IS ALSO PREGNANT FOR LEWDNESS. What is the meaning of FOR LEWDNESS? That she would enter a bathhouse and say to her women friends: Go away from me because I am bearing kings. But Isaac, Jacob, and Judah were sitting there in judgment. They said (ibid., cont.): BRING HER OUT AND LET HER BE BURNED. R. Johanan said: In property cases one begins with the eldest, but in capital cases one begins with the youngest and finishes with the eldest. (Sanh. 4:2; Git. 59a. Thus the younger judges would not be unduly influenced by their elders.) And why does one say: WITH THE YOUNGEST? Because one ascribes corruption to the youngest. Why did he say (in Gen. 34:24): LET HER BE BURNED, and not say: "Let her be killed"? Ephraim the Disputant said in the name of R. Me'ir: She was Shem's daughter, and Shem was a priest. For this reason he said: BRING HER OUT, AND LET HER BE BURNED. (See Lev. 21:9.) Now they were dragging her and bringing her out against her will, as stated (in Gen. 38:25): AS SHE WAS BEING BROUGHT OUT. Now while she was being brought out, she sought < the tokens of > the pledge but did not find them. In that hour she raised her eyes to the heavens. Immediately the Holy One sent her others.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 17:7

Another interpretation: Judah bar Shallum the Levite said: When she came out, the Holy One made her eyes light up and she found them after she had lost them because there is no finding except of what is LOST. Thus it is written (in Lev. 5:22): OR HAS FOUND WHAT IS LOST. Immediately she sent < her tokens of the pledge > to Judah, (according to Gen. 38:25) THE ONE TO WHOM THESE BELONG. She said to him (ibid., cont.): PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE your Creator. (Gen. R., 97, New Version, on Gen. 49:8 (= p. 1214 in the Theodor-Albeck edition) explains that for Judah to acknowledge the Creator meant for him not to be ashamed in confessing the matter before flesh and blood. Cf. Sot. 10b.) Immediately (in vs. 26): JUDAH GAVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT. In that hour a heavenly voice (bat qol) came forth and said to him: You are to say: [She is pregnant from me; lest] she be burned. And afterwards he confessed: The affair stemmed from me. The Holy One said to Him: Judah, for me you have saved three lives from the fire and one (i.e., Joseph) from the pit. By your life, I will save < four lives > for you just as you have saved < them > for me. Who are they? Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the fiery furnace (in Dan. 3:20-27) and Daniel from the lions' pit (in Dan. 6:16-23). What is written about them (in Dan. 1:6)? NOW AMONG THOSE FROM THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH WERE DANIEL, HANANIAH, MISHAEL, AND AZARIAH. "From Hezekiah's children" (See PRE 52 at the end; Sanh. 93b.) is not written here, but FROM THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH. For what reason? For the reason that he had saved Tamar and her children < from the fire > and Joseph from the pit. When Reuben heard that Judah had confessed, he immediately arose also and said: I also have violated my father's beds (in Gen. 35:22). Eliphaz said to Job (in Job 15:17-18): I WILL INFORM YOU; HEARKEN TO ME. NOW THIS HAVE I SEEN, AND I WILL DECLARE THAT WHICH SAGES HAVE TOLD. These < sages > are Reuben and Judah. Therefore (in vs. 19): TO THEM ALONE WAS THE LAND GIVEN. When? (Ibid.:) AND NO STRANGER PASSED AMONG THEM. When Moses came to bless them, what did he say (in Deut. 33:6-7)? MAY REUBEN LIVE AND NOT DIE…. AND THIS IS FOR JUDAH….

Musar

The text discusses how Judah and his brothers were punished "measure for measure" for their actions, with specific examples of punishment related to their actions. It also emphasizes the importance of not shaming others in public, comparing it to shedding blood and stating that one should prefer to suffer themselves rather than publicly shame another person. The text also highlights the severity of embarrassment, comparing it to murder and stating that it is better to face extreme punishment than to shame someone publicly. The story of Tamar is used as an example of not shaming others, even in difficult situations.

Sha'arei Teshuvah 3:139

And behold the dust of murder is whitening [someone else’s] face (embarrassing someone). Since his face turns white and the ruddy appearance leaves [it], it is similar to [the draining of blood] caused by murder. And so did our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, say (Bava Metzia 58b). And secondly because the pain of the [embarrassment] is more bitter than death. Therefore our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Ketuvot 67b), Really “it is preferable for a person to make himself fall into a fiery furnace, and not whiten the face of his fellow in public” - but they did not say this about other weighty transgressions. Indeed, they compared the dust of murder to [actual] murder: And just like they said that he must [let himself] be killed and not murder; they likewise said that he should make himself fall into a fiery furnace, and not whiten the face of his fellow in public. And they learned this from the matter of Tamar, as it is stated (Bereishit 48:25), “As she was being brought out, she sent to her father-in-law, etc.” Behold even though she was being taken out to be burned [to death], she did not reveal that she was pregnant from Yehudah, so as not to whiten his face.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:18

From here on, Scripture begins to relate the punishments and the mortifications that they suffered for this, all "measure for measure." First of all, Judah was punished, who was the immediate cause of the sale. He became a mourner over his sons, and certainly also rent his garments over them, according to the din. And his brothers, too, were not exempt from the punishment of "rending" [k'riyah], for they, too, rent their garments on their day of woe [viz. Ibid. 44:13]. And because he [Jacob] mourned his son "many days," therefore, (Ibid. 38:12): "And after 'many days,' the daughter of Shua, Judah's wife, died." And because he deceived his father with a kid of goats, dipping Joseph's robe in its blood, they deceived him, too, with a kid of goats, as we find in the Midrash. And because they said (Ibid. 37:32): "Recognize, now," he, too, was punished through Tamar with (Ibid. 38:25): "Recognize, now, whose are this signet and cloak and staff? Who can imagine the greatness of the shame and the mortification that he suffered then!

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 17:4

(Ibid. 17): "Reprove shall you reprove your neighbor, but do not bear sin because of him"; that is, do not "whiten his face" in public, even by way of reproof; how much more so, otherwise. If one whitens the face of his friend in public, his sin is too great to bear. As we find in Bava Metzia 58b: "If one whitens his friend's face in public, it is as if he sheds blood." And (Ibid. 59a): "It is better for one to cast himself into a fiery furnace than to whiten his friend's face in public. Whence is this derived? From [the instance of] Tamar, viz. (Bereshith 38:25): 'She was taken out [to be burned], and she sent to her father-in-law, saying, etc.'" It is apparent from this that even if the man [spoken against] is, indeed, liable, still, great care must be taken not to shame him. And it emerges from the Gemara that if one is accustomed to whiten his friend's face in public, he has no share in the world to come.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Derekh Chayim, Vayeshev 15

לאיש אשר אלה לו אנכי הרה . The Talmud Sotah 10b concludes that this verse teaches that one should rather suffer oneself to be burned alive than to shame one's fellow-man publicly. The penalty for publicly shaming someone is so great that one must not do it even if one can save lives, and even if the person who would suffer the embarrassment is guilty of the crime one accuses him of.

Quoting Commentary

Rabbeinu Bahya explains that Nadav and Avihu sinned by directing their incense offering towards the attribute of Justice rather than to Hashem, resulting in their death by fire. In a separate commentary, Rabbeinu Bahya discusses how the striped coat given to Joseph by his father Yaakov led to jealousy among his brothers, ultimately resulting in his sale into slavery and the suffering of the Jewish people in Egypt. Ramban questions the interpretation of Judah giving his cloak to Tamar, suggesting instead that it may have been a small scarf or seal with fringes. Da'at Zekenim notes that the phrase "הכר" is used by both Judah to his father and Tamar to Judah, connecting the anguish caused to Yaakov by Judah's actions to the anguish Tamar faced when accused of adultery.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:32:2

!הכר, “know!” Yehudah was the brother who said this to his father; this is why he was the one charged with causing his father this anguish (losing a son, so that he lost two sons) This interpretation may be understood more literally, i.e. why Tamar when about to be burned at the stake for supposedly having committed adultery used the same wording when asking her father-in-law and judge: הכר נא למי החותמת, “please identify whom this signet ring belongs!” (Genesis 38,25) (Based on B’reshit Rabbah, 84,19)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:3:2

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “he made for him a striped coat.” This was a superior garment.. It may have resembled the כתונת תשבץ worn by the High Priest (Exodus 28,4). The brothers were envious of Joseph on account of this garment. This envy aroused by Yaakov making this garment for Joseph caused our sages (Shabbat 10) to go on record that a father should be careful not to discriminate between his children. This coat was the first of the various causes which produced the tragedy described by the Torah and whose ramifications ultimately resulted in the enslavement of the bodies of the Jewish people in Egypt. It had still later ramifications in the time of the Romans after the destruction of the second Temple when ten of the most illustrious scholars of that time died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Romans whose Emperor justified himself quoting the penalty of kidnapping provided in the Torah. He argued that the brothers had never been punished for selling their brother. The body is perceived as the outer garment of the soul. The kind of garment one wears is somehow related to the body underneath it just as the body is related to the soul within it. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,6 the expression פסים (plural) is used because these stripes were as wide as two פסות ידיו, two handbreadths. Another interpretation of the word פסים: the word is derived from פייס, lot; the brothers drew lots amongst themselves to decide which of the four methods of death the Torah provides to administer to Joseph. This is based on the wording of ויתנכלו להמיתו, “they planned (how) to kill him” (verse 37,18). Alternately, they drew lots who was to bring the news about the torn coat to their father Yaakov. The lot fell on Yehudah and this is why Yehudah said to Yaakov הכר נא ”please identify if this is the coat of your son.” The expression הכר נא is found again with Tamar, Yehudah’s daughter-in-law, who said to Yehudah concerning the pawn he had given her הכר נא למי החותמת וגו', “please identify to whom this signet ring belongs, etc.” (38,25) When Yehudah said to Yaakov: “identify if this is the coat of your son,” Yaakov’s life ended suddenly, and the lives of Yehudah’s sons Er and Onan came to an end at that same moment. [I believe that this Midrash considers the “revival” of Yaakov as having taken place when he heard that Joseph was alive, 45,24, and that the lives of Er and Onan were vicariously revived in the twin sons which Tamar bore for Yehudah 38,28. Ed.] This is the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 32,18 ומשלם עון אבות אל חיק בניהם אחריהם, “but You visit the guilt of the fathers to their children after them.” Still another possible meaning of the word פסים. The word is reminiscent of the four kinds of troubles which befell Joseph as a result of this coat. The letters in the word are an acrostic for the words פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים.. All the above owned Joseph at one time or another from the moment the brothers sold him. A more mystical meaning of the word פסים: Yaakov revealed the mystical connections between the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet to Joseph. In other words, Yaakov “enrobed” his son Joseph with the wisdom contained in the twenty-two letters of the alphabet which he himself had learned at the time he had studied in the academies of Shem and Ever.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 10:1:3

A kabbalistic approach: We can gain a clearer picture of the sin of these sons of Aaron when noting that the Torah wrote: וישימו עליה, instead of writing וישימו עליהם, “they placed on it” instead of: “they placed on them.” [There had been two censers, each brother having entered with his own censer. Ed.] When you compare what the Torah writes in connection with the 250 men who offered incense (Numbers 16,18) you will find that the fire and incense is described with the words “they placed it on them, (the censers, plural). When the instructions as to the correct procedure is issued in the Torah (Numbers 16,17) Moses had told these men ונתתם עליהם קטורת “place on them incense.” (No mention had been made of fire although the 250 men added their own fire) The word עליה as distinct from עליהם is an allusion to the attribute of Justice. The Torah is trying to give us an insight into the thinking of Nadav and Avihu at that time. They knew that incense was intended to counter, to stop the attribute of Justice in its tracks, as we know from Moses in Deuteronomy 33,10: “they place incense to placate Your anger.” The word קטורת itself means התקשרות רוח במדות, “establishing a spiritual affinity.” The Aramaic translation of the word ותקשור, (Genesis 38,25) “she tied” is וקטרת. The spiritual affinity established by means of the incense is meant to draw down an abundance of heavenly blessings by means of the attribute of Justice, which in turn will confer these blessings on the person burning up the incense. The sin of the person offering incense with such considerations consists in the fact that it is not permissible to direct one’s offering to any other attribute of G’d than the tetragram, i.e. Hashem. Seeing that Nadav and Avihu erred in the address to which the offered their incense, we do not find it described as אשה ריח ניחוח לה', “as a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord,” but the very attribute of Justice to whom they addressed their offering smote them. This is the meaning of the words ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל אותם, “fire came forth from the presence of the Lord and consumed them so that they died” (verse 2).

Ramban on Genesis 38:18:1

THY SIGNET ‘UP’THILECHA.’ Onkelos renders it as “thy signet and thy cloak,” meaning “the ring which you use as a seal, and the cloak with which you cover yourself.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct to say that he would give his cloak, and go away from her unclothed. And how is it that a cloak is called p’thil in the Hebrew language? And how can it be referred to later on as p’thilim, (Verse 25 here.) in the plural? Now should you say that on account of its fringed strings (p’thilim), the garment was called p’thil, far be it that Judah should fulfill the Commandment of Tzitzith (Fringes), (See Numbers 15:38.) yet treat it so lightly as to give it away in unchastity! Perhaps, he had with him a small scarf which he occasionally wound around part of the head, and which was called p’thil because it was short as a p’thil (fringe), and it is this which the Targum [Onkelos] rendered as shashifa, [which Rashi incorrectly took to mean “a cloak”]. Now you will not find that Onkelos will translate simlah (a garment) as shashifa wherever it is found in the Torah. Instead, he translates it throughout by a term denoting “cover” or “garment,” excepting the verse, And they shall spread the ‘simlah’ (garment), (Deuteronomy 22:17.) concerning which he says, “And they shall spread the shashifa,” because this is the sudar referred to in the Talmud (Kethuboth 10 a: “Bring me the sudar.” See also Ramban to Deuteronomy 22:17.) through which virginity is established. So did Jonathan ben Uziel translate hama’ataphoth (Isaiah 3:22.) (the mantlets) as shashifa, these being small scarfs which they wound around the head, and distinguished persons spread them over their bonnets and headbands. This custom still prevails in eastern countries. It is further possible that Judah possessed a seal impressed with the form of a lion or some other known figure, as rulers do, and he also had fringes in his hand, woven in the same design, with which to stroll about, as well as a rod in his hand, as becomes a ruler or lord, even as it is written, A strong rod, to be a sceptre to rule, (Ezekiel 19:14.) and it is further written, The sceptre shall not depart from Judah. (Further, 49:10.) It was these that he gave into Tamar’s hand.

Second Temple

Tamar was impregnated by a divine seed without seeing the sower, veiled her face like Moses, and recognized the symbols as gifts from a divine source.

On the Change of Names 23:5

[134] And Tamar too; she bore within her womb the divine seed, but had not seen the sower.  For we are told that at that hour she veiled her face (Gen. 38:15), just as Moses when he turned aside fearing to look upon God (Ex. 3:6). But she closely scanned the symbols and tokens, and judging in her heart that these were the gifts of no mortal she cried aloud, “To whomsoever these belong, he it is by whom I am with child” (Gen. 38:25).

Talmud

Tamar chose to avoid publicly embarrassing Judah by privately appealing to him when facing execution, demonstrating the importance of avoiding humiliation in public. This ethical principle is derived from Tamar's actions in the Torah, where she did not reveal that she was pregnant with Judah's child to spare him public embarrassment. This concept is also reflected in other instances in the Torah where individuals chose to avoid humiliation in public, even at great personal cost.

Avot DeRabbi Natan 34:5

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots. There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).

Bava Metzia 59a:3

And Mar Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says; and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says; and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more comfortable for a person to cast himself into a fiery furnace, than to humiliate another in public to avoid being cast into the furnace. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah. When she was taken out to be burned, she did not reveal that she was pregnant with Judah’s child. Rather, she left the decision to him, to avoid humiliating him in public, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: I am pregnant by the man to whom these belong. And she said: Examine these, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff?” (Genesis 38:24–25).

Berakhot 43b:8

And Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said; and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said; and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is preferable, from an ethical perspective, for one to throw himself into a fiery furnace rather than humiliate another in public. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah, when she was taken out to be burned, as it is stated: “As she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying I am pregnant by the man to whom these belong, and she said examine these, to whom does this seal, cord and staff belong?” (Genesis 38:25). Despite her dire situation, she did not reveal that she was pregnant with Judah’s child; rather, she left the decision to him, to avoid humiliating him in public.

Ketubot 67b:14

The Gemara asks: And what is all this? Why did they go to such extreme lengths to avoid being discovered? The Gemara answers: It is as Mar Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said, and some say that Rav Huna bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said, and some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is preferable for a person to deliver himself into a fiery furnace so that he not whiten the face of, i.e., embarrass, his friend in public. From where do we derive this? From the conduct of Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man, whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:24–25). Although Tamar was taken to be executed by burning, she privately and directly appealed to Judah, rather than publicly identifying him as the father of her unborn children and causing him embarrassment.

Sotah 10b:4

The verse describes Tamar’s court hearing: “When she was brought forth [mutzet], she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:25). The Gemara comments: It should have stated: When she was mitutzet. The word mutzet also carries the implication of being found. What then, is taught by the use of that term? Rabbi Elazar says: After her signs, which she was using to prove that she was impregnated by Judah, were brought out, the evil angel Samael came and distanced them from each other in an attempt to prevent Judah’s admission and Tamar’s survival, which would enable the birth of King David. The angel Gabriel then came and moved the signs closer again. Therefore, the word mutzet is used, as it alludes to the signs being found again.

Sotah 10b:6

The verse concerning Tamar then states: “She sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:25). The Gemara comments: And let her say to him explicitly that she was impregnated by him. Rav Zutra bar Tuviyya says that Rav says, and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says, and some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more amenable for a person to throw himself into a fiery furnace if faced with the choice of publicly embarrassing another or remaining silent even if it leads to being burned, and not humiliate another in public. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, as she was prepared to be burned if Judah did not confess, rather than humiliate him in public.

Sotah 10b:7

The verse continues: “And she said: Discern, please, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff” (Genesis 38:25). Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: With use of the word discern Judah informed his father that Joseph was lost, and also with use of the word discern they informed Judah about the signs. The Gemara explains: With the word discern he informed Jacob his father when he brought him the coat of Joseph and said to his father: “And they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father; and said: This have we found. Discern now whether it is your son’s coat or not” (Genesis 37:32). With the word discern they informed him: “And she said: Discern, please, whose are these.”

Targum

Tamar was brought forth to be burned for being pregnant, but she prayed for mercy and was able to find the three pledges belonging to the man who impregnated her. She did not reveal his identity, trusting that God would make him acknowledge the items and deliver her from judgment. Judah recognized the items and chose to be ashamed in this world rather than in the world to come. The Targums emphasize Tamar's faith in God and trust in divine justice.

Onkelos Genesis 38:25

She was being taken out, and she sent [word] to her father-in-law saying, By the man to whom these belong [from him] am I pregnant. She said, Please [Now] recognize to whom this signet, wrap and staff belong.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 38:25

Tamar was brought forth to be burned with fire; and she sought the three witnesses but found them not. She lifted up her eyes on high and said For mercy I pray before the Lord. Thou art He, o Lord God, who answerest the afflicted in the hour of their affliction ; answer me in this the hour of my affliction, and I will dedicate to thee three saints in the valley of Dura, Hananya, Mishael, and Azarya. In that hour the Word of the Lord heard the voice of her supplication and said to Mikael, Descend, and let her eyes have light....When she saw them, she took them, and cast before the feet of the judges, saying, By the man to whom these belong I am with child. But though I may be burned, I declare him not, but confide in the Ruler of all the world, the Lord who is witness between me and him, that He will give to the heart of the man to whom these belong, to acknowledge whose are these his ring, and mantle, and staff.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:25

Tamar was brought forth to be burned, and she searched for the three pledges, but found them not. Uplifiting her eyes to the heavens above, she thus said, Mercy I implore from Thee, O Lord: answer Thou me in this hour of need, and enlighten mine eyes to find the three witnesses; and I will dedicate unto Thee from my loins three saints who shall sanctify Thy name, and descend to the furnace of fire in the plain of Dura. In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, signed to Michael, who enlightened her eyes, that she found (the witnesses) and took and cast them before the, feet of the judges, and said, The man to whom these pledges belong is he by whom I am with child. Yet though I may be burned I do not make him manifest: nevertheless the Lord of the world will cause him in his heart to acknowledged them, and will deliver me from this great judgment. Now when Jehuda saw them, he recognised them, and said in his heart, It is better for me to be ashamed in this world that passeth away, than be ashamed in the faces of my righteous fathers in the world to come. It is better that I burn in this world by a fire that is extinguished, than burn in the world to come with fire devouring fire. For measure is set against measure. This is according to that which I said to Jakob my father, Know now the robe of thy son; so am I now constrained to hear at the place of judgment, Whose are this seal and mantle and staff ?

Tosefta

The Tosefta discusses instances where multiple parties make conflicting statements, such as the elders, priests, and Holy Spirit in regards to absolving the people of Israel, Joshua, Caleb, and the other spies regarding the land, Tamar and Judah regarding the seal, and the righteous, evil, and brave individuals during the battle of Shiloh. Each party's statement is juxtaposed with the others, emphasizing the differences in perspective and intention.

Tosefta Sotah 9:5

The Elders say (Deut. 21:7), "Our hands did not spill this blood, and our eyes did not see." The priests say (Deut. 21:8), "Absolve Your people Israel that You redeemed, O God, etc." And the Holy Spirit says, "And they shall be absolved of the blood." Three utterances, [and] whoever said this did not say that. Similarly, you could say [that in connection with the spies' report] (Num. 13:27-28), "We came to the land where you sent us," said Joshua; Caleb said; "Let us go up and possess it"; the [other] spies said, "However, powerful are the people settled in the land." Three utterances, this next to that, [and] whoever said this did not say that. Similarly, you could say [regarding the matter of Judah and Tamar] (Gen. 38:25-26), "And she said, 'Pray recognize, to whom does this seal [and these cords and this staff] belong?,'" said Tamar; "She is more righteous than I," said Judah; and the Holy Spirit says, "And he did not know her again." Three [utterances], this next to that, [and] whoever said this did not say that, and whoever said that did not say the other. Similarly, you could say [regarding the battle of Shiloh] (I Sam. 4:8-9), "Woe to us! Who will save us from the hand of this mighty God?" said the righteous among them; the evil ones among them said, "These are the gods who struck [the Egyptians] with ten plagues, and they paid for His plagues in the desert"* (אלה הם האלים המכים עשר מכות, ושלמו מכותיו במדבר (following Lieberman)) ; and the brave ones among them said, "Gird yourselves and be like men, O Philistines!" Three utterances, this next to that, etc. ... Similarly, you can say (Songs 8:5-6), "Under the apple tree I roused you," said the Holy Spirit; "Set me as a a seal upon your heart," said the Congregation of Israel; "For love is as powerful as death," said the idolaters. Three utterances, this next to that, etc.

וַיַּכֵּ֣ר יְהוּדָ֗ה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ צָֽדְקָ֣ה מִמֶּ֔נִּי כִּֽי־עַל־כֵּ֥ן לֹא־נְתַתִּ֖יהָ לְשֵׁלָ֣ה בְנִ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָסַ֥ף ע֖וֹד לְדַעְתָּֽהּ׃ 26 J Judah recognized them, and said, “She is more in the right than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he was not intimate with her again.
Yehudah acknowledges Tamar's righteousness and fulfills the levirate marriage obligation, leading to blessings and favor from God. This humility and acceptance of responsibility are emphasized in various commentaries, highlighting the importance of admitting wrongdoing and seeking forgiveness. The text also explores the significance of Judah's confession in relation to other biblical figures and events, showcasing his growth and maturity. Additionally, Moses prays for Judah's strength against his enemies in Deuteronomy 33:7.

Commentary

Yehudah acknowledges Tamar's righteousness in her actions, recognizing that she acted more righteously than he did by fulfilling the levirate marriage obligation. After establishing progeny with Tamar, Yehudah did not continue to be intimate with her, as he had fulfilled his duty towards her. Yehudah's acknowledgment of Tamar's righteousness is rooted in his failure to give her to his son Shelah, leading her to take matters into her own hands.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:26:1

צדקה ממני, “she is more righteous than I;” why did Yehudah add the word: ממני? She did what she did because she wanted to become pregnant from him since she was afraid that Shilo also would spill his seed like his brothers had done and he would die. [The meaning is as follows: whereas both she and I indulged our libido, I did it for a merely physical gratification, whereas she was intent on becoming the mother of a member of the family of Avraham, Yitzchok and a Yaakov. I considered her as a potentially bad omen, two of her husbands having died on her, whereas her entire purpose was to bring life into the world. Ed.]

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:26:2

כי על כן, “because of this;” if I had not withheld her rightful husband, my son Sheylah from her because I had been afraid that he too would deliberately fail to impregnate her, she would not have felt forced to take such a drastic step in order to become part of my family. A different interpretation: “her righteousness is rooted in me so that I should free her of the death penalty, because if I were to convict her I would be punishing myself; [by killing the son she is about to bear for me. Ed.]

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:26:3

ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “and he did not stop having marital relations with her,” seeing that originally I had intended to perform the levirate marriage ritual with her,” as explained on verse 25. Some commentators claim that in that era the only valid marriage ceremony was for the parties concerned sleeping together. Such “sleeping” together was legal as a form of marriage only if the manner in which it was performed was the generally accepted method, i.e. the male ejaculating his semen into the female vagina while in the ‘missionary’ position. Seeing that this was so, Tamar had never been married, as both Yehudah’s sons had not consummated the marriage. She was therefore legally married to Yehudah, who had never been her fatherinlaw. Another interpretation of the words: ולא יסף; “he never again had marital relations with Tamar again, as he was afraid she would cause death to any husband. [When he had done it the first time, Yehudah had thought he was sleeping with a harlot. Ed.] Still another explanation of the meaning of these words: he did not sleep with her again as he was ashamed to do so seeing that he was her fatherinlaw. This is based on the grammatical nuance that if it were to mean that he never stopped to sleep with her, [i.e. treated her as his wife, Ed.] the word לדעתה, with the prefix ל, would not make sense.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 38:26:1

ויאמר צדקה ממני, he (Yehudah) said: “she is more righteous than I am. ”G–d’s methods when sitting in judgment cannot be compared to the way a human judge deals with offenders. When a human judge tries a case, and the accused party admits his guilt, the judge proceeds to carry out the penalty for the offence in question, having proven that he did not act arbitrarily. In other words, if the offence carries the death penalty, it is carried out forthwith. According to Proverbs 28,13, this is not G–d’s way of dealing with the guilty party Solomon describes it as: ומודה ועוזב ירוחם, “if he confesses and abandons sin, he will experience mercy.” As soon as Yehudah’s brother Reuven heard about how he had publicly acknowledged being the father of Tamar’s unborn children, he himself acknowledged his guilt in defiling his father’ couch. (Yaakov’s words in Genesis 49,4) This is also what Eliphas said to Job (Job 15,18) אשר חכמים יגידו ולא כחדו מאבותם, “that which the wise men have transmitted from their fathers and have not withheld it.” The wise men that Job referred to are none other than Yehudah and Reuven. This is why the descendants of those two sons of Yaakov were the only ones whose territory was never invaded by aliens [prior to the building of Solomon’s Temple? Ed.] (compare Moses’ blessing in Deuteronomy 33, 6-7)

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 38:26:2

צדקה ממנו, the meaning is as per Targum, i.e. “she has become pregnant from me.” We are puzzled by this commentary, as if true, the sin of sleeping with one’s father-in-law is far greater than that of sleeping with a total stranger. We must assume therefore, that prior to the giving of the Torah, the way the system of the Levirate marriage was practiced was that in the absence of the deceased husband of the widow having any siblings, another close family member would perform that rite with the widow in order to ensure that the name of the deceased would be preserved thereby. Yehudah’s statement at the time when Tamar explained her complaint that she had not been given as a wife to Shelah, must therefore be explained as follows: “actually, seeing that at the time Onan died Shelah was not yet old enough to perform these rites it was my duty to have done so, especially as I could not be sure he would do so even when he would grow up.” At the time when Yehudah, through sleeping with Tamar had actually fulfilled the required rite though not having been aware of it, G–d said to him: “by doing so you saved four lives from death. One was saved from dying in a pit and three were saved from dying by being burned to death. This is based on Daniel 1,6: ויהי בהם מבני יהודה דניאל, חנניה, מישאל, ועזריה, there were among them from the descendants of Yehudah: ‘Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah.’ The verse does not trace their ancestry to Chizkiyah, but to Yehudah. Daniel was saved from a pit, the other three from a fiery furnace. An alternate explanation of the words: צדקה ממנו, “she became pregnant from me.” Yehudah claimed that he had married her legally by betrothing her with his ring, as mentioned earlier in my commentary. Rabbi Moshe queries this interpretation claiming that such a betrothal is invalid when performed by the father-in-law. He bases himself on the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 10, the Talmud, quoting the dialogue between Yehudah and Tamar there claims that when Yehudah asked her about her marital status, including asking her whether perhaps her father had accepted a token of betrothal on her behalf, she responded by saying that this was impossible as she was an orphan. Rashi on the Talmud there explains that even if she had been betrothed by her father, had he lived, such a betrothal would have been invalid as she would have had to be a minor for such a betrothal to have any legal significance. She is quoted as having told Yehudah that she was completely and legally available and was not ritually impure either. At any rate, when the Torah subsequent to the revelations after the trial writes that Yehudah ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, this line has to be understood that he did not stop to have marital relations with her, as he had now found out that everything had been legal to begin with. (verse 26) According to our author this latest interpretation follows the view expressed in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 100, that even a woman with an infant on her shoulder is believed when she claims that her betrothal at the time had been illegal.

Haamek Davar on Genesis 38:26:2

She is righteous, [it is] from me. Alternatively, “She is more righteous than me” — her intentions were pure whereas mine were not.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:26:1

FORASMUCH AS I GAVE HER NOT. The expression ki al ken (for as much) has the same meaning as the Rabbinic term ho’il (since), as in forasmuch (ki al ken) as I have seen thy face (Gen. 33:10). The meaning of our clause is: since I gave her not to Shelah my son. Or its meaning is, she did this because I gave her not to Shelah my son. (In other words, the words she did this because are missing from the text. The verse should be read as if written ki al ken asetah zot ki, for therefore she did this thing because, etc. According to this interpretation, ki al ken has the meaning for therefore i.e., it is an idiom pleonastically emphasizing the ground for an action.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:26:2

AND HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE. He did not sleep with her again.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:26:1

צדקה ממני, "she is more righteous than I." As we have already mentioned the death penalty which had first been decreed upon Tamar was a man-made ordinance applicable to certain sexual offences by the Gentiles. Inasmuch as it was revealed that Tamar's partner had been Yehudah this made her more righteous than Yehudah. Tamar had known all along that she was permitted to sleep with Yehudah, whereas Yehudah, who had not known who she was at the time, had merely been fortunate that she had not been forbidden to him under existing regulations. The verse also means that Tamar had not only been righteous in the manner in which she conducted her defence, but had also been righteous in her conduct. Legally speaking, the episode is comparable to someone who intends to eat forbidden fat but who is fortunate enough to have exchanged the forbidden fat for some which is permitted.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:26:2

Should you question that at the time Yehudah was intimate with Tamar he thought that she was a Gentile; why then did he violate what he knew to be the local ordinance? Our rabbis have answered in Bereshit Rabbah 85,8 that G'd on occasion directs the steps of a man and corrects what was an evil intent in order that the end result should correspond to His plans. [This seems to mean that though Yehudah would have slept with any harlot at that moment when he felt a sexual urge, G'd directed that the woman he did in fact sleep with was ritually pure and permissible. Ed.] The Midrash rationalises this by referring to the line of kings that were to emanate from Yehudah. We suggest that the reader turn to our commentary on Genesis 49,9 גור אריה.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:26:3

כי על כן לא נתתיה לשלה, "since I did not give her to Shelah, etc." Yehudah explained Tamar's behaviour as due to her having lost hope that she would become Shelah's wife. Hence there was no more זיקה, bond of marital attachment between her and Shelah.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:26:4

Alternatively, Yehudah simply assumed the blame for having caused Tamar's behaviour seeing he had not given her to Shelah. The words צדקה ממני then should be translated: "she is righteous in her deeds; I was the cause of what she did."

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:26:1-3

צדקה ממני, “she is more righteous than I.” When the messengers presented Yehudah with the signet ring, etc., he immediately owned up and said: צדקה, “she is righteous in what she says;” ממני, “she is pregnant from me.” This is also the way Onkelos translates these words. Nachmanides understands the word ממנו as a comparative, meaning “she is more righteous than I.” He meant “whereas when I had sexual intercourse with her I had unworthy motives, she had had worthy motives wanting me to perform the rite of the levirate marriage with her.” This is what he had in mind when he added “because I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Shelah, after all, was the person who was next in line to perform that rite. Yehudah was the next closest relative to perform this rite of the levirate marriage and to keep alive the names of his late departed sons Er and Onan, in the event Shelah would refuse to marry Tamar. According to a Midrashic approach found in Makkot 23 after Yehudah had said צדקה, “she is righteous,” a heavenly voice was heard adding the word ממני, “from Me;” i.e. G’d informed the judges and Tamar that He had guided matters in such a way that Tamar would become pregnant by Yehudah. In that connection the Talmud goes on to say that we know of only three instances where the Holy spirit took an active part in judicial proceedings of a terrestrial court to assure a certain outcome. One was the court founded by Shem; the second was the court presided over by the prophet Samuel; the third was the court presided over by King Solomon. In the case of the court founded by Shem and known as “his court” hundreds of years later, the Holy Spirit intervened clearing Tamar of all guilt. The Holy Spirit again intervened in the court of Samuel as we know from Samuel I 12,5 “G’d is witness, and His anointed is witness, to your admission this day that you found nothing in my possession.” [Samuel had challenged the people to list any wrong he had committed against anyone of them or whose property he had made use of by citing his authority as ruling judge. Ed.] In that paragraph the answer should have been in the plural, i.e. the people should have been quoted as saying: “we are witness.” The fact that the author of the Book of Samuel refers to the singular is proof that it was G’d answering on behalf of the people. The third time the Holy Spirit interfered in the deliberations by a terrestrial court was when Solomon heard the case of two women each of whom claimed the surviving baby as her own (Kings I 3,26). At that time the Book of Kings has the mother of one of the babies call out: “give the surviving baby to her, do not kill it, for she is its mother.” The words “she is its mother,“ were added by the Heavenly Voice, whereas the baby’s true mother only said the words “give the surviving baby to her and do not kill it.”

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:26:4

ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “and he did not have further sexual intercourse with her.” Having fulfilled the commandment of ensuring that the souls of Er and Onan would be reincarnated in Tamar’s children, Yehudah refrained from treating her as his wife, even though technically, i.e. from a halachic point of view he could have had marital relations with her. The reasoning of the commentator (Samuel the elder in Sotah 10) who understood the words ולא יסף to mean “he did not stop,” is that seeing Yehudah’s union with Tamar had been approved by heaven there was no point in discontinuing his marital relations with her.

Radak on Genesis 38:26:1

צדקה ממני; she is more righteous than I, for I had declared her guilty of being burned to death while she was innocent, seeing she is pregnant from me and has not acted like a harlot. Our sages in Makkot 23 as well as in Bereshit Rabbah 85,12 say that there are basically three locations where the Holy Spirit,רוח הקודש , was manifest [was needed to confirm a verdict. Ed.] One was the court of Shem, son of Noach. This is based on the word ממני in our verse not meaning “than me, Yehudah,” but “from Me, G’d.” [although Shem himself was no longer alive at the time Tamar’s trial came up, his grandson Ever, probably in conjunction with others maintained the court he had founded, which was administering the seven Noachide (universal laws for all of mankind) laws at the time. Ed.] The sages understand that when the verdict was passed on Tamar a heavenly voice was heard saying that Tamar’s pregnancy by Yehudah had been decreed by G.d, “from Me.” The second such instance was in the court conducted by the prophet Samuel. They base this on Samuel I 12,5 ויאמר עד, G’d confirming that the prophet had dealt fairly with the whole people during his being the supreme authority, before a King was appointed. Without this confirmation we only had his word for it. The third example was the court of King Solomon, during the famous trial of two women claiming a live baby as her own and the dead one as belonging to her adversary. (Kings I 3,27.) A heavenly voice confirmed Solomon’s verdict [which from a purely halachic point of view was quite unsubstantiated. Ed.] The words היא אמו, “she is his mother,” then were not said by Solomon but by G’d. G’d’s confirmation of Tamat’s innocence was needed as people could have argued that while it was true that she had slept with Yehudah, who was to say that other men had not also slept with her and that she was actually pregnant by someone else? The Talmud concludes by citing the heavenly voice as saying ממך יצאו כבושים, “secrets unknown to others are revealed by Me.” [according to Rashi on Makkot 23 the fact that in due course Tamar’s and Yehudah’s son became the forerunner of the Davidic dynasty proved that the seed she had carried was that of Yehudah, both Tamar and Yehudah being of Royal descent, -Tamar as the daughter of Malki Tzedek King of Shalem, and Yehudah by dint of the destiny predicted for him by his father on his deathbed.] There is a variant reading which says that as a result of Yehudah’s admission, G’d decided to appoint him as the founder of the future Davidic dynasties, and that the line ונכבשה הארץ לפניכם, “the land will become conquered before you,” in Numbers 32,29 is addressed to the leading tribe, Yehudah. This is based on the wordכבושים in the Talmud being read as ממך יצאו כובשים, “that conquerors will emerge from your loins.”

Radak on Genesis 38:26:2

כי על כן לא נתתיה, as if the Torah had written כי על כן שלא נתתיה, “because I did not give her, etc., she has done this, i.e. pretended to be a harlot, because I did not give her to my son Shelah.” We find a similar construction in Exodus 13,8 בעבור זה עשה ה' לי, “on account of this (that I observe the commandment mentioned) G’d has done this for me” (taken me out of Egypt).”

Radak on Genesis 38:26:3

ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, he did not sleep with her again seeing that even this time the act had been unintentional and in a manner not appropriate to her status. It is demeaning for a socially highly placed individual to sleep with a harlot. For Yehudah to have done so again would have been demeaning for him [as she would always be aware that the first time he had done this was in order to merely gratify a biological urge. Ed.] In the Targum we find two different versions regarding the meaning of the words ולא יסף עוד לדעתה. The second version is that Yehudah never stopped sleeping with Tamar, i.e. he treated her as his wife in every respect from then on. The reason why the Torah told us about all these details and how the seed of Yehudah became mingled with that of Ruth the Moabite, as well as how King Solomon was the son of Bat Sheva whose marriage to David did not exactly come about in a normal manner, is to show that the hand of G’d had been at work in all of these situations. G’d’s design had been that the Kingdom of Israel should be David’s on a hereditary basis forever [whenever there would be independent kings, not appointed by conquerors of the Jewish people. Ed.] The somewhat flawed lineage in Jewish kings is G’d’s device to prevent such kings from becoming proud of their pure ancestry, and considering themselves ”ancestrally“ superior to their peers. [perhaps the advice of the Shulchan Aruch that when appointing public officials of high rank one should select someone with a “skeleton in his closet,” a קופת שרצים, is based on the flaws in the ancestry of the Davidic dynasty. Ed.]

Ramban on Genesis 38:26:1

SHE IS RIGHTEOUS FROM ME. “She is righteous in her words. From me is she with child. Our Rabbis expounded that a bath kol (a Divine voice) came forth and said the word mimeni, i.e., ‘From Me and from My authority did these events unfold.’” This is Rashi’s language. The correct interpretation is that it is similar to the verses: Men more righteous and better than he; (I Kings 2:32.) And he [Saul] said to David, Thou art more righteous than I; for thou hast rendered unto me good, whereas I have rendered unto thee evil. (I Samuel 24:18.) Here too the meaning is: “She is more righteous than I, for she acted righteously and I am the one who sinned against her by not giving her my son Shelah.” The purport of the statement is that Shelah was the brother-in-law, [hence he was the first designated to marry her], and if he did not wish to take her as his wife, his father is next in line to act as the redeemer, as I have explained above (In Verse 8 here.) when I discussed the law of marrying a childless brother’s widow.

Ramban on Genesis 38:26:2

AND HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE (‘v’lo yasaph’). After having established progeny for his children, he did not wish to be with her again even though this was dependent upon his wish as she was not forbidden to him, being, in fact, considered as his wife, as is the law when the widow of a childless man has relations with a relative. This is the reason for the explanation given by a certain Sage, (Shmuel the Elder (Sotah 10 b).) who explains the verse as saying, “And he did not cease to know her,” (Since Tamar did in fact become his legitimate wife, as explained above, he did not cease living with her.) since here the expression used is, v’lo yasaph, and elsewhere it is written, A great voice ‘v’lo yasaph’. (Deuteronomy 5:19. Reference there is to the Divine Voice that came forth from Mount Sinai, concerning which Scripture says, v’lo yasaph [with a kamatz], meaning “and it did not cease,” or “it did not diminish in strength,” unlike the human voice which decreases and eventually stops completely. Here also the identical expression, v’lo yasaph [with a patach], means “and he did not cease.”)

Rashbam on Genesis 38:26:1

צדקה ממני, more righteous than I. He referred to her accusation (words) as compared to his accusation (words) against her. “I had commanded her to remain in her father’s house until Shelah would grow up. She complied with the terms of our understanding. However, I did not keep my part of the bargain I had struck with her.” כי ..לא נתתיה לשלה בני, the construction here is similar to Job 32,2: על צדקו נפשו מאלוקים, “because he thought himself more righteous than G’d.” Another similar construction occurs in Samuel I 24,18 with King Sha-ul who admitted to David that he had been wrong in persecuting him with the words: צדיק אתה ממני, “you are more righteous than I.”...

Rashbam on Genesis 38:26:2

ולא יסף, he did not continue to sleep with Tamar. If you were to interpret the words ולא יסף as “he did not stop sleeping with her,” the wording should have been: ולא יסף עוד מלדעתה.

Rashi on Genesis 38:26:1

צדקה SHE IS RIGHTEOUS (right) in what she has said

Rashi on Genesis 38:26:2

ממני FROM ME is she with child. Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, explained this to mean that a Bath-kol came forth and said the word ממני — from Me and by My agency have these things happened: because she proved herself a modest woman whilst in her father-in-law’s house I have ordained that kings shall be descended from her, and I have already ordained that I would raise up kings in Israel from the tribe of Judah (Genesis Rabbah 85:11) (therefore I have brought it about that these two persons who are to be the ancestors of kings should unite to become so).

Rashi on Genesis 38:26:3

כי על כן לא נתתיה BECAUSE THAT I GAVE HER NOT — For (כי) she has acted rightly, because (על כן) I did not give her to Shelah, my son.

Rashi on Genesis 38:26:4

ולא יסף עוד AND HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE — Some explain that ולא יסף means he did not continue to know her (Sifrei Bamidbar 88): others explain that it means he did not cease to know her (Sotah 10b). An exactly similar instance occurs in reference to Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11:25), where ולא יספו which some translate “and they did not continue to prophesy” is translated in the Targum by “and they did not cease to prophesy”.

Sforno on Genesis 38:26:1

צדקה ממני, even though she approached me under false pretences, misrepresenting herself, she still acted more righteously than I did. I did not see her at all when I sent her the goat. [I was too embarrassed to be seen, Ed.] Her deceit was practised for a noble cause. and appears to have been approved by G’d, seeing she meant to maintain the seed of her deceased husband, whereas I was merely wanting to gratify my libido. Immediately she had done what she meant to do she resumed living as a widow as I had told her to do. My seeking her out to let her have the goat I had promised her was meant only to ensure that my good image would be preserved. This in itself is not a worthy cause. Our sages have used this occurrence as the basis for their saying that “a sin committed for noble cause is better than a good deed when same is not performed as such but as something self-serving.” (Nazir 23).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:26:1

In what she has said. Rashi is answering the question: צדקה ממני implies she was more righteous than him. But here, what does it matter whether she was more righteous?

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:26:2

She is righteous in what she has said. But she is not righteous in her act of illicit relations. The verse says, “He did not know that she was his daughter-in-law” (v. 16), implying that if he had known he would not have been with her. But she knew, so how did she permit herself to do this? She should not have relied on stretched explanations [that it was permitted due to yibum]. But she is righteous in what she said, for I do indeed recognize the signs as belonging to me. She assumedly conceived from me, since they said, “There was no harlot here.” Also the calculation of “about three months” is proof. Although she could have conceived from others, who might also have been with her, that is a mere possibility whereas the signs are definite. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:26:3

Conformed with the law inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Sheilah. [Rashi knows it means this] because it says both כי and על כן, when one is sufficient.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:26:4

Some say he did not continue whereas others say he did not cease. Some say Yehudah did not continue since his only reason for being with her would be to establish seed in the name of the deceased. As he had done this, he ceased from relations [although Halachically she was his wife]. And some say he did not cease since he saw she yearned to have children from him. Her intentions were pure, so he continued being with her.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:26

Judah recognized them, his possessions, and said: She is more righteous than I; because indeed, I did not give her to Shela my son. She had some right to be with me, as I did not give her to Shela. Therefore, she cannot be accused of committing adultery. And he was not intimate with her anymore, as he already fulfilled his obligation toward Tamar. Although Judah recognized the legality of Tamar’s actions and the legitimacy of her fetus, he was uninterested in continuing a relationship with her.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:26:1

צדקה ממני, “she is correct; it stems from me.” Rashi interprets this statement as referring to Tamar’s statement, (words) that she was pregnant by Yehudah, (Though the words were never articulated by her) Nachmanides understands Yehudah as referring to Tamar’s deeds rather than to her words. She was right, whereas he was wrong in not giving her as a wife to Shelah, seeing that she had a claim on him. Shelah’s father would rank second behind his son only if his son had refused to carry out his obligation to marry Tamar. Some commentators feel that the words צדקה ממני, were spoken by Yehudah when he became aware that it had been he who had impregnated Tamar, and had found out in the process that she had been a virgin, and that the unnatural deaths of his two older sons had been the punishment for their failing to fulfill their duties as husbands of Tamar, and their wasting their semen. In the event that someone would claim that according to accepted norms a virgin never conceives from her first sexual experience, so how could Yehudah have impregnated her as virgin, this principle is valid only if the hymen had not previously been weakened, such as by an almost but not quite penetration, as is described as having been performed by Onan. (Genesis 38,9)

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:26:2

ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “he had no further marital relations wit her.” There is an opinion (Sotah 10) according to which the meaning of the above words is that Yehudah did not stop having marital relations with Tamar. According to the opinion that the meaning of ולא יסף is “he did not continue, etc.” we must view Yehudah’s conduct vis a vis Tamar as reflecting the concept of קדש עצמך במותר לך, “sanctify yourself by eschewing even what is permitted to you.” Yehudah did not mean to imply that Tamar was legally out of bounds to him as a wife. Seeing he had fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful with her, he saw no point in continuing a relationship that could be misinterpreted by people who had known Tamar as the wife of one of his sons.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 83-86

“He said, she is more in the right than I” [38:26]. Judah said that Tamar is right in what she says. She became pregnant by me. Rashi writes that a heavenly voice called down: I wanted that Tamar should sleep with Judah, so that righteous people should come from Tamar, because she was modest in her father-in-law’s house. Therefore, kings of Israel should be descended from her. Tamar was right because she had not been married to Shelah, and that is why she did this. (Rashi, Genesis, 38:26.) Ramban writes. “She is more in the right than I” [38:26], means, Tamar is more pious than I am. I had intended to have sexual relations with an impure woman, but Tamar’s intention was to fulfill the commandment of levirate marriage. (Ramban, Genesis, 38:26.) The custom was that the closest relative performed the levirate marriage, even the father-in-law. Therefore, Hizkuni also writes, why was Judah not liable to be burned because he slept with his daughter-in-law? The explanation is because Tamar had no children. Therefore, Judah could have married Tamar, as is the custom with levirate marriage. Hizkuni also writes that Tamar was still a virgin. She had not been properly married to Judah’s children. Therefore, she would have been allowed to marry Judah. Hizkuni writes further, She is more in the right than I” [38:26]. Judah said: Tamar desired to have children from me. She thought that she could not have children from my children; they destroy their seed. Perhaps Shelah will also want to do the same. Therefore, I will have relations with Judah, my father-in-law. Another explanation of “She is more in the right than I” [38:26]. She must remain right; I should not judge to do something to Tamar. If I were to judge to do something to her, then I would also have to be judged. Therefore, Tamar remains right, for my sake. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 38:24, 26.) Bahya writes a midrash. The evil Samael had hidden the three pledges in the expectation that Tamar would be killed. Tamar prayed to the Holy One and said: Lord of the Universe, cause the three pledges to be found, so that three souls should not be lost. That is to say, Tamar had twins in her belly. The Holy One sent the angel Gabriel that he should bring the three pledges before the judges so that they should see that Tamar was right. (Bahya, Genesis, 38:25.)

Jewish Thought

One should admit failings without seeking false excuses, as demonstrated by Yehuda in the Bible. Instead of shaming the speaker, one should acknowledge their own shortcomings and recognize that others may not know the full extent of their transgressions. This humility is essential in accepting responsibility for one's actions and seeking forgiveness from the Creator.

Duties of the Heart, Sixth Treatise on Submission 7:8

He will admit his failings and will not seek false excuses to absolve and justify himself, as Yehuda said: "She has been more righteous than I" (Bereishis 38:26), and he won't attempt to shame the speaker and make him out a liar, nor condemn him for having exposed him, rather, he will say to him: "my brother, the amount of bad things you have observed in me is little compared to what you don't know about me and which the Creator has for so long kept hidden. If you knew the full extent of my bad deeds and transgressions, you would flee from me, fearing that the punishment of the Creator which they merit, would befall you too, as a poet once said: "if my neighbors could smell my sins, they would run away and keep far from me", and as Iyov said: "Did I, like men, cover my transgressions, to conceal my iniquity in my hiding place?" (Iyov 31:33).

Kabbalah

The text discusses the importance of humility and righteousness in the eyes of God, emphasizing the need for a pure heart and intention. It also references the idea that even a maidservant can see more than a prophet, highlighting the idea that spiritual insight is not limited by social status. Ultimately, the text concludes with a plea for forgiveness and mercy from God.

Ohr Ne'erav, Appendix The Introductory Material 4:17

If the spirit which rules all fails and they prophesy, my words will be fulfilled on those who rise against me (Ps. 92:12). Is Saul also among the prophets? (I Sam. 10:11). This you will answer, And who is their father? (I Sam. 10:12). These things go after the intention of the heart. I, in my innocence (Ps. 26:1), plead before my judges: Let him judge all the words of this epistle leniently in its quantity and quality. If my soul does not speak from worry (Josh. 22:24), consider me as one who mentions and reminds the enlightened ones of my bountiful nation (Song 6:12). “Dear is man, who was created in [God’s] image” (Avot 3:15). Speaking as a righteous company (Ps. 58:2), He will judge righteousness. For my heart is not haughty (Ps. 131:1), all my senses are in me (Job 20:2), and my eyes are not haughty (Ps. 131:1) before the God of Sinai (Ps, 68:9). I have not walked in greatness or wonders (Ps. 131:1) with the King, the Lord of Hosts (Isa. 6:5). For the maidservant has seen (The reference is to the midrash which states that a maidservant at the parting of the Red Sea saw more than the prophet Ezekiel in his visions. Cf. Mekhilta, Shirta 3.) and is more righteous than I (Gen. 38:26). I am lighter [in consequence] than she is (II Sam. 6:22). I am lower than the earth (Isa. 29:4). I speak in honor of our God, who dwells in Zion (Josh. 4:21). And He, being merciful, will forgive [my] sin (Ps. 78:38).

Midrash

Judah confessed his wrongdoing with Tamar, leading to his descendants being saved from the fiery furnace, similar to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Judah's descendants include Zerubbabel, the Temple, and the Messiah. Judah's confession also led to his name being great in Israel, with God known in Judah for taking revenge against their enemies. Judah's righteousness is highlighted in various instances, such as when he acknowledged Tamar's righteousness, leading to the rescue of Tamar and her sons. Additionally, Judah's confession is compared to the confession of other righteous figures, such as Reuben and Daniel.

Aggadat Bereshit 27:2

[2] Another explanation: "Return to your right hand, the tribe of your strength; God will send forth His loving kindness from Zion. Which tribe is it that Tamar, from Judah, took? As it says, "Your seal, your cord, and your staff" (Genesis 38:18). Once she passed them over, "About three months later" (Genesis 38:24), she was found with them, and he gave her a pledge and did not burn her. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: "Since you have admitted, 'She is more righteous than I' (Genesis 38:26), I too acknowledge that three will come forth from your descendants and will be saved from the fire: Tamar and her two sons. Your descendants will also be saved, for I will save three of your descendants from the fire - Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah - as it says, 'Then these men were released from the fiery furnace' (Daniel 3:26)." At that time, Judah took three crowns - "Your seal" refers to Zerubbabel, as it says, "On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, Zerubbabel" (Haggai 2:23), "and I will make you like a signet" (Haggai 2:23), "Your cord" refers to the Temple, as it says, "And he had a line of flax in his hand and a measuring reed" (Ezekiel 40:3), "Your staff" refers to the Messiah who is destined to arise from your descendants, as it says, "The staff of your strength, God will send forth from Zion" (Psalms 110:2)."

Bamidbar Rabbah 13:4

“Who presented his offering… [Naḥshon, son of Aminadav, of the tribe of Judah]” – that is what is written: “God is known in Judah…” (Psalms 76:2). This is what the verse said: “That which the wise tell…” (Job 15:18), this is Judah, who confessed and said: “She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26), and did not withhold the truth [about his actions with Tamar] from Jacob and from Shem. (This is a reference to Shem’s court. Tamar’s father, Shem son of Noah, was no longer alive, but his court continued to function.) Because he rescued Tamar and her twin sons from the inferno, as it is written [before he confessed]: “Judah said: Take her out and burn her” (Genesis 38:24); that is why Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya were rescued from the fiery furnace, as it is written: “Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying: Blessed is the God of Shadrakh, Meshakh, and Aved Nego…and from me is issued a decree that any people, nation, or language [that says anything amiss against the God of Shadrakh, Meshakh, and Aved Nego will be rendered into pieces]…” (Daniel 3:28–29). That is why it says: “God is known in Judah…” Another matter, “God is known in Judah” – when Daniel descended into the lion’s den and was rescued, as it is written: “Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, the nations…. A decree is issued before me, that in the entire dominion of my kingdom, men shall tremble [and fear before the God of Daniel]…. He rescues and delivers, and performs signs and wonders [in the heavens and on earth. He saved Daniel from the grasp of the lions]” (Daniel 6:26–28). That is, “God is known in Judah.” Why was Daniel rescued from the lions? It is because he prayed before the Holy One blessed be He, who is called “lion,” as it is written: “They will follow the Lord, He will roar like a lion” (Hosea 11:10). And Daniel is from the tribe of Judah, that is called “lion,” as it is stated: "Judah is a lion cub” (Genesis 49:9), and it is written: “Among them from the children of Judah were Daniel…” (Daniel 1:6). Let a Lion come and rescue a lion from the mouth of a lion. Alternatively, it is because he resembled the lions, as he is a lion; therefore, they did not harm him. Why was he not cast into the fiery furnace? It is because he was Nebuchadnezzar’s god, as it is written: “He prostrated himself to Daniel, and said for a meal offering and fragrances be poured to him” (Daniel 2:46). Alternatively, it is because he would have been burned, as it is written: “The idols of their gods you shall burn in fire” (Deuteronomy 7:25). Therefore, the Holy One blessed be He introduced into Darius’s heart that he should not cast him into the fiery furnace, so as to make known His might. Another matter, “God is known in Judah” – that is what is written: “Ephraim will become desolation [on the day of rebuke; among the tribes of Israel I proclaim certainties]” (Hosea 5:9). “Ephraim will become desolation,” in its plain sense; “on the day of rebuke,” just as it says: “It is a day of trouble, rebuke and execration” (Isaiah 37:3). “Among the tribes of Israel,” as I reside in their midst, as I dwell in their midst. “I proclaim certainties”; just as it says: “The testimony of the Lord is trustworthy” (Psalms 19:8). When the [ten] tribes were exiled, but Judah and Benjamin were not exiled, the nations of the world began saying: ‘He showed then favor because they were the residents of his residence and he did not exile them.’ When they were exiled, God announced that sin in the world: “The princes of Judah were like movers of boundaries; I will pour My ire like water upon them” (Hosea 5:10). That is, “God is known in Judah.” Another matter, “known in Judah,” just as it says: “If an army besieges me, my heart will not fear. [If war comes upon me, I will put my trust in this]” (Psalms 27:3). What is, “if war comes upon me, I will put my trust in this”? In what “this”? It is in what Moses said: “This for Judah, and he said: [Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah…and You will be a helper against his adversaries]” (Deuteronomy 33:7). “His name is great in Israel” (Psalms 76:2) – that is what is written: “Punishments are prepared for cynics, [and blows [mahalumot] for the back of fools]” (Proverbs 19:29). Punishments are for those who commit transgressions. This is analogous to one who was riding on an animal. If it does not stray, he will not strike it, but if it strays, he strikes it. So, the Holy One blessed be He said: “Punishments are prepared for cynics.” The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘Before I created Man, I prepared five rods for him: Spot, scab, bright spot, rash, and burn.’ Some say: Leprosy and scall. This corresponds to five “laws,” as it is stated: “This is the law for any leprous mark, and for a scall…and for the spot, for the scab, and for the bright spot” (Leviticus 14:54, 56). This is analogous to a bad slave who was being sold. An individual went to purchase him. He knew that he was bad. He brought chains and rods with him, so if he misbehaved, he could subjugate him with them. When he misbehaved, he brought the chains and chained him, and struck him with the rods. The slave said to him: ‘You knew from the outset that I am a bad slave. Why did you purchase me?’ He said to him: ‘Because I knew that you were bad in your conduct; therefore, I also prepared to bind you and to strike you, so that if you misbehaved, you would be struck with them.’ So, the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘Before I created Man, I knew him: “As the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth”’ (Genesis 8:21). Woe to dough whose baker testifies in its regard that it is bad. That is why it is stated: “Punishments are prepared for cynics.” What is mahalumot? Three words, Rabbi Berekhya said. What are these? It is for the nations [ma lo mot]. (Meaning, ma - what are these severe punishments? lo mot - the letters that spell mot (mem, vav, tav) can also be read mavet, meaning death. Thus, the response to the question, ma, is lo mavet - the death is for them, not for you. ) Rabbi Avin said: This is analogous to a noblewoman who entered the palace and saw whips and rods and she was afraid. The residents of the palace said to her: ‘Fear not, these are for the slaves and the maidservant. You are here to eat, drink, and be honored.’ So, the congregation of Israel, when they heard the portions of curses and leprosy, they began to be afraid. Moses said to them: ‘These are for the idolaters. You are here to eat, drink, and engage in Torah study.’ “She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar” (Proverbs 31:14). That is, “His name is great in Israel.” Another matter, “His name is great in Israel” – that is what is written: “For, from the rising of the sun to its setting, My name is great among the nations [and in every place burnt offerings and pure meal offerings [uninḥa] are burned [muktar], presented [mugash] to My name, for My name is great among the nations, said the Lord of hosts]” (Malachi 1:11). Is it so, that in every place they present incense and meal offering in the name of the Holy One blessed be He? It is, rather, that everywhere that Israel stands and recites the afternoon [minḥa] prayer, regarding that, it says minḥa in its plain sense. And it says: “It was at the time of offering up the afternoon offering that Elijah the prophet approached” (I Kings 18:36). (He prayed at the time of the afternoon offering.) “Presented [mugash],” this is the morning prayer, just as it says: “Abraham approached [vayigash]…” (Genesis 18:23), in prayer. (Genesis 19:27 states that Abraham went in the morning to the place where he had stood before God. From that verse we learn (Brachot 26b) that Abraham founded the morning service. Since the verse refers to the place in which he had stood before God, it is presumably referring to Genesis 18:23, where he is described as approaching God to plead for Sodom. The presumption is that this took place at the time of the regular prayer, namely, in the morning.) “Burned [muktar],” this is the evening prayer, just as it is stated: “Let my prayer stand as incense [ketoret] before You; [the lifting of my hands, an evening offering]” (Psalms 141:2). That is, “His name is great in Israel” – anywhere that Israel is standing there. That is why it is stated: “My name is great among the nations.” “God is known in Judah” – when he takes revenge against their enemies. Just as it says: “Egypt will become desolation and Edom will become a desolate wilderness, due to the villainy against the children of Judah…” (Joel 4:19). “I will cleanse; their blood I will not cleanse…” (Joel 4:21). That is, “God is known in Judah,” just as it says: “The Lord is known through the judgments He executes; [the wicked one is snared] in his handiwork…” (Psalms 9:17). “God is known in Judah” – Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Ilai said: When Israel stood at the sea, the tribes were deliberating with each other. This one says: ‘I will descend first,’ and this one says: ‘I will descend first.’ Naḥshon leapt into the waves of the sea and descended. In his regard, David said: “Rescue me, God, for the waters have come up to my soul” (Psalms 69:2). The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘My friend is sinking in the sea, and you are praying? “Speak to the children of Israel, and let them travel”’ (Exodus 14:15). That is, “God is known in Judah.” That is why the Holy One blessed be He exalted the name of Naḥshon in Israel, as he was privileged to present his offering first, as it is stated: “The one who presented his offering on the first day was [vayhi] [Naḥshon].” That is, “His name is great in Israel.”

Bereshit Rabbah 71:5

That is what is written: “Take from them one staff for each [mateh mateh] patrilineal house” (Numbers 17:17) – Rabbi Yitzḥak said: My children have stumbled [matu matu]; they stumbled with the calf, they stumbled with the spies. Rabbi Levi said: Two tribes ascended to greatness – the tribe of priesthood and the tribe of kingship. You find that everything that is written regarding this one is written regarding that one: Anointment for this one, anointment for that one; mateh for this one (Numbers 17:23.) and mateh for that one; (Psalms 110:2.) covenant of salt for this one, (Numbers 18:19.) covenant of salt for that one; (II Chronicles 13:5.) “this time” (Genesis 29:34.) for this one and “this time” (Genesis 29:35.) for that one; crown [nezer] for this one, (Leviticus 8:9.) crown [nezer] for that one; (II Kings 11:12.) approach for this one (Exodus 28:1.) and approach for that one; (Jeremiah 30:21.) pedigree for this one (Numbers 3:1–-4.) and pedigree for that one; (Ruth 4:18–22.) frontplate for this one (Leviticus 8:9.) and frontplate for that one. (Psalms 132:18.) Rabbi Levi said: “He will not withdraw His eyes [einav] from the righteous” (Job 36:7) – “His eyes” – his likeness [eino] (He has descendants who are in his likeness. See Maharsha Megillah 13b.) , like the person who says: ‘The sample of [einohi] fruit.’ (Somebody who wants to sell fruit shows a sample. The sample shows the quality of the entire stock.) “And kings upon the throne” (Job 36:7) (This is the end of the verse quoted above, but it is not part of the flow of this passage.) – Leah adopted the wisdom of thanks [hodaya], and masters of thanks [hodaya] were produced from her. Judah – “Judah recognized them, and said: She is more righteous than I” (Hodaya can also mean to acknowledge.) (Genesis 38:26); David said: “Give thanks [hodu] to the Lord, for He is good,” (Psalms 136:1); Daniel said: “I thank and praise [mehoda] You, God of my fathers” (Daniel 2:23). Rachel adopted the wisdom of silence, and masters of silence were produced from her. Benjamin: “chalcedony [yashefe]” (Exodus 28:20), (This stone on the breastpiece of the High Priest had the name of Benjamin inscribed on it.) there is a mouth [yesh peh]; he knew of the sale of Joseph, but did not tell. Saul: “But the matter of the kingship…he did not tell him” (I Samuel 10:16). Esther: “Esther did not disclose her birthplace or her people” (Esther 2:20). “Therefore [al ken], she called his name” – everywhere that al ken is stated, it is a large population. “And she ceased [vataamod] bearing” – who establishes [maamid] the woman’s standing in her house? It is her children.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:12

“Judah identified them, and said: She is more righteous than I, because indeed, I did not give her to Shela my son. And he was not intimate with her anymore” (Genesis 38:26). “Judah identified…” – Rabbi Yirmeya in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak: The divine spirit appeared in three places: In the court of Shem, in the court of Samuel, and in the court of Solomon. In the court of Shem – “Judah identified them, and said: She is more righteous than I [mimeni].” What is mimeni? Rabbi Yirmeya in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You will attest to what is revealed, and I attest to what is concealed.’ (Judah could attest that he had been with Tamar, but he could not attest to the fact that no one else had been with her and that she had conceived from him. A Divine Voice therefore emerged and confirmed that which was concealed, namely that she had conceived from Judah and had not been intimate with anyone else. The word mimeni, which can also mean “from me,” is interpreted to mean that Tamar’s full exoneration was achieved with assistance from the Divine Voice, or that God announced that all of these events were “from Me,” meaning guided by Divine providence (see Kohelet Rabba 10:16). ) In the court of Solomon – “she is his mother” (I Kings 3:27). Who said? Rabbi Shmuel said: A Divine Voice was shouting and saying: ‘She is certainly his mother!’ In the court of Samuel: “Here I am; testify against me.… He said… The Lord is witness for you, [and His anointed is witness this day, that you did not find anything in my hand.] They said: He is witness” (I Samuel 12:3–5). A Divine Voice emerged and said: “He is witness.” (God testified that Samuel had never taken anything from the people. ) What does it say regarding Eli’s sons? “The sin of the lads was [very] great…” (I Samuel 2:17), and it is written: “That they would lie with the women who would assemble…” (I Samuel 2:22). Is it possible that it is so, that the sons of that righteous one would perform that act? Say now that because they would delay the bird offerings in Shilo and they thereby kept [the women] out of their houses for one night, the verse ascribes to them as though they had relations with them. (A woman who gives birth is required to bring two birds as offerings. The sons of Eli were slow in sacrificing the various offerings that were brought to the Tabernacle. This caused the women to remain in Shilo overnight and to be delayed in returning home to their husbands, and the verse describes this as though the sons of Eli would lie with the women. ) Similarly, “his sons did not follow his ways, and they turned to bribes” (I Samuel 8:3) – is it possible that the sons of the righteous Samuel would perform that act? Rabbi Berekhya said: A caravan would pass in Beersheba, and they would forsake the needs of the public and engage in their own business. Because of that action, the verse ascribed to them as though they took bribes. Similarly, “she sat at Petaḥ Einayim” (Genesis 38:14), as it is written above. (Above (section 7) it was written that she did not actually act as a harlot as indicated by the plain meaning of the verse. )

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Makkot 3:6

R. Elazar said: "At three places the Holy spirit appeared: At the court of Shem, in the court of the prophet Samuel, and in the court of King Solomon. At the court of Shem, as it is written (Gen. 38, 26) And Juda acknowledged them and said, She hath been more righteous than I. And whence did he know? Perhaps just as he was with her, so was some one else. Therefore a Heavenly voice was heard: I have decided that so is it to be. In the court of Samuel, as it is written (I. Sam. 12, 5) And he answered, He is witness. Why He? It ought to be they! Hence a Heavenly voice was heard, I witness that so it is. And in the court of King Solomon, as it is written (I. Kin. 3, 17) The king then answered and said, Give her the living child and do not slay it; She is its mother. And whence do we know that it really was so, perhaps she deceived him? Hence the last words, she is its mother, were said by a Heavenly voice." Said Raba: "If it were based merely upon the Scripture, all of them could be objected to, but this is shown by tradition."

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 1:14

(Fol. 7b) Our Rabbis were taught: The court reads before her (the Sata) parables and incidents mentioned in the first Hogiograph, like the one (Job 15, 18) Which wise men have ever told, and have not concealed, as they obtained it from their father. This refers to Juda, who confessed [his crime] and did not feel ashamed. What was the result? He succeeded to inherit the future world. Reuben confessed and did not feel ashamed. What was the result of his confession? He succeeded to inherit the future world. And what was their reward? Why, we have just said what their reward was. The question must therefore be explained thus: What was their reward in this world? (Ib., ib. 19) Unto whom alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them. It is readily understood in regard to Juda's confession, for we find that he did confess, as stated in the following passage (Gen. 39, 26) And Juda acknowledged them, etc. "But as to Reuben, whence do we know that he did confess?" said R. Samuel b. Nachman (as fully explained Babba Kamma 92). ...

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 1:30

Because she had covered her face did he think her a harlot? [Is it not the contrary?] R. Elazar said that this means: She had covered her face when she had been in his house, hence he did not know her." Therefore she was rewarded that from her descended kings and prophets — kings from David; and prophets, as R. Levi said: "A bride who is chaste in the house of her father-in-law, will be rewarded that kings and prophets will descend from her." Whence do we infer this? From Tamar When she was lead forth she sent to her father-in-law. The text should have the word Meutzeas, in the passive voice [instead of Motzes in the active voice]. R. Elazar said: This means that after she produced the signs [of the signet, scarf and staff], the Angel Samael came and removed them, then the Angel Gabriel came and brought them again and this is the meaning of the passage (Ps. 56 1) To the chief musician upon Joneth elem-re-chokin." Said R. Jochanan: "This means that after the signs were removed she became numb like a dove." (Ib., ib., ib.) Unto David a Michtam, i.e., of whom David went forth, who kept himself humble and plain to everyone. Could Michtam be explained in another way that he was born circumsized? Can Michtam be explained in another way that just when in his youth he humbled himself before a superior in order to study the Torah from him, so also when he was elevated, he kept himself meek before one who was greater than he in order to study the Torah? (Ib., ib.) And she sent to her father-in-law, saying, 'By the man who owns these,' etc., why did she not call him by his name? Said Mar Zutra b. Tubia in the name of Rab; others say R. Chana b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simon, the pious; still others say R. Jochanan said it in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "It is better for a man to be thrown into a fiery furnace than be the means of bringing another to shame in public. We infer this from Tamar." (Gen. 38, 25) (Ib., ib., ib.) Acknowledge I pray thee. Said R. Chama b. Chanina: "With the word Haker (acknowledged) did Juda inform his father [concerning Joseph's disappearance] and with the word Haker (acknowledge) was Juda informed of the bad tidings [concerning the affair of Tamar]; i.e., with the word Haker did Juda inform his father, (Ib. 37. 32) Hakerna (acknowledge), we pray thee, whether it be thy son's coat or not, and with the word Haker was Juda informed Haker (acknowledge) I pray thee to whom belong the signet, scarf, and staff!" Acknowledge, I pray thee, the word Nah means nothing else but pray. She thus said unto Juda: "I pray thee acknowledge thy Creator and do not avert thy eyes from me." And Juda acknowledged them. And this is meant by R. Chama b. Bizna, who said in the name of R. Simon the pious: "Joseph, who sanctified Heaven's name in secret was rewarded with only one additional letter of the name of the Holy One, praised be He, as it is written (Ps. 81) but Juda, who sanctified Heaven's name publicly was rewarded so that his entire name was equal to that of the Holy One, praised be He." As soon as he confessed and said, a Divine voice went forth and said: "Thou hast saved Tamar with her two children from being burnt in fire, I swear by thy life that I shall save through thy merits thy three sons from being burnt in fire." Who are they? Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. She it righteous, it is from me. How did he know it? A Divine voice went forth and said: "From me went forth the secret things." (Ib., ib., ib.) Said Samuel the senior, the father-in-law of R. Samuel b. Ama: "This means that since he knew her he never forsook her, for it is written (Deut. 5, 19) A great voice v'lo yassph. [Just as in the latter case it means for ever, so also does it mean in the former case] ."

Kohelet Rabbah 10:16:1

“Woe is you, land, whose king is a lad, and your princes dine in the morning. Happy are you, land, that your king is a free man, and your princes dine at the proper time, in valor and not in drunkenness” (Ecclesiastes 10:16–17). “Woe is you, land, whose king is a lad” – it is written: “Then, two women who were prostitutes came” (I Kings 3:16). (They each had a baby and one of the babies died. Each claimed the live one was hers, and they came before King Solomon for adjudication. See I Kings 3:16–28.) Who were they? Rabbi Meir says: They were spirits. The Rabbis say: They were women awaiting levirate marriage. (If a man dies without children, his widow is subject to the law of levirate marriage. The husbands of these women died without children but while their wives were pregnant, and the women subsequently gave birth. However, a child who dies within the first thirty days does not exempt the mother from levirate marriage, and therefore an outcome of the case would be the determination of which woman would be subject to levirate marriage (Midrash HaMevo’ar).) Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua says: They were actual prostitutes, and he issued their verdict without witnesses and forewarning. “The one woman said: Please, my lord…it was on the third day after I gave birth…the son of this woman died” (I Kings 3:17–19) because she rolled upon him. “She arose during the night.… I arose in the morning to nurse my son.… The woman said: No, but…. The king said: This one says…” (I Kings 3:20–23). Rabbi Pinḥas and Rabbi Yirmeya [said] in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Beivai, and some tend to cite it in the name of Rabbi Pedat: The procedure of the judgment is as follows: The judge sits, the judged stand, the mediator decides between them, (Some commentaries suggest that the phrase “the mediator decides between them” is mistaken and should not appear (see Rabbi David Luria).) the plaintiff lodges his complaint, the defendant responds, and the judge decides between them. Rabbi Simon said: From here it is derived that the judge must reiterate their claims, from this verse: “[The king said:] This one says: This is my son that lives [and your son is the dead], and that one says: [No, your son is the dead and my son is the living]” (I Kings 3:23). “The king said: Bring me a sword.… The king said: Cut the living child.… The woman whose child was the living one…” (I Kings 3:24–26) – Rabbi Yehuda said that Rabbi Ilai said: Had I been there, I would have wrapped soft wool around his neck, (Around Solomon’s neck, as a judge who issues a false judgment is executed by strangulation.) as when he said: “Bring me a sword,” had [the mother] not been overcome by mercy for him [her child], he would have been killed. Regarding that moment, it says: “Woe is you, land, whose king is a lad.” At that moment, he began spouting wisdom; he said: Was it for nothing that the Holy One blessed be He created in this person two eyes, two ears, two feet, two hands? It was because the Holy One blessed be He foresaw that this judgment is destined to transpire. (The Holy One blessed be He created man proportionally so it would be possible to cut the child lengthwise into two equal parts.) [Ultimately] he did not do so, but rather he said: “Give her the living child, and do not kill him” (I Kings 3:27). Regarding that moment, it says: “Happy are you, land, that your king is a free man and your princes dine at the proper time” – at the time of the World to Come; “and not in drunkenness [vashti]” – in his strength and not in his weakness [bitshisho]. “The king answered and said: Give her the living child.” The Divine Spirit was shouting and saying: She is certainly his mother. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: In three places, the attribute of justice shouted: In the court of Shem, in the court of Samuel, and in the court of Solomon. In the court of Shem, from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “Judah recognized and said: She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26), and the Divine Spirit shouted and said: All of these matters originated with Me. (The events leading up to the trial (see Genesis, chap. 38) were a result of Divine providence.) In the court of Samuel, from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “Here I am; testify against me before the Lord.… He said to them: The Lord is witness for you, and His anointed is witness” (I Samuel 12:3–5). It is not written here, “they said…witness,” but rather, “he said…witness.” Who said “witness”? The Divine Spirit said: ‘You will testify regarding the revealed, and I will testify regarding the concealed.’ In the court of Solomon, from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “The king answered and said: Give her the living child” (I Kings 3:27). The Divine Spirit shouted and said: She is certainly his mother. Another matter: “Woe is you, land, whose king is a lad” – these are the kings of Israel; “happy are you, land, that your king is a free man” – these are the kings of Judah. “And your princes dine in the morning” – these are the kings of Israel; “and your princes dine at the proper time” – these are the kings of Judah. (The kings of Israel were wicked, and therefore consumed in this world all goodness they will receive. Many of the kings of Judah were righteous, and have a share in the World to Come.)

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Vayehi Beshalach 6:6

They: If so, (he merited kingship) in the merit of his saying (Ibid. 38:26) "She is right; it is by me" (that she has conceived). R. Tarfon: It suffices that this atone for his living with her.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayechi 12:5

(Gen. 49:6:) FOR IN THEIR ANGER THEY KILLED A MAN, when they killed Shechem ben Hamor. He said to them: You have afflicted me. Immediately (in vs. 7): CURSED BE THEIR ANGER SO FIERCE. These tribes were unable to dwell together. Rather (ibid., cont.): I WILL DIVIDE THEM IN JACOB AND SCATTER THEM IN ISRAEL. Judah came in and < Jacob > praised him (in vs. 8): YOU, O JUDAH, YOUR BROTHERS SHALL PRAISE (rt.: YDH). In your case, your mother gave praise (rt.: YDH) through your name (Judah, rt.: YDH). When she bore you, she said (in Gen. 29:35): THIS TIME I WILL PRAISE (rt.: YDH) THE LORD; < THEREFORE SHE CALLED HIS NAME JUDAH (rt.: YDH) >. And what did she see to praise in Judah? It is simply that she had given birth to Reuben and foreseen Dathan and Abiram (in Numb. 16:1); so she had not given praise over him (i.e., Reuben). She had given birth to Simeon and foreseen Zimri; so she had not given praise over him. She had given birth to Levi and foreseen Korah; so she had not given praise over him. When she gave birth to Judah, she immediately gave praise (rt.: YDH) over him because he made a confession (rt.: YDH) in the Tamar incident, as stated (in Gen. 38:26): THEN JUDAH GAVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND SAID: SHE IS MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN I. (See Gen. R. 99 (another version):8 (= p. 1279 in the Theodor-Albeck edition).) His father said to him: Your mother has given praise (rt.: YDH) over you, and you have made a confession (rt.: YDH). Therefore your brothers shall praise (rt.: YDH) you. (Although the Buber text has “him” here, the correct reading must be “you.”) When Isaac blessed Jacob, he had said to him (in Gen. 27:29): AND MAY YOUR MOTHER'S CHILDREN BOW DOWN TO YOU, since he had only one wife. But, since Jacob had four wives, he said (in Gen. 49:8): YOUR FATHER'S CHILDREN < SHALL BOW DOWN TO YOU >. (Gen. R. 66:4.) Why shall your brothers praise you? Because all Israel shall be called by your name, < i.e., > Jews. (Gen. R. 98(99):6. In Hebrew the word “Jews” is simply the plural of Judah, which in turn has the same root as the Hebrew verb meaning “praise.”) And not only that, but out of you is coming the Messiah, who is saving Israel, as stated (in Is. 11:10): BUT A SHOOT SHALL COME FORTH FROM THE STEM OF JESSE…. (Cf. Romans 15:12; Rev. 5:5.)

Midrash Tehillim 17:15

Listen, Ranati. There is no "rana" here, but rather a similar "rana" as mentioned above, as it says (Kings I 8:28) "to hear the cry." There it is written (Deuteronomy 33:7) "Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah," and here it is written "Hear, O Lord, the cry of righteousness." Why is it that the righteous want the Divine Presence and reduce themselves from what is given to them? (Psalms 37:9) "Happy is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rock." Thus said the Holy One, blessed be He: "Happy is he who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock." Thus said the Holy One, blessed be He, "I will dash your little ones against the rock, just as you dashed mine." We did not hear during the destruction of the Temple that our children were dashed, but rather that they were taken into captivity. Rather, thus said the Holy One, blessed be He, "You have destroyed my Temple, which I built so that Israel might uphold my Torah, which they received from me as children," as it says (Psalm 8:3) "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings have you established strength." Therefore, I will dash yours. And thus it says (Psalm 28:4), "Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavors; give them after the work of their hands; render to them their just deserts." (Psalm 64:9) "They shall take hold of their own tongues; all that see them shall flee away." (Psalm 10:15) "Break the arm of the wicked and evil man; seek out his wickedness until You find none." When the Holy One, blessed be He, takes revenge against the wicked, we will play music before Him. Rabbi Akiva expounded (Isaiah 5:14), "Therefore hell has enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure." Without measure is written here, but it means "without limit." To one who does not have a commandment in his hand, let him decide in favor of merit, for this is for the World to Come. However, even in this world, a Talmudic teaching obligates him, and one teaches him about merit, as it is stated (Job 33:23): "If there is an angel of one thousand who will intercede for him." (2 Samuel 21:2) "Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel." Why did David distance himself from them, causing famine year after year? David said that there are four things that cause rain to cease: idol worship, illicit sexual relations, bloodshed, and judges who rule over the public but do not give charity. Concerning idol worship, it is written (Deuteronomy 11:16), "Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived." And it continues (Amos 4:7), "He stopped the heavens." Concerning illicit sexual relations, it is stated (Jeremiah 3:2), "You have acted like a harlot with many lovers." And it continues (Hosea 2:9), "And I will restrain the rain." Concerning bloodshed, it is stated (Numbers 35:33), "The blood pollutes the land." Concerning judges who rule over the public but do not give charity, it is stated (Proverbs 25:14), "Like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of gifts he did not give." David searched in every generation and did not find one of them. He asked in the Urim and Thummim, as it is stated (2 Samuel 21:1), "David inquired of the Lord about Saul and his house of blood." Of Saul, for you did not show him kindness. "And to the house of the Damim who killed the Gibeonites, David sent and called to them, saying, 'What shall I do for you, and with the house of Saul?' They said to him, 'It is because he killed seven of us, the sons of the Damim, who were woodcutters and water drawers, and the chief and scribe and sun.' David said to them, 'What do you want me to do for you?' They replied, 'Let seven men from his descendants be given to us, and we will hang them before the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen one of the Lord.' But the king said, 'I will give them to you.' David then asked, 'What should I give you?' And they said to him, 'We have no silver or gold with Saul.' David said, 'Perhaps they are divided in their hearts, let each man give what he thinks is best, and we will reconcile with him.' Then David said to them, 'What do you want me to do for you?' And they said, 'Give us silver and gold, for those who killed us are destroying us.' David said, 'I have no silver or gold with Saul.' At that time, the Lord granted three good things to Israel: merciful people, those who are ashamed, and those who do good deeds. Merciful, as it is said, 'And He will give you mercy and have mercy on you.'" "Regarding those who are bashful, it is said (Exodus 20:17), 'And for this purpose His fear shall be upon your faces, that you shall not sin.' Therefore, being bashful is a sign that one does not sin. And whoever does not possess the trait of shame has the status of an uncircumcised person who did not stand with our forefathers on Mount Sinai. Those who do acts of loving-kindness are mentioned in Deuteronomy 7:12, 'And keep the covenant and the loving-kindness.' However, the Gibeonites do not possess any of these traits, as it says in 2 Samuel 21:2, 'The Gibeonites are not of the children of Israel.' Come and see how beloved the Holy One, blessed be He, holds the converts, for our father Abraham did not circumcise anyone until he himself was ninety-nine years old. If he had circumcised his son at the age of fifty or sixty, a convert would have been able to convert at the age of forty or fifty. Therefore, the wheel of the Holy One, blessed be He, revolved with him until he reached the age of ninety-nine, so that the door would not be closed to future converts. And so that He could give reward for days and years and increase the reward of those who do His will, in order to fulfill what is said (Isaiah 42:21), 'The Lord desired for the sake of His righteousness.' Similarly, it is found in four categories that confess and say before He who spoke and brought the world into being (Isaiah 45:23), 'This one will say, "I am for the Lord," and this one will call in the name of Jacob, and this one will write with his hand to the Lord, and adopt the name of Israel.' 'This one will say, "I am for the Lord," and will not be intermingled with sin.' 'This one will call in the name of Jacob' refers to the righteous converts. 'This one will write with his hand to the Lord' refers to those who repent. 'And adopt the name of Israel' refers to those who fear Heaven." And the Gibeonites who were not called by the name of Jacob, as it says about them (Genesis 33:14), "And let El-Shaddai grant you mercy." And they did not show them mercy. David stood up for them and reconciled with them. Therefore it is said, "And the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel." Ezra also reconciled with them, as it says (Nehemiah 3:26), "And the Nethinim dwelt in Ophel." Even God will distance them in the future, as it says (Ezekiel 48:19), "And those who serve the city shall serve it out of all the tribes of Israel. It shall be that which remains." Rabbi Elazar said that the Holy Spirit appeared in three places: in the court of Shem, as it says (Genesis 38:26), "And Judah recognized and said, 'She is more righteous than I.'" Perhaps he did not say this, but rather someone else said it in his presence. A Heavenly Voice went forth and said, "She is more righteous than he." In the court of Samuel, as it says (1 Samuel 12:3), "Here I am; testify against me before the Lord and before His anointed." And they said, "You have not defrauded us." A Heavenly Voice went forth and said, "He is telling the truth in this matter." In the court of Solomon, as it says (1 Kings 3:26), "Give her the living child, and by no means kill him." She is his mother. A Heavenly Voice went forth and said, "She is his mother." Rava interpreted that 613 commandments were stated to Moses at Sinai, corresponding to the number of the days of the solar year, and 248 positive commandments correspond to the number of a man's limbs. Rav Hamnuna said, "What is the verse that teaches this?" (Deuteronomy 33:4) "Moses commanded us a law." The word "law" has a gematria of 611, and when you add "Anochi" and "I am" from the verse (Exodus 20:2), the total is 613. And Rav Yehudah said, "A word and the Sabbath preceded the giving of the Torah." David came and established them on 13, as it says (Psalms 15:1-2), "Who shall dwell in Your tent, who shall reside on Your holy mountain?" "Going innocently" means Abraham, who "walked innocently and did righteousness" (Genesis 17:1). "Speaking truth in his heart" means Rav Sapphira, who "never let a lie cross his lips." "Not slandering with his tongue" means Jacob, who said "Perhaps my father will feel me up," but did not commit any evil against his fellow. "Not taking shame upon his relatives" refers to one who is close to his family. Rabbi Simon said that God's attribute of mercy is not like that of humans. If a human has a shameful or poor relative, he disowns him, but God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt and called them his relative. He considered Hezekiah a wicked king who dragged his father's bones with a rope, but he honored Jehoshaphat, who treated his disciples with respect. One who swears to do evil and does not change is like Rabbi Yochanan, who said, 'I fast until I finish my portion [of the daily study]. He never took interest even from a non-Jew, nor did he accept a bribe even from an innocent person, like Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yose. Whoever does all these things will never fall. One who does some of them may fall eventually. These are the things that are said [in praise of the righteous] - one of them is: 'He who walks righteously' [Isaiah 33:15], referring to Abraham. 'And speaks uprightly' - one who does not speak insultingly of others. 'He who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed' [ibid.] - one who does not listen to slander. 'And shuts his eyes from looking upon evil' [ibid.] - one who does not gaze at women when they are washing clothes. [Other examples of righteous behavior include:] 'He has told you, O man, what is good' [Micah 6:8] - this is [the practice of] performing acts of kindness. 'And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice' [ibid.] - this is the obligation to pursue justice. 'And to love mercy' [ibid.] - this is the act of giving charity. 'And to walk humbly with your God' [ibid.] - this refers to acts that are typically done publicly, such as accompanying a bride and groom [to their wedding], which the Torah refers to as 'walking humbly.' Other acts, which are typically done privately, are even more praiseworthy. Isaiah returned and cited two [righteous] qualities, as it says, 'Keep justice, and do righteousness' [Isaiah 56:1]. Amos cited one, as it says, 'Seek me and live' [Amos 5:4]. Habakkuk also cited one, as it says, 'And the righteous shall live by his faith' [Habakkuk 2:4]."walk humbly with God."

Midrash Tehillim 72:1

To Solomon, give Your judgments, O God, and Your righteousness to the king. This is what the scripture says, "Say ye of the righteous, that it shall be well with him" (Isaiah 3:10). Rabbi Isaac Luria explains that who is called a righteous person? This is the Holy One, blessed be He, as it says, "For the Lord is righteous; He loves righteous deeds" (Psalms 11:7). Why do we say that if we have merit, He will give us from our own, but if not, He will give us from His own righteousness? Is there a greater righteous person than God? Therefore, we say, "Say ye of the righteous, that it shall be well with him." Another interpretation is that "Say ye of the righteous, that it shall be well with him." Rabbi Ibo said, at the time when God created the world, He looked at what He had made and saw that it was very good (Genesis 1:31). Rabbi Yosei bar Chanina said that when God wanted to send Moses to Egypt, Moses asked Him, "What is Your name?" God replied, "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14). You find written three times: "I will be," said the Lord, "mercifully, I created the world, and mercifully I will govern it." When Moses went and asked them, "What should we say to the righteous one of the world, who is good?" They replied, "The righteous one is good, and thus it says (Psalms 136:1), 'Give thanks to the Lord.' Another explanation: 'The fruit of His deeds' refers only to those righteous ones who leave the fruit of their actions to their children. Even David left the fruit of his actions to his son Solomon, as it says (2 Samuel 8:15), 'David administered justice and righteousness.' And even regarding Solomon, it says (Psalms 72:1), 'Give Your judgments to the king,' which means 'Give your judgments.' David said before the Lord, 'Master of the universe, give Your judgments to the king.' Just as You judge without witnesses and without warning, so may Solomon judge without witnesses and without warning.' The Lord replied, 'By your life, that is what I do,' as it says (1 Chronicles 29:23), 'And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord.' Is it possible for a person to sit on the throne of the Lord? Isn't it written (Daniel 7:9), 'Thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days sat.' Rather, [it means] that he judged as His agent, without witnesses and without warning. This is the judgment of prostitutes, as it says (1 Kings 3:16): "Then two women who were prostitutes came to the king." Rav said they were spirits, and Shmuel said they were actual prostitutes. Rabbi Benjamin said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda that they were prostitutes who had come before the king to be judged, as it says (ibid. 22-23): "One woman said, 'Please, my lord, this woman and I live in the same house,' etc. And the other woman said, 'No, the living child is mine, and the dead child is yours.'" Rabbi Simon said that the judge must weigh their arguments, for since the king heard their case and ordered that the child be cut in two, he began to speak wisdom, saying, "The Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw that this judgment was to come before Him, therefore He created for man two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, two legs, and two hands." He began by saying, "Cut the living child in two," but Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Elai said, "If I had been there, I would have put the executioner's cord around his neck. It was not enough that one died, but he would have sentenced the other to death as well." When they saw the king's scepter, they began to say (Ecclesiastes 10:16): "Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child." But when he said, "Give the living child to her and do not kill him," a heavenly voice came forth and said, "She is his mother." When Israel saw this, they said (1 Kings 10:8), "Happy are your people! How blessed are these servants of yours, who stand before you always, listening to your wisdom!" Rabbi Elazar said, "God appeared in three places: in the court of Shem, as it says (Genesis 38:26), 'She is more righteous than I'; in the court of Samuel, as it says (1 Samuel 12:5), 'And they said, 'I am a witness in this matter.' In the court of Shlomo, as it is said (1 Kings 3:27), 'Do not kill him, he is his mother.' How did Shlomo know this, since it is possible that the women exchanged the babies, and only a bat kol came forth and said, 'She is his mother.'

Shemot Rabbah 30:19

Rabbi Elazar said: The entire Torah is contingent on justice, that is why the Holy One blessed be He gave laws after the Ten Commandments. Because people pervert justice, He exacts retribution from them and teaches the entire world that He overturned Sodom only after it perverted justice, as it is stated: “[Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom…] pride, surfeit of bread and tranquil calm, [but she did not support the hand of the poor and indigent]” (Ezekiel 16:49). Jerusalem, too, was not exiled until she perverted justice, as it is stated: “They will not provide justice for an orphan and the cause of the widow will not come to them” (Isaiah 1:23). Why did the Holy One blessed be He give the crown to Judah? (The kings of Israel descend from the tribe of Judah. ) It is not that he was mightier than his brothers; were Simeon, Levi and the others not mighty? Rather, it is because he adjudicated a true judgment for Tamar; (See Genesis 38:26. ) that is why he became a judge of the world. (In ancient times, the king served as the highest judge in the land. ) This is analogous to a judge who adjudicated the case of an orphan girl that came before him and he exonerated her. So too, the case of Tamar came before Judah, and [her sentence was] to be burned, but he exonerated her because he found merit on her behalf. How so? Isaac and Jacob were sitting there, as well as all his brothers, and they were protecting him. (Although they recognized that the signet ring, cords, and staff presented by Tamar (see Genesis 38:25) belonged to Judah, the presentation of these artifacts did not prove that she had not engaged in a forbidden relationship. ) Judah acknowledged the Omnipresent and said the truth of the matter, and said: “She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26). The Holy One blessed be He appointed him king. Likewise, ben Zoma would say and expound: You were shamed in this world; you will not be shamed in the World to Come in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is a consuming fire. Why? Because the shame in this world is nothing compared to the shame of standing [guilty] in the World to Come, as it is stated: “Therefore, everyone who is pious should pray to You [at the time of searching]” (Psalms 32:6). (The time of searching is expounded to mean the day of death. The previous verse states: “I acknowledged my sin to You; I did not hide my iniquity. I said: I will confess my transgressions to the Lord. And You forgave the guilt of my sin, selah” (Psalms 32:5). Thus, this is understood to mean that every pious individual prays that he has the strength to confess his sins before he dies. )

Sifrei Bamidbar 88:1

(Bamidbar 11:6) "And now, our souls are dry. There is nothing": R. Shimon said: They said: It (the manna) will burst our bowels. Can a mortal ingest and not expel! They said to R. Shimon: And how do you explain (Devarim 23:14) "And you shall have a spade along with your other implements" (to cover your excrement)? He answered: What the Canaanite merchants sold them they expelled, but the manna, never. As it is written (Psalms 78:25) "Man ate the bread of abirim" — (bread) which was absorbed in the eivarim (the limbs). "Only to the manna is our eyes. (7) The manna was (round) like coriander seed, and it looked like crystal.": You think that he who said this ("Only to the manna, etc.") said that ("The manna was round, etc."?) This is not so. Israel said "Only to the manna is our eyes," and the L-rd "pacified" all future generations and said to them: Come and see what they are grumbling to Me about — "The manna was like coriander seed — it looked like crystal!" viz. (Bereshit 2:12) "And the gold of that land is good. There is the crystal and the onyx stone." Similarly, (i.e., another instance of "split referrent") (Ibid. 38:25) "And Judah recognized (them) and said: 'She is right. It is by me'" (that she is with child). And Scripture (and not Judah) states that "he did not live with her again." Similarly, (Devarim 25:18) "and you (Israel) were faint and weary," "and (he, Amalek) did not fear G-d." Similarly, (Judges 5:28) "Why is his (Sisra's) chariot delayed in coming?" — This was stated by Sisra's mother, (29) "The wisest of her ladies answer her, etc." — This was said by his wife and her daughters-in-law. (Ibid.) "She, too, returns her words to her" — there was revealed to her what was said to Devorah by the Holy Spirit — Don't wait any longer for Sisra. (Ibid. 31) "So will all of Your foes go lost, O L-rd." Similarly, (I Samuel 4:8) "Woe to us! Who will save us from the hand of this mighty G-d" — This was stated by the righteous (among them). But the wicked said: "This is the G-d who smote the Egyptians with every plague in the desert." Their intent was: He had only ten plagues (in His arsenal) and He brought them all on the Egyptians — He has no plagues left. The L-rd responded: You say I have no plague left? I will bring upon you a plague the like of which the world has never seen. One of you will be sitting (and defecating) and a mouse will rise from the depths and will scoop out his innards and return to the depths! And thus is it written (Ibid. 5:6) "And the hand of the L-rd was heavy against the Ashdodites … and He struck them with hemorrhoids." Similarly, (Jeremiah 26:16-25) "Then the officers and all the people said to the Cohanim: … This man (Jeremiah) does not deserve to die … And there arose men of the elders of the land and they said to the entire assemblage of the people: Michah the Monashite prophesied … Did Chizkiyahu king of Judah put him to death? …" Until here, the words of the righteous. But the wicked among them said: "There was also a man who prophesied in the name of the L-rd, Uriah the son of Shemayahu … And King Yehoyakim heard … and the king wanted to put him to death…. And King Yehoyakim sent men to Egypt … and they took Uriah out of Egypt …" They said: Just as Uriah was killed, so Jeremiah must be killed. "But Achiram son of Shafan protected Jeremiah not to hand him over to the people to be put to death." Similarly, (Ruth 2:13) "As the L-rd lives, lie (here) until the morning." Because the yetzer hara (the evil inclination) sat and aggrieved him (Boaz) the whole night, saying: You are single and need a wife, and she (Ruth) is single and needs a husband, and you know that a woman is acquired (as a wife) by intercourse — Arise and live with her and let her be your wife — he swore to his yetzer hara "As the L-rd lives," I will not touch her. And to the woman he said: "Lie (here) until the morning." Here, too, "Only to the manna is our eyes." Do you think that he who said this said that ("The manna was like coriander seed, etc.")? (No!) Israel said "Only to the manna is our eyes!" and the L-rd "pacified" and said to them: Come and see about what they are railing against Me: "The manna was like coriander seed and it looked like crystal," viz. (Bereshit 2:12) "The gold of that land is good. There is crystal and the shoham stone."

Sifrei Devarim 348:1

(Devarim 33:7) "And this ("heroism" of Reuven [ in confessing his sin]) was due to Judah, who confessed (his sin [viz. Bereshith 38:26]). Of them Scripture writes (Iyyov 15:18-19) "Wise men have told (their sin); they did not conceal it from their fathers. To them alone the land was given; no stranger passed among them."

Musar

One should not rejoice if falsely credited with good deeds, but feel pain instead. If evil tales are true, one should not twist the truth to clear themselves, but accept responsibility like Judah did. Rather than contradict or hate the person spreading the tales, one should humbly accept the rebuke as an opportunity for correction and return to God.

Orchot Tzadikim 2:15

And, of course, if people credit him with good deeds he did not do, he should not rejoice at this but on the contrary feel great pain in his heart that he should have gotten credit for something he did not do. Also, in the case where somebody told evil tales concerning him — if these are true — he should not seek to twist the truth and thus clear himself, but do as Judah who said: "She is more in the right than I" (Gen. 38:26). And he should not try to contradict the man that told these tales, nor should he hate him because he revealed the matter, but he should bow humbly before the Creator, Blessed be He, that he has revealed a little of much that could have been revealed, in order to rebuke him and correct him that he might return to God.

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains the various vessels mentioned in Exodus 25:29:1, such as the ke'arothav, kapothav, uksothav, and menakiyothav, with differing interpretations from Rashi and Onkelos. Rashi's explanation of menakiyothav as trestles supporting pillars attached to the table is refuted by Ramban, who suggests Onkelos' translation of menakiyothav as measures, similar to ephahs. Additionally, Ramban discusses the vessels mentioned in the Book of Chronicles, stating that new vessels were added for the table in the Sanctuary. Ibn Ezra comments on Isaiah 45:23, explaining the term "tzdakah" as a righteous word, citing examples from Genesis. Furthermore, Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 29:35 mentions Leah's foresight regarding Judah's future admission of wrongdoing towards Tamar. Judah's admission of guilt towards Tamar is also highlighted in various commentaries, showing his growth and maturity.

Chizkuni, Deuteronomy 33:7:1

וזאת ליהודה, “and this for Yehudah;” he meant that his blessing that Reuven should not suffer casualties in battle, should also apply to the men of military age of the tribe of Yehudah;At this point Rashi said (based on the Talmud tractate Sotah folio 7) that Moses gave the credit for Reuven’s having done penitence to how Yehudah had demeaned himself publicly when admitting that his daughterinlaw had become pregnant by him. (Genesis 38,26) In Genesis 37,29, we read about Reuven being mortified when Joseph was no longer in the pit the brothers had thrown him into. Although he had not even been present when Joseph was sold, he held himself responsible for not staying around at that time. Yehudah, though admitting his paternity of his daughterinlaw’s Tamar’s babies did not do so until challenged. Until Yehudah admitted his guilt publicly, Reuven had done so only privately; (Genesis 37,29). After hearing of Yehudah’s confession, he too admitted his defiling his father’s couch openly.

Chizkuni, Genesis 49:9:1

מטרף בני עלית, “you removed yourself from the temptation to treat my son as your prey.” According to Rashi here; “you did not consider that killing my son Joseph would be an achievement.” Yaakov admits that he had once suspected him of having killed Joseph. In the Talmud Sanhedrin 6 and 7, the expression בצע used by Yehudah when persuading his brothers not to kill Joseph (37,26) is not understood as Yaakov praising Yehudah for not killing; rather it is a compliment to him for admitting to have been wrong when he accused his daughterinlaw Tamar of harlotry when it had been he who had sought out an assignation with someone whom he thought of as a harlot. He had cancelled the decree to execute her and the two fetuses she was carrying, thereby publicly shaming himself. (Genesis 38,26)

Covenant and Conversation; Numbers; The Wilderness Years, Sh'lach, What Made Joshua and Caleb Different? 14

Early in life he had been the one who proposed selling Joseph into slavery. But he matured. He was taught a lesson by his daughter-in-law, Tamar. He confessed, “She is more righteous than I am” (Gen. 38:26). That experience changed his life. Later, when the viceroy of Egypt (Joseph, not yet recognised by the brothers) threatened to hold Benjamin as a prisoner, Judah offered to spend his life as a slave so that his brother could go free. Judah is the clearest example in Genesis of someone who takes adversity as a learning experience rather than as failure. In Dweck’s terminology, he had a growth mindset. ­Evidently he handed on this trait to his descendants, Caleb among them.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 29:35:1

'הפעם אודה לה, “this time I give thanks to the Lord;” she foresaw that her son Yehudah would admit having wronged Tamar and embarrassing himself greatly in the process. (Genesis 38,26) She therefore decided to admit that she had been very wrong in deceiving Yaakov by posing as Rachel.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:29:1

וישב ראובן אל הבור, “when Reuven returned to the pit, etc.” Rashi, in answer to the question we should have asked about where Reuven was in the interval, answers that he had been preoccupied with trying through fasting and wearing sackcloth, to obtain forgiveness for his indiscretion in removing evidence of Bilhah sleeping with his father. [one of two explanations which Rashi suggests, the more likely correct one. Ed.] This explanation is difficult, seeing that the Talmud in tractate Makkot folio 11, arrives at the conclusion that Yehudah had been the first person ever to have done real penance by admitting his sin publicly, so that his brother learned from him when admitting being the father of the fetus his daughter-in-law Tamar was carrying in her womb. (Genesis 38,26) From that statement it is clear that at this stage Reuven had not felt the need to do penance. He did so only after Yehudah had set the example, which clearly had been some time after the sale of Joseph. Possibly, in order to solve this problem, perhaps the Talmud meant that until Yehudah had confessed publicly, Reuven had only done penance in the privacy his own house. He had been wearing sackcloth in his house already at this point.

Essays in Ethics; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayeshev; The Heroism of Tamar 13

Three months later he heard that Tamar was pregnant. He leapt to the only conclusion he could draw, namely that she had had a physical relationship with another man while bound in law to his son Shelah. She had committed adultery, for which the punishment was death. Tamar was brought out to face her sentence. She came, holding the staff and seal that Judah instantly recognised as his own. She said, “I am pregnant by the person to whom these objects belong.” Judah realised what had happened and said, “She is more righteous than I” (Gen. 38:26).

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 45:23:2

דבר צדקה ═ צדקה a righteous word. (This remark is added to explain the discrepancy between the genders of the verb יצא and the noun צדקה.) Comp. צדקה she hath been righteous (Gen. 38:27). (This quotation is adduced to prove that the word צדקה admits also of the meaning truth.)

Ibn Ezra on Numbers 10:31:2

FORASMUCH AS THOU KNOWEST. Ki al ken (forasmuch) here means the same as ki al ken in forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son (Gen. 38:26). Since (ki al ken) (Thus the meaning of ki al ken is since.) you know the place where we encamped, come with us.

Ibn Ezra on Numbers 11:25:3

BUT THY DID SO NO MORE. (Hebrew, ve-lo yasaf.) A second time. (The literal meaning of lo yasefu is, they did not add. Hence I.E. points out that this term is an idiom meaning they did not repeat it.) The same applies to the phrase ve-lo yasaf (and it went on no more) in with a great voice, and it went on no more (It did not repeat itself.) (Deut. 5:19) and ve-lo yasaf (now more) in and he knew her again no more (Its meaning is, he knew her not a second time.) (Gen. 38:26). According to the rules of Hebrew grammar, the word yasaf is not related to the word tissafu (swept away) (For the word yasefu comes from the root yod, samekh, peh, while the root of tissafu comes from the root samekh, peh, heh. If our word came from the latter root, it would have read safu not yasefu.) in lest ye be swept away in all their sins (Num. 16:26). (If it were, then the meaning of our phrase would be: but they were not destroyed.) Our sages of blessed memory say that Moses took six men from each tribe. Their number thus came to seventy-two. However, Moses dropped the two (Eldad and Medad.) because God told him to gather seventy men. (San. 17a.) This is correct.

Lessons in Leadership; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayigash; The Unexpected Leader 10

The Torah had already hinted at the change in Judah’s character. Having accused his daughter-in-law Tamar of becoming pregnant by a forbidden sexual relationship, he is confronted by her with evidence that he himself is the father of the child and immediately admits: “She is more righteous than I” (Gen. 38:26). This is the first time in the Torah that we see a character admit that he is wrong. If Judah was the first penitent, it was Tamar – mother of Peretz from whom King David was descended – who was ultimately responsible.

Or HaChaim on Deuteronomy 33:7:1

שמע ה׳ קול יהודה, "Hearken, O Lord, to the voice of Yehudah." Seeing that Yehudah had sinned in his relationship with Tamar and had confessed his guilt (Genesis 38,26) when he said: "she is more righteous than I," Moses prayed that G'd should accept his confession. He mentioned this only in order to be able to continue with ואל עמו תביאנו. We have explained in our commentary on Genesis 49,9 (page 424) how the union of Yehudah and Tamar enabled Yehudah to qualify for the description אריה, a fully grown lion. Yehudah's spiritual ascent had been due to his being able to tear himself away from the prey, i.e. from the pools of souls that had been taken captive by the forces of Satan as a result of Adam's sin. In our verse Moses alludes to this when he refers to Yehudah's "hands having performed a mighty deed."

Or HaChaim on Genesis 49:3:13

As to Yehudah sleeping with Tamar- something which suggests something less than 100% chaste behaviour by a son of Jacob- there are two answers. 1) First of all, he had no idea that she was his daughter-in-law; 2) the fact that an angel arranged things in such a way that he was actually acting under some kind of duress as explained by our sages in Makkot 23 on Genesis 38,26. The word ממני in that verse is understood by our sages as referring to a heavenly voice which claimed that the whole incident had been engineered by heaven. Since we do not have an allusion to such heavenly intervention in the case of Reuben, we are entitled to blame him for his act.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 28:15:3

Scientific books claim that the basic number of gemstones, (not allowing for variants, mutations) are only 12 in number, so that they were all represented on the breastplate of the High Priest. They may be considered as the “patriarchs” of all other precious stones. The reason that the gemstone assigned to the tribe of Reuven was the אודם was the fact that it symbolised the blush on his face when he owned up to being guilty of his misdemeanour in Bilhah’s tent. The fact that he was not ashamed to admit his guilt is a credit to him reflected by this red-coloured stone known as “rubin.” It is supposedly found in certain areas at the bottom of the sea. It is chipped of a great rock beneath the sea, and is mined similar to silver and gold. The rock is known as Balax. Rubin and Balax are supposedly two names for the same kind of stone. The difference between them is only that the variety known as rubin is reddish looking. Onkelos also translates the word אודם as סמקן, a red stone. It is the choicest of a number of sub-categories of the same basic kind of precious stone. Seeing it is red, an essential colour reminding us of blood, it is reputed to have the power to protect a woman who wears this jewel against ever aborting any fetus she carries. Women who wear jewelry made from this stone will give birth to babies that have been growing in their wombs for the full nine months. The stone is even supposed to have positive effects upon women who are having a difficult delivery. If this stone will be crushed into powder and consumed with food and drink it displays properties similar to those of the דודאים (mandrakes?), the plant which Leah “sold” Rachel in order to help her achieve pregnancy (compare author’s comment on Genesis 30,14). The shape of those dudaim which Reuven had found at the time was the outline of a human being. This is the reason that the word אודם, normally spelled with the letter ו was spelled without that letter in order to draw our attention to the spelling which could be read “Adam,”אדם . The reading of the word teaches the nature of the stone, whereas the spelling teaches the effect of that stone, its function. Shimon’s stone פטדה, is a greenish-looking gemstone, similar to the turquoise colour of the sea in certain coastal cities. Onkelos also translates it as ירקן (emerald?). It is of the same group as the gemstone נפך, the stone with the name of Yehudah inscribed on it. Both are of similar colour, except that the stone described as נפך is the more precious of its group. It sparkles very much. The פטדה is inferior to the נפך both in colour and in sparkle. The greenish colour symbolises the terrible sexual licentiousness committed by that tribe who had caused the face of their leader Zimri to turn green in shame (Numbers 28,14). The same happened to all the other members of the tribe of Shimon who took part in that sin at that time. Darkon, dropsy, was the illness from which these people died. The positive feature of that gemstone is that it cools the body. This may be the reason it is found in hot countries such as Nubia (the Sudan). The people in that country are especially steeped in sexual licentiousness. They need to “cool off” in order to counteract their tendencies. This is why we read in Job 28,19 “topaz from Nubia cannot match its value (that of rubies).” The reason Job made this comparison was because these stones were found in Nubia. The stone which bore the name of Levi was the ברקת, known popularly as carbuncle (a rounded gemstone without facets). It is so called as it flashes just like a bolt of lightning, ברק. It illuminates like a lamp. Onkelos also translates it as ברקן, a flashing stone. This was the gemstone Noach hung in the ark to provide him with light. The Torah referred to this light in Genesis 6,15 צהר תעשה לתבה. Isaiah refers to it as אקדח, in Isaiah 54,12 where, speaking of the future of Israel he writes: ”I will make your battlements rubies and your gates of precious stones, i.e. לאבני אקדח.” The name is justified as it appears glowing like red-hot coals. A similar expression occurs also in Isaiah 50,11: “kindlers of fire.” The reason this stone was chosen to symbolise Levi was that the Levites illuminate the people by teaching them spiritual illumination, i.e. Torah, as we know from Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל, “they teach Your judgments to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel.” We also know of Moses, who was of the tribe of Levi, that the whole house was filled with light when he was born as the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 1,24) interpreted the words in Exodus there (Exodus 2,2) that “she (his mother) saw that he was good.” Furthermore, when Moses returned from Mount Sinai with the second sets of Tablets the Torah testified that the skin of his face emitted rays of light (Exodus 34,29). We have another verse (Kohelet 8,1) “a man’s wisdom lights up his face.” The positive value of this gemstone is that it is apt to enlighten the foolish, providing him with insights he never had. This is in addition to the general usefulness of that jewel in providing light just as does a lamp. People say that if one pounds this carbuncle into fine dust and mixes it with food or drink as one mixes certain medicinal herbs into the food it proves very capable of providing wisdom and opening up previously “closed” hearts. Yehudah’s name was inscribed on the gemstone called נפך as we mentioned already. This jewel is known either as merkedy or zemurah in Arabic. Onkelos’ translation azmoragdin, (emerald) can support either one of these names. He chose a combination of these two words. As already mentioned, it is a greenish stone of high luster and represented his shame-facedness in accusing his daughter-in-law Tamar’s pregnancy as being the result of harlotry when he himself had fathered the child she was carrying (Genesis 38,26). Seeing that he overcame his embarrassment and made a public confession of his own involvement, this stone, i.e. its color, was chosen as appropriate for him. In addition he also had had to bear the shame, i.e. his face turning green, in the matter of having sold Joseph and his father suspecting him of this though the matter had never been spoken of. When Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his deathbed saying: “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself,” he wanted him to know that he suspected him of having been involved in the deception which had made Yaakov call out in anguish: “a wild beast has torn Joseph to shreds (Genesis 37,33).” When hearing his father say that he considered Yehudah as having elevated himself, i.e. having exonerated himself from that guilt, his face was restored to its original colour after all these years. It then resembled the appearance of the emerald giving off a sparkle. It is also written of Yehudah (Genesis 49,8) “your hand is at the neck of your enemy,” and the outstanding feature of the gemstone emerald is that people wearing it experience that their enemies turn their neck towards them, i.e. that they attempt to flee. This is the reason this jewel is known as נפך. The Bible comments on Yehudah’s bravery in battle more than once, and it is written of David (Samuel I 18,7) that he defeated his enemies in their tens of thousands, Of the messiah it is written: (Isaiah 11,4) “with the spirit (breath) of his mouth he will kill the wicked.” Issachar’s name was inscribed on a jewel called ספיר, sapphire, a jewel known as sephily of a blue colour. It had been assigned to Issachar because he was extremely wise and his tribe excelled in Torah knowledge. This has been attested to in Chronicles I 12,32. We have a tradition that the Tablets with the Ten Commandments were made of sapphire (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 26). We also find another reference to this jewel in Exodus 24,10 where the vision of G’d seen by the elders and the nobles is described as their observing with their mental eyes the appearance of bricks made of sapphire. It is a well known fact that the souls of Torah scholars are part of a whole bundle of souls beneath the throne of G’d’s attribute כבוד. This is derived from Ezekiel 1,26: “as the semblance of a throne, in appearance like sapphire.” The blue color of this jewel is not like the blue which denotes haughtiness similar to certain shades of red or green; on the contrary, it is a color symbolizing humility, modesty, a character trait equally becoming to both young and old. This is what Isaiah 57,15 meant when he wrote: “I dwell on high, in holiness; yet with the contrite and lowly in spirit.” The outstanding feature of this jewel is that it is good for one’s eyesight; this is the reason people have a habit of passing this jewel back and forth in front of their eyes. It was appropriate for Issachar as Torah also provides enlightenment. There is a popular saying that this jewel is useful in getting rid of all manner of pains and any swelling one experiences in any part of one’s body. The Torah too is a powerful remedy for all parts of the body. We have been told in Eyruvin 54 that if someone suffers from headaches the best remedy is to immerse oneself in the study of Torah. The name of Zevulun was inscribed on the gemstone known as יהלום, diamond. This gemstone is known as pirle, same as bedolach. It is clear, transparent. It is to remind us of “white” silver, an allusion to the material wealth of the tribe of Zevulun. We know from Yaakov’s blessing of Zevulun in Genesis 49,13 that he was a great trader sending his ships far afield in order to bring home wealth from foreign lands. It was appropriate therefore that the stone bearing his name was the diamond. The special property of the diamond for man is that it helps one to go to sleep, something Leah referred to when she (the mother of Zevulun) said after he was born: “this time my husband will make his permanent home with me” (Genesis 30,20). [I believe what the author meant was that possession of diamonds allows people to sleep easy as they feel emotionally and economically secure. Ed.] The name of the tribe of Dan was inscribed on a gemstone called לשם, known as opal, or ashtefassis. It shows a human face turned upside down, reminiscent of the time when the tribe of Dan attempted to reverse the norms of Judaism by appointing for themselves a non-Levite as religious leader (compare Judges 18,31). We find in Joshua 19,47 that a certain town previously called Leshem was renamed Dan in commemoration of the founding father of that tribe. This city became an integral part of the land of Israel. The name of the tribe of Naftali was inscribed on a jewel known as שבו, agate. It is commonly known as turquoise. [The various names which I have spelled in italics appear to be the equivalents of these gems’ names in Spanish or old French during the time of the author. Ed.] Onkelos also translates it as טרקיא. The special property ascribed to that gemstone was that it “pulls” man while riding in carriages or riding horses and enables him to become successful as a driver or rider. This occurs through man and beast developing mutual affinity for each other while man sits in the saddle. It was appropriate for Naftali to be associated with this gemstone as at the time he was born his step-mother Rachel had said that she had prevailed in a struggle with the attribute of Justice and her sister and as a result her handmaid had born this son for her. Rachel also had to use all her abilities (she thought) in order to have a son at least through her handmaid (compare Genesis 30,8). The gemstone bearing the name of Gad was the אחלמה, popularly known as crystal. This is why Onkelos translates the word as עין עגלא. A better known gemstone called lemon is similar to it but reddish in appearance. The reason this gemstone was used to symbolize Gad was that seeing the gemstone crystal is very common and everyone is familiar with it, the members of the tribe of Gad were also widely known as were the people who had been slain by this tribe in the wars of Israel against the Canaanites. This is the meaning of Deut. 33,20 וטרף זרעו קדקד , “tearing off arm, and even head.” The special property of this gemstone is that it reinforces the resolve of one’s heart when going to war and prevents one from becoming faint-hearted. The gemstone gives man strength. It is called אחלמה, as that word is connected to מלחמה, attributes needed to be successful in battle. The expression occurs in that sense in Isaiah 38,16: ותחלימני ותחיני, “You have restored me to health and have revived me.” The idea is that G’d made King Chiskiyah strong again. Another verse with a similar message is Job 39,4 where G’d speaks to Job about the health of the hinds, etc., saying יחלמו בניהם ירבו בבר, “their young are healthy (strong) able to grow up in the open fields.” The gemstone on which the name of the tribe of Asher was inscribed is called תרשיש, better known as cariolica, topaz, chrysolite. Its color is close to that of oil (olive oil). Others say that its color is azure-blue (compare R' David Kimchi). Onkelos translates it as כרום ימא, aquamarine. The reason is that the color of the sea resembles that of azure-blue. The name Tarshish appears also as a destination in the ship hired by the prophet Jonah, presumably because these gems could be found in that country. The special property of this topaz is to facilitate in the digestion of foods. It is even more important if one first pulverizes it and mixes the powder into one’s food. It will then make a mass similar to a mixture of flour and oil. The Torah extols Asher’s land portion within the land of Israel as being particularly full of oil, i.e. rich soil as we know from Yaakov’s blessing in Genesis 49,20. The gemstone bearing the name of the tribe of Joseph was called שהם, better known as onyx. The special property of this jewel is that its owners enjoy favor in the eyes of people. The letters in that stone also spell השם when read in a different order. This is an allusion to the verse in Genesis 39,2: “G’d was with Joseph and he became a successful man;” or, Genesis 39,24 “G’d made the warden of the prison like Joseph, etc.” Anyone who wears the jewel in the king’s palace will find that he becomes very successful and that his suggestions will be well received. The name of the gemstone on which Binyamin’s name was inscribed was ישפה, better known as jasper. It is a multi-colored gem consisting of red, black, green. Binyamin had many contradictory thoughts about the sale of Joseph by his brothers, all of which are reflected in the different colours of the jasper. The special property of that stone is that it stops the flow of blood. The reason this gemstone was assigned to the tribe of Binyamin had to do with the founder of that tribe not being able to decide if to tell his father that Joseph was most likely alive, or to keep silent as he could not foresee how Yaakov would react to such information. In the end he controlled himself, stopped himself, and did not reveal what he knew. The word ישפה may be understood as two words, i.e. יש פה, “he has a mouth,” or words to that effect. The name of that stone alludes to the fact hat Binyamin deserved credit for keeping silent about what he knew his brothers had done to his older brother Joseph. This completes the discussion about the twelve gemstones on the breastplate of the High Priest. All the details connected with the stones, the breastplate, the inscriptions, etc., are part and parcel of the detailed supervision G’d exercises over the fate of the Jewish people in all its aspects.

Radak on Genesis 18:5:3

כי על כן עברתם, seeing that you have already happened to pass my house, it is not possible that you should not at least accept some refreshment. The formulation על כן is found again when Lot justifies his hosting the angels when the Sodomites remonstrate with him. (Genesis 19,8) We also find this formulation על כן when Yehudah acknowledges his embarrassment with Tamar as a punishment for not giving his third son to Tamar for her to become his wife. (Genesis 38,26)

Ramban on Exodus 25:29:1

AND THOU SHALT MAKE ‘KE’AROTHAV VEKAPOTHAV UKSOTHAV UMENAKIYOTHAV.’ Rashi explained: “Ke’arothav are the forms [the moulds that were made to fit the shape of the bread]; vekapothav are spoons in which the incense was put; (See Leviticus 24:7.) uksothav are rods in the shape of halves of hollow canes [which were put between one loaf and another so that they would not become mouldy]; umenakiyothav are the trestles which were notched in [five places] to support the canes.” These vessels [that Rashi referred to] are indeed mentioned in the Gemara. (Menachoth 97a.) And the Rabbi further said: “The word mechilathei [which Onkelos used for the Hebrew menakiyothav] means ‘bearers,’ similar to the expressions: and I weary myself ‘kalkeil’ (to bear it); (Jeremiah 20:9.) I am weary ‘hachil’ (bearing it). (Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal.) Now the Sages of Israel have differed on this. For some say that ksothav are the trestles, and menakiyothav are the hollow canes. But Onkelos who translated menakiyothav by [the Aramaic] mechilathei was of the same opinion as he who says that menakiyoth are the trestles [supporting pillars attached to the table].” These are Rashi’s words. But I do not find them to be correct, for the word mechilathei [of Onkelos] in the Aramaic language is but a term meaning measures, such as ephahs and the like. Thus Onkelos rendered, eiphath tzedek (Leviticus 19:36.) — mechilon dikshot (a true measure); Thou shalt not have in thy house ‘eiphah v’eiphah’ (Deuteronomy 25:14.) — thou shalt not have mechilta umechilta (diverse measures). In a similar sense it is found whenever mentioned in the Talmud and in the Sages’ words: kayal meikal (he was measuring); (Menachoth 53 b: ka kayol.) bimchilta d’kayil inish ba mitkil (with the measure that one measures others, with that he is measured). (Targum Yerushalmi Genesis 38:26.) Similarly, I am weary ‘hachil’ (Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal.) means “I am weary of being a holding measure” [of G-d’s fury], and it is associated with these expressions: alpayim bath yachil (it held two thousand baths); (I Kings 7:26.) v’chol bashalish aphar ha’aretz (and He comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure); (Isaiah 40:12.) too little ‘meihachil’ (to receive) the burnt offering. (I Kings 8:64.) Similarly, I am weary ‘hachil’ (Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal.) is in my opinion not an expression of “bearing” but is instead a form of that very same meaning of “holding,” thus saying, “I am weary of holding” [G-d’s fury], similar in usage to these expressions: the land is not able ‘l’hachil’ (to hold) all his words; (Amos 7:10.) the spirit of a man ‘y’chalkeil’ his infirmity, (Proverbs 18:14.) meaning that he will be able to hold the pain within himself and not become weary [and broken in spirit] because of it. Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot ‘y’chalkelucha’ (I Kings 8:27.) — they cannot hold and contain the greatness of Your exaltedness, for there is no limit and measure to You — how much less this house that I have built! (I Kings 8:27.) 'Y’chalkeil' his words rightfully (Psalms 112:5.) means that he is not a fool who spendeth all his spirit, (Proverbs 29:11.) but holds his words within himself when necessary, and uses them as necessary. 'Vay’chalkeil Yoseiph' (Genesis 47:12.) means that Joseph gave them as much food as they could hold; he gave neither too much nor too little, but bread according to the want of their little ones. (See Ramban on Genesis 41:48 (Vol. I, p. 507) that Joseph had gathered all food essential to life “even figs, fresh and dried, etc.” Now of this kind of food he gave his family abundantly, but bread he gave them according to the want of their little ones (Genesis 47:12).) And such is the explanation of all [other similar expressions]. But Onkelos’ opinion [who translated umenakiyothav — umechilathei] is not clear. Perhaps menakiyothav is in the opinion of Onkelos a term for measures, since they had [in the Tabernacle and later in the Sanctuary] a measure holding two tenth parts [of an ephah] flour, with which to measure one cake, (Leviticus 24:5.) and they did not measure it twice with the one tenth measure of the meal-offering. We must then say that Onkelos differs from the Mishnah which teaches: (Menachoth 87a.) “There were two dry-measures in the Sanctuary: the tenth, and the half-tenth” [of an ephah], and in his opinion there were three dry-measures: the tenth, the half-tenth, and the two tenths. The correct interpretation of Onkelos’ opinion appears to me to be that mechila is the form (mould) made for the dough, just as the Rabbis have said: (Ibid., 94a.) “There were in the Tabernacle three moulds [for the showbread]: he placed it in a mould whilst it was still dough; when baked in the oven it was put in another mould, and when he took it out he placed it in a [third] frame so that it should not spoil.” (The first and third moulds were made of gold; the one for the oven was an iron mould.) This [third] frame which was used so that it should not spoil did not have to be shaped to the form of the bread and its size; instead, it was made like a sort of dish to support the sides of the bread, this being the ke’arothav mentioned in the verse. But the first mould for the dough was shaped to the form of the bread and its size, namely, ten [handbreadths] long and five wide, and its horns (Small pieces of dough were put on the four corners of each of the breads (Menachoth 96 a).) seven fingerbreadths [high]. Into this mould the dough was put, measured and shaped to fit its form, and for this reason it was called mechila because it was made to “the measure.” The term menakiyoth then [according to Onkelos] is a name just like ephah and s’ah [a third of the ephah measure is a s’ah], similar, to ke’arothav and ksothav and other nouns which are not descriptive. Perhaps those just measures which are called a just ephah, and a just hin, (Leviticus 19:36.) and termed menakiyoth [of the root naki — clean] because they are clean of any falsehood, and thus they clear their owners of any cheating and sin. And ksavoth is a general term covering the canes [which were put between one loaf and another] and the trestles [notched in five places upon which the canes separating the loaves rested]. Perhaps because of their notches they were so called [ksavoth], with the letter tzade [ktzavoth — sides, corners] being used instead of the letter sin [ksavoth], this word [ksavoth] being similar to [the word ktzavoth found in the following verse]: so that they that dwell in ‘ktzavoth’ (the uttermost parts) stand in awe of Thy signs, (Psalms 65:9.) by interchanging the letter tzade with the sin, just like in the word s’chok [“laughter,” which is the word tzchok]. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “There is an error in Chronicles, (I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text.) for in speaking of the vessels of the table in place of ke’aroth [mentioned here] it writes mizrakoth (basins); in place of kapoth [mentioned here] it writes kiporim (bowls); ksavoth is mentioned there as here; and in the place of menakiyoth it speaks of mizlagoth (forks). And all these were made of gold for the purpose of the table [and yet we do not find the mizrakoth, kiporim, and mizlagoth mentioned here in connection with the table in the Tabernacle]! Perhaps these were other vessels which David commanded to be placed on the tables (II Chronicles 4:8.) which his son Solomon would make, but the table in the Tent of Meeting did not have these vessels.” The error, however, is in Rabbi Abraham’s words, [not in the Book of Chronicles], for that which Scripture states, and the forks, and the basins, and the jars of pure gold; and for the golden bowls by weight for every bowl, (I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text.) is not connected only with the tables of showbread (I Chronicles 28:16.) [mentioned in the preceding verse], but it reverts back to that which Scripture stated [several verses above], and for all the work of the service of the house of the Eternal, and for all the vessels of service in the house of the Eternal. (Ibid., Verse 13.) And then it continues, of gold, for all vessels of every kind of service, (Ibid., Verse 14.) and then it mentioned, and the forks, and the basins (I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text.) which are vessels of the altar, and the jars for the table, and the bowls for the altar. And finally it stated, and for the altar of incense refined gold by weight, (Ibid., Verse 18.) concluding: All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Eternal hath made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern. (Ibid., Verse 19.) Thus David [in speaking to his son Solomon] included all needs of the Sanctuary.

Rashi on Genesis 18:5:4

“For (כי) you ought to do this because that (על כן) I have seen thy face”; (Genesis 38:26) “for (כי) she has done right because that (על כן) I gave her not”; (Numbers 10:31) “for (כי) thou ought to accompany us because that (על כן) thou knowest how we are to encamp”.

Rashi on Job 40:32:3

and do not [rest] תּוֹסַף is derived from יסף, like (Gen.38:26), “and he did not cease (יָסַף) being intimate with her” (regrettera in French), will regret. [In the expression] אַל-תּוֹסַף, the “sammech” is vowelized with a “pattah” because of the pause accent, as in (Gen. 49:4), “You shall not gain superiority (תּוֹתַר) “; (Ruth 2:14), “and she left over (וַתּתַר),” and many like it.

Rashi on Numbers 10:31:3

כי על כן ידעת — This is similar to על אשר ידעת, like (Genesis 38:26) “For (כי) she has acted rightly, because (על כן) I did not give her to Selah, my son”; (Genesis 19:8): “For (כי) this kindness please do out of respect to me, because (על כן) they have come under the shadow of my roof”; (Genesis 33:10): “For (כי) it is fitting and proper for you to accept my present, because (על כן) I have seen your face."

Redeeming Relevance; Exodus, CHAPTER 6 Clothing Aharon 33

The story continues to unfold into one long string of events that could be described as a type of hide-and-seek, where Yehudah sends his friend to look for someone who doesn’t exist (the prostitute) – only to be confronted by someone else (Tamar) who actually was the person for whom he was searching all along (the woman who will be the mother of his children and of the Davidic lineage). Yehudah’s inability to see the authentic is further driven home when Tamar tells him to “recognize” the identity of the items that she had received as surety from him. (One of the items that comprised the surety was a garment that Yehudah had probably needed to take off. Maybe here too, Tamar was trying to drive home the idea that clothing is contingent and not part of a person’s essence.) The Torah tells us that he recognizes, but it doesn’t give us the subject of his recognition (“Yehudah recognized and said”- Bereshit 38:26 (Bereshit 38:26.) ). Based on this textual anomaly, we can suggest that he recognized more than the objects that belonged to him. Yehudah finally “sees”: Not only does he now recognize that the woman who appeared to be (i.e., wore the clothes of) a prostitute was really Tamar, he also recognizes that Tamar was a spiritual giant (“tzadka mimeni” - Bereshit 38:26 (Ibid.) ) and certainly could not have been at fault for the death of his sons, as he might have previously thought.

Redeeming Relevance; Exodus, CHAPTER 6 Clothing Aharon 37

The rabbis also notice that Yehudah’s recognition of his own belongings (Bereshit 38:26) (Bereshit 38:26.) is couched in the same language that the brothers used in showing Yosef’s bloodied clothing to their father, Ya’akov (Bereshit 37:32). (Ibid., 37:32.) This additional observation sets up a powerful contrast between the two episodes (Bereshit Rabba 85:11). (Bereshit Rabba 85:11.)

Siftei Chakhamim, Deuteronomy 15:11:1

For this reason. I.e., the term על כן does not mean, “since,” as in, “Since (כי על כן) I did not give her to Shailoh my son (Bereishis 38:26),” and, “Since (כי על כן) I did not allow you to touch her (ibid. 20:6).” For in those verses, the expression על כן is connected to the word כי — and every instance of כי על כן in Scripture means, “since,” as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayeirah (ibid. 18:5). But here the expression על כן means, “For this reason,” because it is written without the word כי.

Studies in Spirituality; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Aharei Mot; The Courage to Admit Mistakes 18

What Philip Lader discovered about his high-flying contemporaries, Judaism internalised long ago. Seeing the best admit that they too make mistakes is deeply empowering for the rest of us. The first Jew to admit he made a mistake was Judah, who had wrongly accused Tamar of sexual misconduct, and then, realising he had been wrong, said, “She is more righteous than I” (Gen. 38:26).

Tribal Lands, Chapter 12; Yosef 20

It would seem, though, that the Torah intimated Joseph’s influence on interpersonal relationships, even in his absence. In the very next episode, Judah underwent a transformation from callous and indifferent to owning up to the importance of familial responsibility. (See chapter 5 on Judah, especially, “Judah’s Descent” and “Judah’s Triumph.”) He had married a foreigner for business expediency, sired sons who died for their own lack of care toward their wife, Tamar, and then slept with a woman he thought was a prostitute. Upon learning that the erstwhile prostitute was really Tamar, who was correct in asserting her position in the family, he admitted “tzadkah mi-meni” (she is correct!), and then the verse adds: “and he did not stop from being intimate with her from thereon in [ve-lo yasaf od le-da’atah]” (Genesis 38:26). (Translation follows Sotah 10b, as quoted by Rashi on this verse (״ויש אומרים״).)

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 37:29:1

וישב ראובן, “Reuven returned;” According to Rashi, Reuven reverted to wearing sackcloth and observing fasts as penitence over his indiscretion with Bilhah, even though he had not made a public confession until after he had heard his brother Yehudah publicly confess his sin against Tamar. (Genesis 38,26)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 87

“He was not intimate with her again” [38:26]. He did not sleep with her again. So writes Hizkuni. He was afraid to sleep with her. He thought that she killed all the men who slept with her. He was also afraid to sleep with her, because she was his daughter-in-law. Some sages say that he continued to sleep with her. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 38:26.)

Talmud

The text discusses the confessions of Reuben and Judah, highlighting how they did not hide their sins before their fathers and were rewarded with blessings. Reuben confessed his sin with Bilhah, while Judah confessed his sin with Tamar, leading to blessings and favor from God. The Talmud also explores the significance of these confessions in relation to other biblical figures and events, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging and repenting for wrongdoing.

Bava Kamma 92a:22

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All those forty years that the Jewish people were in the desert, the bones of Judah, which the Jewish people took with them from Egypt along with the bones of his brothers, were rolling around in the coffin, until Moses came and asked for mercy on Judah’s behalf. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who served as the impetus for Reuben that he should confess his sin, through which he merited a blessing and was not excluded from the count of the twelve sons of Jacob (see Genesis 35:22)? It was Judah, as Reuben saw him confess his sin, and thereby did the same.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 1:4:4

“And they mention in front of her things that neither she nor any of her paternal family should hear,” etc. (A more detailed homily in the Babli, 7b.) For example, what happened between Reuben and Bilhah (Gen. 35:22.) , or what happened between Jehudah and Tamar (Gen. 38:13–26.) . (Job 15:18–19. These verses are explained as referring to Reuben and Jehudah who confessed their sins, in Gen. rabba 57(3), [Num. rabba 13(6)]; Babli Makkot 11b; Yerushalmi Megillah4:11 (fol. 75c).) “If Sages tell,” these are Reuben and Jehudah, “they do not hide before their fathers.” What rewards did they take for this, “to them alone the Land was given; no stranger passes in their midst.” When Moses came to bless them, “Reuben may live and not die, (Deut. 36:6.) ” “and that for Jehudah (Deut. 36:7: “Listen, o Eternal, to Judah’s voice.”) ”.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9:6:3

The Elders wash their hands with water at the place where the calf’s neck was broken and say (The court can perform the ceremony only if it did not tolerate a breakdown of social services.) : “Our hands did not spill this blood,” etc. The priests say (Deut. 21:8.) : “Purge for Your people Israel.” The Holy Spirit says, “the blood was purged for them.” Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say (Gen. 38:25–26. A different version in the Babli, Makkot 23b.) : “She said, please recognize this seal, strings, and staff,” so far Tamar spoke. “Jehudah recognized and said, she is more just than I am because I did not give her to my son Shelah,” so far Jehudah spoke. The Holy Spirit said, “he never knew her again. (On could also translate: He never stopped knowing her.) ” Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say (Num. 13:27–30. The interpretation saves Joshua’s reputation, who is silent in the biblical narrative.) : “They told him and said, we came to the land you sent us to; it really is flowing of milk and honey and that is its fruit;” so far Joshua spoke. “But the people are strong who dwell in the land, the cities are very highly fortified, and also the young giants we saw there;” so far said the spies. “Caleb silenced the people to Moses and said, we certainly can mount and inherit it, for certainly we can do it;” so far Caleb spoke. Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say (Jud. 5:28–31.) : “Sisera’s mother looked out and whimpered, etc.;” so far Sisera’s mother spoke. “Her wise princesses answered her, …, will they not find and distribute booty;” so far said her daughters-in-law. And the Holy Spirit says, “so all enemies of the Eternal will be lost.”

Makkot 23b:12

The Gemara cites a somewhat similar statement. Rabbi Elazar says: In three places the Divine Spirit appeared before all to affirm that the action taken was appropriate: In the court of Shem, in the court of Samuel the Ramathite, and in the court of Solomon. The Gemara elaborates: This occurred in the court of Shem, as it is written in the context of the episode of Judah and Tamar: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I [mimmenni]” (Genesis 38:26). How did Judah know that Tamar’s assertion that she was bearing his child was correct? Perhaps, just as he went to her and hired her as a prostitute, another person went to her and hired her as well, and he is not the father. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: It is from Me [mimmenni] that these secrets emerged. God affirmed that her assertion was correct and that it was His divine plan that Judah would father a child from Tamar.

Sotah 10b:12

The same verse continues: “And he knew her [leda’atah] again no more [velo yasaf],” seemingly indicating that Judah did not engage in sexual intercourse with Tamar again. Shmuel the Elder, father-in-law of Rav Shmuel bar Ami, says in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Ami: The verse actually means that once he knew of her that her intentions were for the sake of Heaven, he did not desist from engaging in sexual intercourse with her again, as it is written here: “Velo yasaf od leda’atah,” and it is written there at the giving of the Torah: “These words the Lord spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice and it went on no more [velo yasaf]” (Deuteronomy 5:18), which is interpreted to mean: A great voice that did not cease.

Sotah 10b:9

The verse states: “And Judah acknowledged them, and said: She is more righteous than I; forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son” (Genesis 38:26). This is the same as Rav Ḥanin bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: Joseph, who sanctified the name of Heaven in private by not committing adultery with the wife of Potiphar, merited that one letter from the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, was added to his name, as it is written: “He appointed it in Joseph [bihosef ] for a testimony in his name, when He went forth against the land of Egypt” (Psalms 81:6). In this verse the name Joseph is written with an additional letter heh, found in the ineffable name of God.

Sotah 7b:8

The Gemara questions the source for Reuben’s admission. Granted, with regard to Judah we have found a source that he admitted his sin with Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26). Judah admitted that he was the one who had impregnated Tamar. But from where do we derive that Reuben admitted his sin?

Tanakh

In Deuteronomy 33:7, Moses prays for Judah, asking God to hear his voice and strengthen his hands against his enemies.

Deuteronomy 33:7

And this he said of Judah: Hear, יהוה, the voice of Judah And restore him to his people. Though his own hands strive for him, (Though his own hands strive for him Better (vocalizing rab with pathaḥ) “Make his hands strong for him.” Cf. rabbeh, Judg. 9.29.) Help him against his foes.

Targum

Judah acknowledged that Tamar was innocent and that she conceived from him because he did not give her to his son Shelah. The heavenly voice declared them both innocent, and Judah vowed not to be intimate with Tamar again. (Onkelos Genesis 38:26, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:26, Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 38:26)

Onkelos Genesis 38:26

Yehudah recognized them and said, She is righteous, [it is] from me [that she conceived], inasmuch that I did not give her to my son Sheilah. He was not intimate with her any more.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 38:26

And Jehuda recognised the three witnesses, and arose upon his feet and said, I pray you, my brethren, and ye men of the house of my fathers, to hear me. With the measure that a man measureth shall it be measured to him; whether good measure of evil; and blessed is every man who confesseth his works. because I took the coat of Joseph my brother and dipped it into the blood of a goat, and brought it before the feet of my father and said to him, Know now whether this be thy son's coat or not, the measure is according to the measure, and the rule to the rule. Better is it for me to blush in this world than to blush in the world to come; better to burn with a fire that goes out, than to burn in the fire devouring fire. Let Tamar my daughter-in-law be spared. She hath not conceived a child by fornication, but because I did not give to her Shela my son. The Bath kol came foth from heaven, and said, Both of you are acquitted in the judgment. The thing was from the Lord. And he added not to know her.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:26

And Jehuda, acknowledged and said, Tamar is innocent; she is with child by me. And the Bath kol fell from heaven, and said, From before Me was this thing done, and let both be delivered from judgment. And Jehuda said, Because I gave her not to Shela my son, hath this happened to me. But he added not to know her again.

וַיְהִ֖י בְּעֵ֣ת לִדְתָּ֑הּ וְהִנֵּ֥ה תְאוֹמִ֖ים בְּבִטְנָֽהּ׃ 27 J When the time came for her to give birth, there were twins in her womb!
The birth of twins Peretz and Zerach symbolizes the duality of life on earth and the potential for spiritual growth and closeness to God, with the firstborn being identified by a red thread. Tamar and Rebekah both gave birth to twins after covering themselves with a veil, with Tamar bearing Perez and Zerah, leading to the Jews prevailing over their enemies despite Haman's belief in his success. Ibn Ezra and Rashi provide insights into the meanings of "צדקה" and the fulfillment of days to bear between different women in the text. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan mention that Tamar gave birth to twins in her womb.

Chasidut

The author discusses the birth of twins Peretz and Zerach, explaining how the transition from the womb to the world represents a loss of innocence and a new awakening to serve God. The twins symbolize the duality of life on earth, with opportunities for spiritual growth through trials and efforts. Additionally, the text explores the concept of positive interaction between man and God to receive divine blessings, highlighting the importance of seizing fleeting moments to connect with the divine. The birth of the twins is seen as a metaphor for the potential for spiritual growth and closeness to God.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Bereshit 16

The author offers another way of understanding the verse ‎אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם וגו‎', ‎and the verse following,‎וכל שיח השדה טרם יהיה בארץ וכל עשב השדה טרם יצמח ואדם אין בו וגגגו‎', ‎‎“when no shrub of the field was yet on earth and no grasses of the field had yet sprouted, etc.;” ‎he draws our attention to Genesis 38,27:‎ויהי בעת לדתה ויתן יד ותקח המילדת ותקשור על ידו שני ‏ויהי כמשיב ידו וגו' ואחר כך יצא אחיו ותאמר מה פרצת עליך פרץ וגו‎', “when the time came for her to ‎give birth, there were twins; while she was in labor one of them put out his hand and the midwife ‎tied a crimson thread on that hand to signify “this one came out first;” but just then he drew back ‎his hand and out came his brother; the midwife said: ‘what a breach you have made for yourself” ‎This one was called ‎פרץ‎, “breach,” whereas his brother was named ‎זרח‎, “brightness.”‎ Nachmanides, in his commentary on the Torah, writes concerning this occurrence, quoting Rabbi ‎Nechunya ben hakaneh, that the name ‎פרץ‎ is a euphemism for the moon, whereas the name ‎זרח‎ ‎is a euphemism for the sun. ‎‎[Rabbi Nechunyah ben hakaneh was a scholar of the second generation of the authors of the ‎‎Mishnah and the famous kabbalistic text known as sefer habahir, has been ‎attributed to him. Ed.] ‎ Our author (as distinct from Nachmanides) understands the description of the Torah of this ‎unusual birth as illustrating how the various universes at any given moment receive positive input ‎from the Creator, and that when a human being wishes to secure additional ‎שפע‎, Divine beneficial ‎outpouring, or input, for the world in which he lives, he must attach himself to the domain we ‎described as ‎אין‎, i.e. the disembodied spiritual domains of the universe, i.e. to the domains in ‎which G’d did not have to surround Himself with screens in order to avoid blinding His creatures ‎with His brightness. When he has done so, G’d, in turn will respond by showering more of His ‎goodness upon His creatures in the various domains of the universe. In the verse under discussion, ‎the Torah describes a period when this interaction between man and G’d had not yet taken place, ‎i.e. nothing had grown forth as yet from earth that would have such a positive influence triggering ‎further beneficial input originating from the heavenly spheres. This state of the universe, prior to ‎such interaction is what our verse speaks about when writing ‎טרם יצמח‎, “had not yet sprouted,” ‎and similar expressions. The words ‎יצמח‎ and ‎המטיר‎, “sprouting and raining”, respectively, are ‎similes for the reciprocal positive input from the heavens to the earth and from the earth in the ‎direction of the celestial regions. The period under discussion in our verse precedes the time when ‎the Creator garbed Himself in shells that reduced the brightness of His emanations, so that His ‎creatures instead of being burnt up, could “warm” themselves, spiritually.‎ The opportunities, i.e. precise moments in time, when G’d responds to man attempting to cleave ‎to Him with his soul, are fleeting moments during which people doing this must perform a ‎מצוה‎, ‎such as giving charity or studying Torah, as a result of which G’d will provide additional ‎שפע‎, divine ‎bounty from above to below. If that moment has passed and not been taken advantage of, G’d ‎withdraws to the region of ‎סוד‎, “hidden” domains where He is only partially within reach of the ‎creatures who wish to establish intimate contact with Him. The words: ‎ואדם אין לעבוד‎, may be ‎understood allegorically as: “there being as yet no human being who would yearn for a close ‎relationship with His Creator.”‎

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayeshev 4

Genesis 38,28. “while she was in labor, one of them put ‎out his hand, etc.;” “when he subsequently withdrew his hand, ‎etc.,” “afterwards his brother emerged (completely); he called him ‎Peretz, and he called his brother Zerach.” The name ‎זרח‎, ‎reflects what we are told in Niddah 30 that as long as an ‎embryo is still within the womb of its mother, a light keeps ‎shining above its head. This light enables the embryo to see from ‎one end of the earth to the other. The Talmud uses this parable ‎to describe that as long as the embryo is as innocent of sin as was ‎Adam before he sinned when he could see all parts of the globe, ‎the embryo is in a similarly sublime condition. When it enters our ‎world upon leaving its mother’s womb, an angel slaps his face so ‎that the infant promptly forgets all it had known thus far, and ‎experiences a new awakening which includes its ability to ‎dedicate itself exclusively to the service of its Creator. It is G’d’s ‎will that man’s spiritual maturity will be attained not as a gift ‎sent from heaven, but after he has undergone trials, so that the ‎accomplishment, when it is attained, is the result of his own ‎efforts though aided by G’d once man has initiated it. ‎ This is what the Zohar 1,77 alludes to as ‎אתערותא ‏דלעילה‎, quoting Isaiah 62,6 and psalms 83,2 “do not keep silent,” ‎or “you who make mention of Hashem take no rest,” so ‎that there will always be an awakening from below, as a result of ‎which an awakening from above is aroused. At the same time, so ‎that man does not think that everything in our “lower” world is ‎by definition, irreparably evil, and that all the pleasurable ‎experiences on earth are not only transient, but contribute to our ‎becoming victims of the evil urge, G’d maintains a “window of ‎opportunity,” that is open to a higher world by means of which it ‎is possible to sublimate experiences on earth, hallow them and ‎thus make them instruments of our service of the Lord and our ‎coming ever closer to Him. In other words, man has not been ‎placed on earth in order to negate earth, but in order to be G’d’s ‎tool that elevates the material universe to serve the ‎aggrandizement of His name universally. In kabbalistic parlance, ‎the tool G’d holds out to us humans is called “white light,” as ‎opposed to the physical light that we make use of everyday that ‎is perceived by contrast as “black light.” [I have rephrased ‎some of our author’s words in order to make them easier to ‎follow. Ed.]‎ The author proceeds to explain the description of the twins ‎Peretz and Zerach in terms of the concepts we have just ‎explained. The word ‎פרץ‎, breaking forth, bursting out of one’s ‎mould, describes that on doing this the infant suddenly sees ‎brilliant light, ‎זרח‎. A “dark” womb has suddenly been opened with ‎a vista to overpowering light. In light of that experience the ‎newly born is likely to opt for a denial of all that reminds him of ‎his previous dark, opaque existence. When the infant extends his ‎hand into this brilliant world, G’d extended to this newly born ‎‎(not quite) a glimpse of overpowering light as encouragement, ‎before the soul had a chance to taste all that is wrong and evil on ‎earth. On the other hand, immediately thereafter, in order not to ‎hand man his salvation on a platter so that he cannot claim a ‎share in having personally achieved spiritual maturity, this ‎‎“hand” was withdrawn and replaced by the “twin” brother, ‎symbolizing that life on earth is a “two edged sword.” The author ‎informs us that the Jewish people, though one people, are on ‎occasion referred to as ‎אחים‎, brothers, as in psalms 122,9 ‎למען אחי ‏ורעי‎, “for the sake of my brothers and companions,” so that his ‎allegorical exegesis of why the Torah describes the birth of these ‎twins in such detail appears amply justified.‎

Commentary

Tamar recognized she was going to give birth to twins shortly before giving birth, unlike Rivkah who had warning signs. The twins were properly matched and both righteous, with the firstborn being identified by a red thread tied by the midwife. The first twin, Zerach, emerged first with a red thread on his hand, while the second twin, Perez, followed. The red thread symbolized the firstborn status of Zerach.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:27:1

והנה תאומים בבטנה, “and here there were twins in her womb.” The midwife noticed this already before Tamar had commenced to give birth. This is why she had a means of identification ready to make sure the firstborn would be identified as such.

Radak on Genesis 38:27:1

ויהי בעת לדתה, it is clear from this wording that, in contrast to Rivkah, Tamar had not had any warning signs that she was carrying twins in her womb. There is an aggadic commentary according to which Rivkah’s problematic pregnancy was due to her carrying the seeds of two monarchs within her, whereas seeing that from Tamar only one potential king would emerge, the one being born first had “burst the boundaries,” excluding the other fetus from competition. (similar to Bereshit Rabbah 85,15.) Micah 2,13 alludes to this.

Radak on Genesis 38:27:2

תאומים. This is the only instance when this word is spelled with both the letter א and the letter ו, i.e. pointing to the fact that these two were properly matched twins, i.e. both boys would grow up righteous.

Rashi on Genesis 38:27:1

בעת לדתה AT THE TIME OF HER BEARING — But in the case of Rebecca Scripture says (25:24) “And when her days to give birth were fulfilled” — in the latter case the months of pregnancy were complete, here, however, they were short of the full term (Genesis Rabbah 85:13).

Rashi on Genesis 38:27:2

והנה תאומים AND BEHOLD TWINS — Here the word is written plene (with א and י whilst there (in the case of Rebecca) it is written defective (תומם without these letters) because one (viz., Esau) was wicked, but here both were righteous (Genesis Rabbah 85:13).

Sforno on Genesis 38:27:1

והנה תאומים בבטנה, she recognised shortly before giving birth that she was going to give birth to twins. This is the reason the midwife tied the red string to the baby first appearing out of her womb.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:27

It was at the time of her giving birth, and behold, twins were in her womb.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 88-89

“There were twins in her womb” [38:27]. Hizkuni writes. The midwife said to Tamar: you have twins in your belly. Therefore, she prepared a red thread to identify the first one who would emerge. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 38:27.) When the child emerged, she tied a red thread on the hand of the child, to recognize which one was the firstborn. He was called Zerach. That is to say, he shined with his red thread. Zerach had stuck out his hand from the mother’s body. They tied the red string on him and he pulled his hand back into his mother, and the other one emerged. He was called Perez. That is to say, you are strong and came out first, before the first brother came out.

Midrash

Tamar and Rebekah both bore twins after covering themselves with a veil, with Tamar giving birth to Perez and Zerah. The angel of each day of the week pleaded with God on behalf of the Jewish people when Haman cast lots to determine their fate, with each day symbolizing a different merit of the Jewish people. The sign of Pisces, representing the month of Adar, had no merit, leading Haman to believe he would be successful, but ultimately, the Jews prevailed over their enemies.

Bereshit Rabbah 63:8

“Her days to give birth were complete” (Genesis 25:24) – elsewhere (When Tamar gave birth (Genesis 38:27).) they (The days of pregnancy.) are incomplete, and here they are complete. Elsewhere it is written: “Twins [teomim]” (Genesis 38:27) – Peretz and Zeraḥ were both righteous, but here, “tomim” – Jacob was righteous, Esau, wicked. (The regular spelling is teomim. The midrash explains that a letter missingfrom the word indicates that something is amiss.) “The first emerged ruddy” (Genesis 25:25) – Rabbi Ḥagai said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: Due to the merit of: “You shall take for you on the first day” (Leviticus 23:40), (The mitzva of the four species.) I reveal myself to you first, as it is stated: “I am first and I am last” (Isaiah 44:6); I will exact retribution on your behalf from the first – that is Esau, as it is written: “The first emerged”; I will build for you the first – this is the Temple, in whose regard it is written: “Throne of glory, exalted from the first, [is the place of our Temple]” (Jeremiah 17:12); and I will bring you the first, this is the messianic king, in whose regard it is written: “The first to Zion, behold, here it is” (Isaiah 41:27). Another matter, “the first emerged ruddy” – why did Esau emerge first? It was so he would emerge and his corruption would depart with him. Rabbi Abahu said: It is like that bathhouse attendant who washes the bathhouse and then bathes the king’s son. So, why did Esau emerge first? It was so he would emerge and his corruption would depart with him. (The womb would remain clean for Jacob.) A noblewoman asked Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta, she said to him: ‘Why did Esau emerge first?’ He said to her: ‘The first droplet (Of semen.) was Jacob’s.’ He said to her: ‘This is analogous to an instance where you place two pearls into one tube, is it not the one that you placed first that will emerge last? So, the first droplet was Jacob’s.’ “Ruddy,” Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: As though he were a shedder of blood. When Samuel saw that David was ruddy, as it is written: “He sent and brought him and he was ruddy” (I Samuel 16:12), he was afraid and said: ‘This is a shedder of blood like Esau.’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: “With beautiful eyes” (I Samuel 16:12). Esau killed at his own initiative, but this one kills at the initiative of Sanhedrin. The emperor Diocletian was a swineherd near Tiberias. When he would come to the study hall of Rabbi, (Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, grandson of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.) the children would go out and strike him. Sometime later, he became emperor, and he descended and resided near the Panyas; variant reading: Pamyas, and he sent directives to Tiberias just before nightfall on Thursday: ‘I decree that the prominent leaders of the Jews shall appear before me before morning on Sunday.’ He commanded the emissary and said to him: ‘Do not deliver them [the directives] to them until sunset on Friday.’ Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman went down to bathe. He saw Rabbi standing before the great study hall, and he saw that his face was sickly. He said to him: ‘Why is your face sickly?’ ‘Such and such directives were sent to me by the empire.’ He said to him: ‘Come and bathe, as your Creator performs miracles on our behalf.’ They entered to bathe, and the demon Arginiton came, and was laughing and dancing before them. Rabbi wanted to scold him. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said to him: ‘Leave him alone, as sometimes he appears for the purpose of miracles.’ He said to him: ‘Your master is in distress and you are standing, laughing, and dancing.’ He [the demon] said to them: ‘Go eat and drink and observe a fine Shabbat, as your Master will perform miracles on your behalf, and I will have you stand before him on Sunday morning.’ At the conclusion of Shabbat, after the service, he took them and stood them outside the gates of Panyas. They [servants] entered and said to him [Diocletian]: ‘They are standing before the gates.’ He said: ‘Close the gates.’ He [the demon] took them [the Rabbis] and placed them on the city wall. They [servants] entered and told him [Diocletian]. He said: ‘I decree that they should heat the bathhouse for three days, and then they will enter, bathe, and come before me.’ They went and heated the bathhouse for three days, and one of the Arginiton demons entered and diluted it (With cold water.) for them. They entered, bathed, and came before him. He said to them: ‘Because you know that your God performs miracles on your behalf, you belittle the emperor.’ They said to him: ‘We belittle Diocletian the swineherd, but we are subjugated to Diocletian the emperor.’ He said to them: ‘Even so, do not demean a young Roman, and not a low ranking soldier.’ “All of him like a cloak of [kaaderet] hair” (Genesis 25:25) – all of him is worthy of the cloak. The Rabbis of the South in the name of Rabbi Alexandri, and Raḥava in the name of Rabbi Kahana said: He came out all unkempt and scattered like an aderet – like the chaff and the straw from the threshing floor [idera]. That is what is written: “Then the iron…were pulverized, and became like the chaff from the threshing floors [idrei] of summer” (Daniel 2:35). Rabbi Hanina bar Yithak said: What caused them to be pulverized? “From the threshing floors [me’idera] of the summer” (Daniel 2:35) – it is because they extended their hands against the great [adirim]. (Israel.) “They called his name Esau [Esav]” (Genesis 25:25) – this is the falsehood [heh shav] that I created in My world. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: You called your swine a name, I, too, call My firstborn son a name: “So said the Lord: My son, My firstborn, is Israel” (Exodus 4:22).

Bereshit Rabbah 85:13

“It was at the time of her giving birth, and, behold, there were twins in her womb” (Genesis 38:27). “It was at the time of her giving birth” – here they were incomplete, but elsewhere they were complete. (Regarding Rebecca’s birth of Jacob and Esau it is written: “Her days to give birth were complete” (Genesis 25:24).) “Behold there were twins [teomim] in her womb” – teomim is written complete, as here they were both righteous. Elsewhere tomim (Genesis 25:24) is written, incomplete, as one was righteous and one was wicked. (Regarding the birth of Jacob and Esau, the word for twins is written without an alef, so that it is read tomim rather than teomim. This is because only Jacob was righteous. ) “It was as she was giving birth, one extended a hand; the midwife took and bound upon his hand a crimson thread, saying: This one emerged first” (Genesis 38:28). “It was as she was giving birth, one extended a hand” – Rava bar Rav Ḥisda said: There are three who are believed immediately, and these are: The midwife, the caravan, and a woman who attests to the purity of another woman. Midwife – as it is written: “The midwife took and bound upon his hand a crimson thread, saying: This one emerged first.” Caravan – as Rabbi Simon brother of Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi said in the name of Rav: A child, as long as he is cast in the street, his father and mother can testify in his regard. When he is gathered from the street, he requires two witnesses. (If a young child is abandoned in the street, and adults come and claim to be his parents who were passing by in a caravan and lost their child, they are believed. But if the child has already been taken in from the street, testimony is required to establish the relationship between the child and individuals who claim to be his parents. See also Kiddushin 73b. ) And a woman who attests to the purity of another woman – as we learned: If three women were sleeping in one bed and there was blood under one of them, they are all impure. If one of them examined herself and found blood, she alone is impure. Rava said: Provided that it is within twenty-four hours.

Esther Rabbah 7:11

“In the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Aḥashverosh, he had cast a pur, that is, the lot, before Haman for each day and for each month, to the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar” (Esther 3:7). “In the first month, that is, the month Nisan” – it is taught: When the wicked Haman sought to eliminate Israel, he said: ‘How can I gain control over them? I will cast lots.’ The Holy Spirit cried out: “Over My people they cast lots” (Joel 4:3). The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Wicked one son of wicked one, your lot is drawn to be hanged.’ “He cast a pur, that is [hu], (The midrash is claiming that pronoun hu refers to Haman: He cast a pur; upon him was the lot.) the lot” – upon him the lot fell. Why? “Indeed, the rod of wickedness will not rest upon the lot of the righteous, lest the righteous extend their hands for wrongdoing” (Psalms 125:3). First, he cast a lot for the days, as it is stated: “for each day.” He cast the lot on Sunday. Its [Sunday’s] angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The heavens and the earth were created on me [my day], and You said: “truly My covenant is day and night, have I not set the statutes of heaven and earth?” (Jeremiah 33:25). There is a covenant in their flesh, as it is written: “You shall observe My covenant [you and your descendants that are after you for their generations…circumcise for yourselves every male]” (Genesis 17:9–10), and it is written: “My covenant shall be in your flesh” (Genesis 17:13). And there is a covenant in their mouths, that is the Torah, as it is written: “The book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth” (Joshua 1:8). And You said: “If the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below probed…”( Jeremiah 31:37) and it is written: “[when these laws should ever be annulled before Me, says the Lord,] so too will the descendants of Israel cease from being a nation before Me all the days” (Jeremiah 31:35), and this wicked one seeks to eliminate them? Uproot the heavens and the earth first, and then annihilate them.’ He cast the lot on Monday. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: On the second day you separated the upper waters from the lower waters, and likewise, Israel is separated from the nations. That is what is written: “I have distinguished you from the peoples to be Mine” (Leviticus 20:26), and this wicked one wants to eliminate them? Overturn the upper and the lower worlds and then annihilate them.’ He cast the lot and it fell on Tuesday. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The third day – on it, seeds were created, from which Israel separates teruma and tithes, and on it trees were created, with which Israel lauds you. That is what is written: “You shall take for you on the first day: The fruit of a pleasant tree…” (The verse refers to the four species; a palm branch, an etrog, myrtle branches and willow branches, that are taken on Sukkot.) (Leviticus 23:40). On it the waters were gathered into the sea [during Creation], and the sea split into twelve segments for Israel’s sake. Now, if Israel is eradicated, how do we exist?’ He cast the lot on Wednesday. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The fourth day – on it the lights were created to provide light for Israel’s use; that is what is written: “Nations will walk by your light and kings by the aura of your shining” (Isaiah 60:3), and on it the stars were created, and your children were likened to stars; if You eliminate them, how do we exist?’ He cast the lot on Thursday. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The fifth day – on it were created birds [and animals], from which you commanded to present offerings, and with which You grant atonement to and are reconciled with people; if they are eradicated, who will present an offering?’ He cast the lot on Friday. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The sixth day – on it Adam the first man was created, and you called Your children by his name; that is what is written: “You, My flock, flock of My pasture, you are men [Adam]” (Ezekiel 34:31). If you seek to uproot them, uproot all men and then let him [Haman] gain control over them.’ He cast the lot on Shabbat. Its angel stood before the Holy One blessed be He and said: ‘Master of the universe: The Shabbat day – on it all your creations were completed and perfected; that is what is written: “God completed on the seventh day” (Genesis 2:2), and it is written: “It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever” (Exodus 31:17). If you seek to uproot them, uproot the Shabbat and cancel it; then eliminate them.’ Once that wicked one saw that the lot would not fall on the days, he moved to months. He began with the month of Nisan, and the merit of Passover arose. Iyyar had the merit of Pesaḥ sheni, (This refers to the fourteenth of Iyyar, when those who had been impure or were too distant from the Temple on the fourteenth of Nisan, could present the Passover offering.) and the merit of the manna that was provided to Israel on the fifteenth of the month. Sivan had the merit of the Torah. Tammuz had the merit of the land. (The allusion is obscure. It perhaps refers to the fact that Ezra came to the Land of Israel on the first of that month (Ezra 7:8-9). Alternatively, there are midrashic traditions that Joshua stopped the sun in his war with the five Emorite kings during that month (Seder Olam Rabba:11).) Furthermore, why didn’t the lot fall on Tammuz and Av? Because they said to the Holy One blessed be He: Master of the universe, the calamities that befell your children in us, five in Tammuz and five in Av, are enough. The possibility of Elul arose – [but it had] the merit of the completion of the wall of Jerusalem that was completed during it. That is what is written: “The wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of Elul” (Nehemiah 6:15). There was also the merit of the animal tithe, as it is taught there: On the first of Elul is the New Year for the animal tithe (Mishna Rosh HaShana 1:1). The possibility of Tishrei arose – [but it had] the merit of the shofar, Yom Kippur, and the festivals. The possibility of Marḥeshvan arose – [but it had] the merit of Sarah our matriarch, who died during it. Kislev – [but it had] the merit of Hanukkah. The possibility of Tevet arose – [but it had] the merit of Ezra. That is what is written: “The exiles did so. Ezra the priest…sequestered themselves; [they convened on the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter]...they finished with all the men who had settled with foreign women” (Ezra 10:16–17). The possibility of Shevat arose – [but it had] the merit of the members of the Great Assembly. On the twenty-third of it [the month of Shevat] all Israel gathered over the concubine in Giva (Judges 19–21) and the idol of Mikha (Judges 17–18). The possibility of the first of Adar arose, and no merit was found for it. The wicked one began rejoicing. He then checked the signs of the Zodiac. Lamb [Aries] had the merit of the paschal lamb; that is what is written: “Each man, a lamb for each extended family, a lamb for each household” (Exodus 12:3). Bull [Taurus] – the merit of Joseph, who was called a bull, was found. That is what is written: “A firstborn bull is his majesty” (Deuteronomy 33:17). And the merit of an offering, as it is stated: “A bull, or a sheep, or a goat, when it is born…” (Leviticus 22:27). Twins [Gemini] – the merit of Peretz and Zeraḥ [the sons of Judah], who were called twins, was found in it; that is what is written: “And behold there were twins in her womb” (Genesis 38:27). Lion [Leo] – the merit of Daniel, who was from the tribe of Judah, who was called a lion, [was found in it], as it is stated: “A lion cub is Judah” (Genesis 49:9). Virgin [Virgo] – the merit of Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya, who were comparable to a virgin with whom no man was familiar other than her husband, [was found in it]; thus they did not change their God and their laws, and clung to their Judaism. Scales [Libra] – that is Job, as it is stated: “If only my anger were weighed” (Job 6:2). Scorpion [Scorpio] – that is Ezekiel, as it is stated: “And you sit among the scorpions” (Ezekiel 2:6). Bow [Sagittarius] – that is Joseph, as it is stated about him: “His bow remained taut” (Genesis 49:24). Kid [Capricorn] – that is Jacob, as it is stated: “And the hides of the kids of the goats” (Genesis 27:16). Bucket [d’li] [Aquarius ] – that is Moses, as it is stated: “And he drew water [dalo dala] for us” (Exodus 2:19). He arrived at the sign of Fish [Pisces], that serves during the month of Adar, and no merit was found for it. He immediately rejoiced and said: ‘Adar has no merit and its Zodiac sign has no merit. Not only that, but Moses their teacher died in Adar.’ And he did not know that Moses died on the seventh of Adar and Moses was born on the seventh of Adar. He said: ‘Just as fish swallow, so, I will swallow them.’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Wicked one, fish sometimes swallow and sometimes are swallowed. Now, this man will be swallowed by the swallowers.’ Rabbi Ḥanan said: That is what is written: “It was reversed, so that it was the Jews who ruled over their enemies” (Esther 9:1). Rabbi Tanḥuma said: “But the Lord had not determined to expunge [the name of Israel]” (II Kings 14:27); rather, so He spoke: “For I will expunge the memory of Amalek” (Exodus 17:14).

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 17:1

What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 38:13-14)? AND IT WAS TOLD TO TAMAR, SAYING: < HERE IS YOUR FATHER-IN-LAW COMING >…. SO SHE PUT HER WIDOW'S CLOTHES OFF [FROM HER] AND COVERED HERSELF WITH A VEIL. < THEN, HAVING WRAPPED HERSELF, SHE SAT DOWN AT THE ENTRANCE TO ENAIM >. Two women covered themselves with a veil and bore twins. These are Rebekah and Tamar. (Gen. R. 60:15; 85:7.) Of Rebekah it is written (in Gen. 24:65): SO SHE TOOK THE VEIL AND COVERED HERSELF. Then she bore twins, Esau and Jacob, as stated (in Gen. 25:24): BEHOLD, THERE WERE TWINS IN HER WOMB. As for Tamar, she covered herself with a veil and (according to Gen. 38:27-30) bore twins, Perez and Zerah.

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains the meaning of the word "צדקה" as both righteous and truth in Isaiah 45:23:2. Rashi points out the difference in the fulfillment of days to bear between different women in Genesis 25:24:1.

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 45:23:2

דבר צדקה ═ צדקה a righteous word. (This remark is added to explain the discrepancy between the genders of the verb יצא and the noun צדקה.) Comp. צדקה she hath been righteous (Gen. 38:27). (This quotation is adduced to prove that the word צדקה admits also of the meaning truth.)

Rashi on Genesis 25:24:1

וימלאו ימיה AND WHEN HER DAYS TO BEAR WERE FULL — But in the case of Tamar it is written, (37:27) “And it came to pass at the time of her travail”, for her days were not fulfilled as she gave birth to them (her children) at the end of seven months.

Targum

Both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:27 mention that when Tamar gave birth, she had twins in her womb.

Onkelos Genesis 38:27

When the time came for her to give birth, there were twins in her womb.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:27

But it was in the time of her giving birth, that, behold, twins were in her womb.

וַיְהִ֥י בְלִדְתָּ֖הּ וַיִּתֶּן־יָ֑ד וַתִּקַּ֣ח הַמְיַלֶּ֗דֶת וַתִּקְשֹׁ֨ר עַל־יָד֤וֹ שָׁנִי֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר זֶ֖ה יָצָ֥א רִאשֹׁנָֽה׃ 28 J While she was in labor, one of them put out a hand, and the midwife tied a crimson thread on that hand, to signify: This one came out first.
The births of Peretz and Zerach in Chasidut symbolize missed opportunities for spiritual growth, emphasizing sincerity in mitzvot to bond with the Creator. In Halakhah, if a fetus extends its hand from the womb and then returns it, the mother is impure. In Midrash, Tamar's actions in Sotah led to rewards of descendants who became kings and prophets. Ibn Ezra and Da'at Zekenim provide explanations for Moses not circumcising his son on the eighth day. In Talmud, Rav Huna and Rebbi Abba discuss impurity after childbirth and the credibility of witnesses in multiple births. Zerah's name meaning "brightness" in Tanakh and the scarlet thread on the firstborn's hand in Targum are also mentioned.

Chasidut

The births of Peretz and Zerach represent missed opportunities for spiritual growth, emphasizing the importance of sincerity in performing mitzvot to strengthen one's bond with the Creator. The name Zerach reflects the innocence of the embryo before entering the world, where trials and efforts lead to spiritual maturity. Man's purpose on earth is to elevate the material universe to serve God, using experiences to come closer to Him. The twins Peretz and Zerach symbolize the duality of life on earth, with the Jewish people sometimes referred to as brothers, highlighting the significance of their detailed birth narrative.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Bereshit 17

The verses describing the births of Peretz and Zerach are meant to illustrate how such attempted ‎reaching for that which was not completed represented a lost opportunity, so that the second of ‎the twins wound up being the firstborn [in the physiological and halachic sense, similar to ‎Esau. Ed.] We have a statement in Chagigah 15, according to which there is a heavenly voice calling out ‎once on each day emanating from Mount Sinai calling on sinners to do penitence, excluding only ‎Elisha ben Avuya. The Talmud there illustrates that there exists an opportunity for each one of us ‎to cement our relations with our Creator. All that is needed is to demonstrate one’s sincerity ‎through performance of one of the mitzvot that are basic to Judaism, such as giving ‎charity or Torah study. The reference to ‎שיח‎, a word having several meanings, may be to warn us ‎that we are not to waste our time on earth in idle conversation, if we aspire to establish a firm ‎bond with our Creator. There is no need to add that if one employs the gift of speech to indulge in ‎defamation of others, etc., that this instead of strengthening the bond with our Creator, drives a ‎wedge between Him and us.‎ Such abuse of the power of speech is forbidden even when we find ourselves in the part of the ‎universe that has either not yet emerged from the primeval state of ‎חושך‎, darkness, or is on the ‎verge of descending back into that sorry condition. Our author refers to the mental state of a ‎person yearning for the closeness with the Creator that he describes as a state of ‎התעוררות ‏היראה‎, “an awakening to a feeling of awe of the Creator.” He has explained this phenomenon in ‎connection with a statement in B’rachot 64 according to which the very existence of Torah ‎scholars contributes to harmony, peace in the lower universe. [As I have not found where the ‎author’s explanation on that statement in the Talmud has appeared in print, I will try and explain ‎how I understand his thoughts. Ed.]‎ ‎

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayeshev 4

Genesis 38,28. “while she was in labor, one of them put ‎out his hand, etc.;” “when he subsequently withdrew his hand, ‎etc.,” “afterwards his brother emerged (completely); he called him ‎Peretz, and he called his brother Zerach.” The name ‎זרח‎, ‎reflects what we are told in Niddah 30 that as long as an ‎embryo is still within the womb of its mother, a light keeps ‎shining above its head. This light enables the embryo to see from ‎one end of the earth to the other. The Talmud uses this parable ‎to describe that as long as the embryo is as innocent of sin as was ‎Adam before he sinned when he could see all parts of the globe, ‎the embryo is in a similarly sublime condition. When it enters our ‎world upon leaving its mother’s womb, an angel slaps his face so ‎that the infant promptly forgets all it had known thus far, and ‎experiences a new awakening which includes its ability to ‎dedicate itself exclusively to the service of its Creator. It is G’d’s ‎will that man’s spiritual maturity will be attained not as a gift ‎sent from heaven, but after he has undergone trials, so that the ‎accomplishment, when it is attained, is the result of his own ‎efforts though aided by G’d once man has initiated it. ‎ This is what the Zohar 1,77 alludes to as ‎אתערותא ‏דלעילה‎, quoting Isaiah 62,6 and psalms 83,2 “do not keep silent,” ‎or “you who make mention of Hashem take no rest,” so ‎that there will always be an awakening from below, as a result of ‎which an awakening from above is aroused. At the same time, so ‎that man does not think that everything in our “lower” world is ‎by definition, irreparably evil, and that all the pleasurable ‎experiences on earth are not only transient, but contribute to our ‎becoming victims of the evil urge, G’d maintains a “window of ‎opportunity,” that is open to a higher world by means of which it ‎is possible to sublimate experiences on earth, hallow them and ‎thus make them instruments of our service of the Lord and our ‎coming ever closer to Him. In other words, man has not been ‎placed on earth in order to negate earth, but in order to be G’d’s ‎tool that elevates the material universe to serve the ‎aggrandizement of His name universally. In kabbalistic parlance, ‎the tool G’d holds out to us humans is called “white light,” as ‎opposed to the physical light that we make use of everyday that ‎is perceived by contrast as “black light.” [I have rephrased ‎some of our author’s words in order to make them easier to ‎follow. Ed.]‎ The author proceeds to explain the description of the twins ‎Peretz and Zerach in terms of the concepts we have just ‎explained. The word ‎פרץ‎, breaking forth, bursting out of one’s ‎mould, describes that on doing this the infant suddenly sees ‎brilliant light, ‎זרח‎. A “dark” womb has suddenly been opened with ‎a vista to overpowering light. In light of that experience the ‎newly born is likely to opt for a denial of all that reminds him of ‎his previous dark, opaque existence. When the infant extends his ‎hand into this brilliant world, G’d extended to this newly born ‎‎(not quite) a glimpse of overpowering light as encouragement, ‎before the soul had a chance to taste all that is wrong and evil on ‎earth. On the other hand, immediately thereafter, in order not to ‎hand man his salvation on a platter so that he cannot claim a ‎share in having personally achieved spiritual maturity, this ‎‎“hand” was withdrawn and replaced by the “twin” brother, ‎symbolizing that life on earth is a “two edged sword.” The author ‎informs us that the Jewish people, though one people, are on ‎occasion referred to as ‎אחים‎, brothers, as in psalms 122,9 ‎למען אחי ‏ורעי‎, “for the sake of my brothers and companions,” so that his ‎allegorical exegesis of why the Torah describes the birth of these ‎twins in such detail appears amply justified.‎

Commentary

During the birth of twins in Genesis 38:28, one of them extended a hand outside the womb, leading the midwife to tie a scarlet thread on his hand to indicate that he was the second-born, even though he emerged first. The other twin, who was not yet named, also attempted to come out at the same time.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:28:1

THAT ONE PUT OUT A HAND. One of them put out a hand. The latter is not identified by name because he was not yet named. This birth, too, (As the birth of Jacob and Esau were.) was out of the ordinary in that both placentas opened simultaneously and when this one drew back his hand, his brother came out.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:28:1

על ידו שני לאמור, a scarlet thread on his hand, as though to say, etc. The midwife had a sudden flash of Holy Spirit and did something without being aware of its true significance. By tying Shani scarlet thread around his hand she indicated that the baby was Sheyni the one born second, though it had left the womb first. The Torah adds the word לאמור, "meaning to say" that this one emerged first. Although the midwife said so the truth was the reverse. The red thread was to prove יש אם למסורת, that there is a distinct significance to the spelling of a text as well as to the accepted way of reading a text.

Radak on Genesis 38:28:1

ויהי בלדתה ויתן יד, one of them stuck his hand out of his mother’s womb, signaling that he wanted out. Seeing that he did not succeed, he withdrew his hand.

Radak on Genesis 38:28:2

ותקח המילדת, she took hold of his hand before he could withdraw it. ותקשור על ידו שני, as a sign who had been first.

Rashi on Genesis 38:28:1

ויתן יד THE ONE PUT OUT HIS HAND — one stretched forth his hand outside, and after she had bound the scarlet thread upon his hand he drew it back.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:28:1

One extended his hand outside and after she tied... Rashi explains that it means “extended” because ויתן יד [would seem to] imply that the fetus intended to give her a hand. And Rashi says “one,” meaning that it was one of the two, because the verse does not state who put out his hand, nor does Scripture state המוציא or הנותן [as is usual when the subject is unidentified]. And Rashi adds, “After she tied the thread on it he withdrew it,” because כמשיב ידו [implies he put his hand back out, which] is understandable only if he had withdrawn it.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:28

It was as she was giving birth, that one of the twins extended a hand outside the womb. Faced with this unusual situation, the midwife took and bound upon his hand a crimson thread, saying, indicating: This one emerged first and was the firstborn.

Halakhah

If a fetus sticks out its hand from the womb and then returns it, its mother is impure due to birth as a result of Rabbinic decree. The woman does not receive "days of purity" until the entire fetus - or [at least] the majority - emerges as we stated.

Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 10:7

If a fetus sticks out its hand (The Maggid Mishneh questions whether the same laws apply with regard to a foot. The Tur states that they do, while the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:11) quotes the Rambam's ruling verbatim.) [from the womb] and then returns it, its mother is impure due to birth as a result of Rabbinic decree. (Although Genesis 38:28 states: "And when she was giving birth, he stuck out a hand," Niddah 28a rules that this should not be interpreted as an implication that sticking out a hand is considered as giving birth. Instead, according to Scriptural Law, the woman does not become impure until the majority of the body of the fetus emerges.) The woman does not receive "days of purity" until the entire fetus - or [at least] the majority - emerges as we stated. (I.e., as implied by the previous halachah.)

Midrash

In Sotah 1:30, Tamar covered her face in Judah's house, leading him to not recognize her, and she was rewarded with descendants who became kings and prophets. Tamar's actions in sending signs to Judah and his acknowledgment of them were seen as sanctifying Heaven's name publicly, leading to his reward of having a name equal to that of God. In Bereshit Rabbah 85:13, it is discussed how the twins in Tamar's womb were both righteous, unlike Jacob and Esau who had one righteous and one wicked. The immediate credibility of the midwife, caravan, and woman attesting to another woman's purity is also highlighted.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:13

“It was at the time of her giving birth, and, behold, there were twins in her womb” (Genesis 38:27). “It was at the time of her giving birth” – here they were incomplete, but elsewhere they were complete. (Regarding Rebecca’s birth of Jacob and Esau it is written: “Her days to give birth were complete” (Genesis 25:24).) “Behold there were twins [teomim] in her womb” – teomim is written complete, as here they were both righteous. Elsewhere tomim (Genesis 25:24) is written, incomplete, as one was righteous and one was wicked. (Regarding the birth of Jacob and Esau, the word for twins is written without an alef, so that it is read tomim rather than teomim. This is because only Jacob was righteous. ) “It was as she was giving birth, one extended a hand; the midwife took and bound upon his hand a crimson thread, saying: This one emerged first” (Genesis 38:28). “It was as she was giving birth, one extended a hand” – Rava bar Rav Ḥisda said: There are three who are believed immediately, and these are: The midwife, the caravan, and a woman who attests to the purity of another woman. Midwife – as it is written: “The midwife took and bound upon his hand a crimson thread, saying: This one emerged first.” Caravan – as Rabbi Simon brother of Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi said in the name of Rav: A child, as long as he is cast in the street, his father and mother can testify in his regard. When he is gathered from the street, he requires two witnesses. (If a young child is abandoned in the street, and adults come and claim to be his parents who were passing by in a caravan and lost their child, they are believed. But if the child has already been taken in from the street, testimony is required to establish the relationship between the child and individuals who claim to be his parents. See also Kiddushin 73b. ) And a woman who attests to the purity of another woman – as we learned: If three women were sleeping in one bed and there was blood under one of them, they are all impure. If one of them examined herself and found blood, she alone is impure. Rava said: Provided that it is within twenty-four hours.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 1:30

Because she had covered her face did he think her a harlot? [Is it not the contrary?] R. Elazar said that this means: She had covered her face when she had been in his house, hence he did not know her." Therefore she was rewarded that from her descended kings and prophets — kings from David; and prophets, as R. Levi said: "A bride who is chaste in the house of her father-in-law, will be rewarded that kings and prophets will descend from her." Whence do we infer this? From Tamar When she was lead forth she sent to her father-in-law. The text should have the word Meutzeas, in the passive voice [instead of Motzes in the active voice]. R. Elazar said: This means that after she produced the signs [of the signet, scarf and staff], the Angel Samael came and removed them, then the Angel Gabriel came and brought them again and this is the meaning of the passage (Ps. 56 1) To the chief musician upon Joneth elem-re-chokin." Said R. Jochanan: "This means that after the signs were removed she became numb like a dove." (Ib., ib., ib.) Unto David a Michtam, i.e., of whom David went forth, who kept himself humble and plain to everyone. Could Michtam be explained in another way that he was born circumsized? Can Michtam be explained in another way that just when in his youth he humbled himself before a superior in order to study the Torah from him, so also when he was elevated, he kept himself meek before one who was greater than he in order to study the Torah? (Ib., ib.) And she sent to her father-in-law, saying, 'By the man who owns these,' etc., why did she not call him by his name? Said Mar Zutra b. Tubia in the name of Rab; others say R. Chana b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simon, the pious; still others say R. Jochanan said it in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "It is better for a man to be thrown into a fiery furnace than be the means of bringing another to shame in public. We infer this from Tamar." (Gen. 38, 25) (Ib., ib., ib.) Acknowledge I pray thee. Said R. Chama b. Chanina: "With the word Haker (acknowledged) did Juda inform his father [concerning Joseph's disappearance] and with the word Haker (acknowledge) was Juda informed of the bad tidings [concerning the affair of Tamar]; i.e., with the word Haker did Juda inform his father, (Ib. 37. 32) Hakerna (acknowledge), we pray thee, whether it be thy son's coat or not, and with the word Haker was Juda informed Haker (acknowledge) I pray thee to whom belong the signet, scarf, and staff!" Acknowledge, I pray thee, the word Nah means nothing else but pray. She thus said unto Juda: "I pray thee acknowledge thy Creator and do not avert thy eyes from me." And Juda acknowledged them. And this is meant by R. Chama b. Bizna, who said in the name of R. Simon the pious: "Joseph, who sanctified Heaven's name in secret was rewarded with only one additional letter of the name of the Holy One, praised be He, as it is written (Ps. 81) but Juda, who sanctified Heaven's name publicly was rewarded so that his entire name was equal to that of the Holy One, praised be He." As soon as he confessed and said, a Divine voice went forth and said: "Thou hast saved Tamar with her two children from being burnt in fire, I swear by thy life that I shall save through thy merits thy three sons from being burnt in fire." Who are they? Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. She it righteous, it is from me. How did he know it? A Divine voice went forth and said: "From me went forth the secret things." (Ib., ib., ib.) Said Samuel the senior, the father-in-law of R. Samuel b. Ama: "This means that since he knew her he never forsook her, for it is written (Deut. 5, 19) A great voice v'lo yassph. [Just as in the latter case it means for ever, so also does it mean in the former case] ."

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains that Moses did not circumcise his son on the eighth day because he was traveling and could not tarry, but God sent an angel to instruct him to do so. Da'at Zekenim suggests that the term "the sturdier ones" refers to animals that were tied with a knot at birth to distinguish them as firstborn and preferred by their owners.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 30:41:1

המקושרות, “the sturdier ones;” According to Rashi the meaning of the word is: מבכירות, “the ones liable to give birth early in the season because they conceived without difficulties.” Although he attributes this interpretation to Targum Onkelos, he was unable to quote proof, and neither did Onkelos quote proof. I believe that the word is connected to the root: קשר, “knot.” It was the custom in those days to tie a knot to the firstborn animal of each mother, in order to be able to identify these animals later on as they were presumed to be stronger, or at any rate preferred by their owners to those born later. This would prevent them from being confused with animals born by the same mother animal in subsequent years. We know from Genesis 38,28, that the midwife of Tamar also tied a knot to the twin that appeared to be born first from its mother’s womb. The author quotes the Maharam from Rotenburg as saying that in his time fathers also displayed preferences for firstborn sons.

Ibn Ezra on Exodus; Perush HaArokh 4:24:1

AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE WAY. They had a tradition that a child should not be circumcised on the eighth day if he was sick, or while traveling when it was not possible for his guardian to tarry and circumcise him. Now because Moses could not tarry in carrying out God’s mission he concluded that he should not circumcise his son, because the child would be in danger if he were taken along. (After circumcising him.) God therefore sent an angel (This is the meaning of that the Lord met him.) to tell Moses to put his decision aside (Not to circumcise Eliezer.) and to circumcise the lad. The child would then remain with his mother until healed and Moses would continue on by himself.

Talmud

Rav Huna says that if a fetus extends its hand out of the womb and then returns it, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda states that a midwife, a caravan, and the one who purifies her colleagues are trustworthy immediately. A midwife can determine which child was born first in a multiple birth, a caravan can testify about a baby as long as it lies in the public domain, and the one who purifies her colleagues is determined within 24 hours.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:1:7

(This is a slight rewording of a paragraph in Qiddušin 4:2, Notes 112–117.) Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Three are trustworthy immediately: a midwife, a caravan, and the one who purifies her colleagues. A midwife as long as [the woman] sits on the birthing chair, from the verse: “The midwife took and wound, etc.” A caravan, as Rebbi Simon, the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi, said in the name of Rav: As long as [a baby] (Reading of E, missing in L, required by the parallel in Qiddušin and the context.) lies in the public domain, either its father or its mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses; its father and mother may become its two witnesses. The one who purifies her colleagues, as we have stated there (Mishnah Niddah 9:4.) : “Three women sleep on one bed. If blood was found under one of them, all three are impure. If one of them checked herself out and found herself impure, she is impure and the other two are pure.” Rebbi Abba said, only within 24 hours.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:2:4

(The same statements are in the Babli, 73b.) Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Three are trustworthy immediately (They are trustworthy only immediately; after some time they must be treated under the rules which require two independent witnesses.) : a midwife, a caravan, and the one who purifies her colleagues. A midwife: “The midwife took and wound a red string [around his hand] to indicate that this one was born first (Gen. 38:28, quoted incompletely. In a multiple birth, the midwife has the authority to determine which child was born first, which may determine inheritance rights. The Babli empowers the midwife to testify who is whose child in case several women give birth in the same room.) .” A caravan, as Rebbi Abba, the brother of Rebbi Jehudah bar Zavdi said in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, either its father or its mother can testify about him. Once it was collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses; its father and mother are like two witnesses. The one who purifies her colleagues, as we have stated there (Mishnah Niddah 9:4.) : “Three women sleep on one bed. If blood was found under one of them, all three are impure (In the impurity of menstruation.) . If one of them checked herself out and found herself impure (In the impurity of menstruation.) , she is impure and the other two are pure.” Rebbi Abba said, only within 24 hours (The Babli emphatically disagrees and requires that the checking be done immediately upon leaving the bed.) .

Niddah 28a:9

§ Rav Huna says: If a fetus extended its hand out of the womb and then returned it, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. This is considered childbirth, as it is stated with regard to Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law: “And it happened when she gave birth that one put out a hand…and it happened that as he drew back his hand, his brother came out” (Genesis 38:28–29). Evidently, the fetus extending out its hand was considered childbirth, despite the fact that it subsequently drew back the hand.

Tanakh

Zerah was born with a crimson thread on his hand, which may allude to his name meaning "brightness."

Genesis 38:30

Afterward his brother came out, on whose hand was the crimson thread; he was named Zerah. (Zerah I.e., “brightness,” perhaps alluding to the crimson thread.)

Targum

During childbirth, one of the twins put out his hand first, which the midwife tied with a scarlet thread to identify him as the firstborn.

Onkelos Genesis 38:28

As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand. The midwife took it and tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying, This one emerged first.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:28

And it was in being born that the child stretched forth his hand; and the midwife took it, and bound it with a scarlet thread, saying, This came the first.

וַיְהִ֣י ׀ כְּמֵשִׁ֣יב יָד֗וֹ וְהִנֵּה֙ יָצָ֣א אָחִ֔יו וַתֹּ֕אמֶר מַה־פָּרַ֖צְתָּ עָלֶ֣יךָ פָּ֑רֶץ וַיִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ פָּֽרֶץ׃ 29 J But just then it drew back its hand, and out came its brother; and she said, “What a breach (breach Heb. pereṣ, connected with “Perez.”) you have made for yourself!” So he was named Perez.
The birth of twins Peretz and Zerach symbolizes the journey towards spiritual growth and service to God, with Peretz being born first despite Zerach initially appearing first, leading to the establishment of the Kingdom of David. Various commentaries discuss the significance of the twins' names, the breach made during birth, and the implications of the birth order for the kingdom, highlighting the connection between kingship and priesthood. Additionally, the concept of breaching a fence is connected to the power of Esau, with David ultimately avenging the forces of Esau as the Messiah.

Chasidut

The name Zerach reflects the innocence of an embryo before birth, when a light shines above its head allowing it to see the entire world. Upon birth, the infant forgets this knowledge and must undergo trials to achieve spiritual maturity. The twins Peretz and Zerach symbolize the transition from the overpowering light of the spiritual realm to the challenges of life on earth, highlighting the Jewish people's journey towards spiritual growth and service to God.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayeshev 4

Genesis 38,28. “while she was in labor, one of them put ‎out his hand, etc.;” “when he subsequently withdrew his hand, ‎etc.,” “afterwards his brother emerged (completely); he called him ‎Peretz, and he called his brother Zerach.” The name ‎זרח‎, ‎reflects what we are told in Niddah 30 that as long as an ‎embryo is still within the womb of its mother, a light keeps ‎shining above its head. This light enables the embryo to see from ‎one end of the earth to the other. The Talmud uses this parable ‎to describe that as long as the embryo is as innocent of sin as was ‎Adam before he sinned when he could see all parts of the globe, ‎the embryo is in a similarly sublime condition. When it enters our ‎world upon leaving its mother’s womb, an angel slaps his face so ‎that the infant promptly forgets all it had known thus far, and ‎experiences a new awakening which includes its ability to ‎dedicate itself exclusively to the service of its Creator. It is G’d’s ‎will that man’s spiritual maturity will be attained not as a gift ‎sent from heaven, but after he has undergone trials, so that the ‎accomplishment, when it is attained, is the result of his own ‎efforts though aided by G’d once man has initiated it. ‎ This is what the Zohar 1,77 alludes to as ‎אתערותא ‏דלעילה‎, quoting Isaiah 62,6 and psalms 83,2 “do not keep silent,” ‎or “you who make mention of Hashem take no rest,” so ‎that there will always be an awakening from below, as a result of ‎which an awakening from above is aroused. At the same time, so ‎that man does not think that everything in our “lower” world is ‎by definition, irreparably evil, and that all the pleasurable ‎experiences on earth are not only transient, but contribute to our ‎becoming victims of the evil urge, G’d maintains a “window of ‎opportunity,” that is open to a higher world by means of which it ‎is possible to sublimate experiences on earth, hallow them and ‎thus make them instruments of our service of the Lord and our ‎coming ever closer to Him. In other words, man has not been ‎placed on earth in order to negate earth, but in order to be G’d’s ‎tool that elevates the material universe to serve the ‎aggrandizement of His name universally. In kabbalistic parlance, ‎the tool G’d holds out to us humans is called “white light,” as ‎opposed to the physical light that we make use of everyday that ‎is perceived by contrast as “black light.” [I have rephrased ‎some of our author’s words in order to make them easier to ‎follow. Ed.]‎ The author proceeds to explain the description of the twins ‎Peretz and Zerach in terms of the concepts we have just ‎explained. The word ‎פרץ‎, breaking forth, bursting out of one’s ‎mould, describes that on doing this the infant suddenly sees ‎brilliant light, ‎זרח‎. A “dark” womb has suddenly been opened with ‎a vista to overpowering light. In light of that experience the ‎newly born is likely to opt for a denial of all that reminds him of ‎his previous dark, opaque existence. When the infant extends his ‎hand into this brilliant world, G’d extended to this newly born ‎‎(not quite) a glimpse of overpowering light as encouragement, ‎before the soul had a chance to taste all that is wrong and evil on ‎earth. On the other hand, immediately thereafter, in order not to ‎hand man his salvation on a platter so that he cannot claim a ‎share in having personally achieved spiritual maturity, this ‎‎“hand” was withdrawn and replaced by the “twin” brother, ‎symbolizing that life on earth is a “two edged sword.” The author ‎informs us that the Jewish people, though one people, are on ‎occasion referred to as ‎אחים‎, brothers, as in psalms 122,9 ‎למען אחי ‏ורעי‎, “for the sake of my brothers and companions,” so that his ‎allegorical exegesis of why the Torah describes the birth of these ‎twins in such detail appears amply justified.‎

Commentary

The text discusses the birth of twins, Peretz and Zerach, with an emphasis on Peretz being born first despite Zerach initially appearing to emerge first. The term "paratzta" is interpreted as "making a breach" and the birth order is linked to the establishment of the Kingdom of David. Various commentators discuss the significance of the twins' names, the breach made during birth, and the implications of the birth order for the kingdom. The text also addresses the midwife's reaction to the birth and Judah naming his son Peretz.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:29:1

והנה יצא אחיו, “and here suddenly his brother emerged.” Seeing that future kings would claim Tamar as their original matriarch, it was important to know which was the older. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 85,13)

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:29:2

פרץ, this name was given to the twin whose head came out first.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 38:29:1

WHEREFORE HAST THOU MADE A BREACH. Mah paratzta, alekhah paretz means, wherefore hast thou acted like a man who breaches a fence and goes through it. You are now responsible for the breach. (“You are responsible for the breach” means that should any harm befall your twin because of your audacity you will bear responsibility (Krinsky).) Others say that paratzta is the same as u-faratzta (and thou shalt spread abroad) (Gen. 28:14). (The meaning of mah paratzta, alekhah paretz (wherefore hast thou made a breach for thyself) being, wherefore hast thou spread abroad, indeed thou wilt spread abroad (Filwarg).) Saadiah Gaon explains that paratzta is to be interpreted literally as meaning to make a breach but that paretz in alekhah paretz has the same meaning as va-yifrotz (it hath increased) in and hath increased (va-yifrotz) abundantly (Gen. 30:30). (According to Saadiah, the meaning of mah paratzta, alekhah paretz is, wherefore has thou made a breach, indeed thou wilt increase (Filwarg).)

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 38:5

Heb. pereṣ

Or HaChaim on Genesis 38:29:1

מה פרצת עליך פרץ, "how did you burst your way out?" Inasmuch as the hand of the first one indicated that he was about to emerge from the womb before his brother why did you push your way out past him thus blocking his becoming the first-born? The word מה, which normally means "what," must be understood here similarly to Psalms 104,24: מה רבו מעשיך, "how great are Your works, etc.?" When the Torah continues עליך פרץ, this explains the nature of this bursting forth. Normally, when twins are born, the one which emerges first is from the sperm that entered the womb last, the earlier sperm being blocked by the sperm injected later. In this instance the baby born first was formed from the sperm that had entered Tamar's womb first. This is why the kingdom rightfully belonged to Peretz, seeing he had been both conceived first and born first.

Radak on Genesis 38:29:1

ויהי כמשיב ידו, at the time when he withdrew his hand his brother pushed ahead and emerged first. We have a similar construction to this in 40,10 והיא כפורחת, which also describes a process which was deceptive. [that which blossoms first does not always ripen first. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 38:29:2

ותאמר, these words were addressed by the midwife to the newly born infant who had pushed to displace his brother. פרצת, why have you burst forth from the confines of the womb displacing your brother who had been in the process of emerging?

Radak on Genesis 38:29:3

עליך פרץ, you have acted precipitously, inappropriately, in claiming something which was not meant to be yours, the birthright.

Radak on Genesis 38:29:4

ויקרא, Yehudah called his name Peretz in agreement with the comments of the midwife.

Ramban on Genesis 38:29:1

HOW HAST THOU BURST FORTH? THIS BURSTING UPON THYSELF (‘PARATZTA ALECHA’). “What a strong effort you have made!” thus the language of Rashi. But the word paretz, wherever used, signifies the breaching of a fence and passing through, just as: I will break down (‘p’rotz’) the fence thereof; (Isaiah 5:5.) Why hast Thou broken down (‘paratzta’) her fences? (Psalms 80:13.) And in the language of the Rabbis: “Pirtzah (a breach in a wall) calleth forth to the thief.” (Sotah 26a.) Indeed, the Sacred Language (Hebrew. See Ramban on Exodus 30:13, as to why Hebrew is called “a sacred” language.) uses the term p’rotz when referring to anything that oversteps its boundary: And thou shalt break forth (‘upharatzta’) to the west, and to the east; (Above, 28:14. Here referring to the conquest of land.) And the man broke forth (‘vayiphrotz’) exceedingly. (Ibid., 30:43. Here referring to an unusual increase in wealth. It is thus clear that the word p’rotz is used to refer to anything which breaks forth from its normal boundary.) It is for this reason that the verse here is saying, at the time that the first child drew back his hand, and this one hurriedly came out, “What great breach hast thou made in the fence in order to hurry out before him?” The verse says, alecha (upon thee), to indicate that ‘the fence’ was upon him, and he was imprisoned in it. The sense of the verse is thus: “What great breach did you take upon yourself to make in the fence, with the result that you came out of it?” Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said in explanation of the verse: “Mah paratzta? What have you broken, in the manner of a man who makes a breach in a fence and exits through it, and now the responsibility for this breach is upon you.” (That is, “if in the process of your hurried exit you would have caused harm or death to your brother, you would have been held responsible.”) There is no point to this interpretation. In the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakaneh (Sefer Habahir, 196. See Note 42, Seder Bereshith.) there is mentioned a mystic principle in connection with the name of these children, Peretz and Zerach. Thus they said: “He was called Zerach (shining) on account of the sun which always shines, and Peretz (breaking) on account of the moon which is sometimes dismantled (Referring to the days when the moonlight decreases, and to the end of the month when its light completely disapppears.) and sometimes whole. Now was not Peretz the firstborn, and yet the sun is greater than the moon? (In which case Zerach, whose name is symbolic of the sun, should have been the first born.) This presents no difficulty, for it does indeed say, And he [Zerach] put out his hand, (Verse 28 here. Thus Zerach was indeed the firstborn.) and it is further written, And afterwards came out his brother.” (Verse 30 here, referring to Zerach. And the verse concludes; that had the shining red thread upon his hand, thus indicating the importance of his having put out his hand first.) Now according to their opinion, the moon is associated with the name Peretz on account of the kingdom of the House of David. (Having gone through various periods of ascendancy and decline in its history, the kingdom of the House of David resembles the light of the moon which is constantly changing.) Peretz and Zerach were born twins since the moon functions by means of the sun. Thus Peretz is the twin of Zerach who gives forth the hand, while he (That is, Peretz. In other words, by putting forth his hand, Zerach indicated that the birthright was to have been his, but Peretz, by coming out first, indicated the consent of the Supreme One to his being appointed the firstborn.) is the firstborn by virtue of the power of the Supreme One, as is said, I also appoint him first-born. (Psalms 89:28.) This is the purport of the saying of the Sages with respect to the Sanctification of the Moon: “David King of Israel lives and exists.” (Rosh Hashanah 25a. Ramban’s meaning is that since the kingdom of David evolved from Peretz, and Peretz is symbolized by the moon, the Sages of the Talmud, when wishing to inform the Jews in other countries that the New Moon had appeared and been sanctified by the Great Court, would use this message: “David, king….” This they did in order to circumvent a prohibition by the Romans against transmitting news regarding the times set for the festivals. See Ramban above, 32:26.) The man learned [in the mystic teachings of the Cabala] will understand.

Rashi on Genesis 38:29:1

פרצת THOU HAST BURST FORTH — What a strong effort hast thou made!

Sforno on Genesis 38:29:1

ויהי כמשיב ידו, the prefix כ meaning “as if,” describes that he did not really retract his hand. He was forced to, being pushed by his brother.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:29

However, it was, as he retracted his hand back inside the womb , and behold, his brother emerged from the womb first. Thus, the brother without the crimson thread was ultimately the firstborn. And she said to the child that emerged first: What breach [ paretz ] have you breached for yourself? Your brother was already poised to emerge first. Therefore, he, Judah, called his name Peretz.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:29:1

ויהי כמשיב ידו, “it happened as he retracted his hand, etc.” This refers to the distance a person can withdraw his hand. If the subject of this phrase would be the infant to whom this hand belonged, the Torah should have written: ויהי כאשר השיב ידו.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 38:29:2

מה פרצת עליך פרץ? “how did you burst your way out?” Rashi understands the expression פרץ as denoting doing something violently. Alternately, it may mean that “you have broken out of the boundary that was meant to contain you.” Nachmanides writes that anyone who crosses a boundary is described by Biblical Hebrew as being פורץ as G’d promised Yaakov in Genesis 28,14 ופרצת ימה וקדמה וגו', “and you will burst forth to the West, to the East, etc.” concerning his descendants. This is why the midwife, when seeing the firstborn extending his hand beyond the birth canal, exclaimed that by coming forth hand first, that “he had burst forth.” The meaning of the word עליך in our context refers to the natural boundaries that had been set for each of these infants and the order in which they were meant to be born. Some commentators explain the words: מה פרצת as similar to פרצה גדולה עשית, “you have made a great break-through,” i.e. “may it be G’d’s will that this breakthrough you have made into the world will be a good omen for your continuous further development. According to this inter-pretation, the word פרצת here is not similar in meaning to the word in Genesis

Midrash

The Midrash Tanchuma Buber commentary on Genesis 39:1 discusses the connection between kingship and priesthood, linking Perez to David and Moses to Aaron. The Bereshit Rabbah commentary on Genesis 38:29-30 focuses on the significance of the names Peretz and Zerah, connecting them to future events involving war and spoils, including a Babylonian royal garment found in Jericho. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai emphasizes the importance of dominion in the Land of Israel for kings and rulers, highlighting the relationship between the king of Babylon and his viceroy in Jericho.

Bereshit Rabbah 85:14

“It was as he retracted his hand, and behold, his brother emerged; and she said: What breach have you breached for yourself? He called his name Peretz” (Genesis 38:29). “It was as he retracted his hand…[What breach have you breached [paretz] for yourself? He called his name Peretz]” – the one who will be ascendant over all the mighty [haparitzim] will be produced from you. (This is derived from the double usage of the term breach [peretz] in the verse (Etz Yosef). ) “The one who breaks through [haporetz] has ascended before them…” (Micah 2:13). Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said in the name of the Rabbis: All the mighty [haporetzim] will be produced from you, as it is stated: “The one who breaks through [haporetz] has ascended before them.” “Then his brother, on whose hand was the crimson thread, emerged; he called his name Zeraḥ” (Genesis 38:30). “Then his brother, [on whose hand was the crimson thread,] emerged” – numerous usages of “hand” are written here. (The reference is to verses 28–30. The word hand could have been skipped in verses 29 and 30 without impinging on the meaning of the verse (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Yudan and Rav Huna: Rabbi Yudan said: Four, corresponding to the four proscriptions to which he was destined to extend his hand. (In four instances, the Israelites fought a war in which the possessions of the enemy were proscribed, such that no Israelites were permitted to take the spoils of war. Akhan, descended from Zeraḥ, took from the spoils of Jericho nonetheless (Joshua, chap. 7), and the midrash asserts that descendants of Zeraḥ did so in the other instances as well. ) These are: The proscription of Amalek, the proscription of Siḥon and Og, the proscription of Jericho, and the proscription of the Canaanites . Rav Huna said: Corresponding to the four items that he was destined to take from the proscription. That is what is written: “I saw among the spoils a fine mantle from Shinar, [and two hundred shekels of silver, and one wedge of gold, weighing fifty shekels]” (Joshua 7:21). (Although these are only three items, Maharzu (based on Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer chap. 38) adds that these items were ornaments for an idol, and Akhan took the idol as well, which was the fourth item. ) Rav Huna said: [The fine mantle] was a Babylonian garment of purple wool. What is Babylon doing here? (Garments of purple wool were royal garments. Why was there a Babylonian royal garment in Jericho? ) Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: Any king or ruler who did not have dominion in the Land [of Israel] would say: I am not worth anything. The king of Babylon’s viceroy lived in Jericho. [The viceroy] would send him dates, and he would send [the viceroy] gifts.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 21:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT…. What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 38:29)? AND IT CAME TO PASS THAT, AS HE DREW BACK HIS HAND < … > [SO HIS NAME WAS CALLED PEREZ]. Here is kingship (according to Ruth 4:18): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF PEREZ. (The biblical text continues with a genealogy from Perez to David.) (Gen. 38:30:) THEN AFTERWARDS HIS BROTHER CAME OUT. Here is a priest. Then afterwards (in Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT, the Holy One simply brought them the good news that, wherever they went, they would have the services of a king and a priest. How so? In Egypt < they had > a king and a priest, as stated (in Exod. 7:8): NOW THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON…. Also in their Exodus < they had a king and a priest > (according to Ps. 77:21 [20]): YOU LED YOUR PEOPLE LIKE A FLOCK BY THE HAND OF MOSES AND AARON.

Musar

The text discusses the concept of אדמוני in reference to David, highlighting the contrast between Esau and David in terms of their characteristics and actions. It also connects the idea of breaching a fence to the power of Esau, with King Saul and David both playing roles in addressing this issue. Ultimately, it suggests that as the Messiah, David will avenge the forces of Esau in a serpent-like manner, as prophesied in Isaiah 14,29.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Toldot, Torah Ohr 54

This אדמוני will eventually emerge purified and holy, a reference to the David who is also known as אדמוני. We read in Samuel I 16,12 that David is described as אדמוני עם יפה עינים וטוב ראי, "ruddy cheeked, bright-eyed and handsome." The first person to be described as אדמוני was Esau; it is therefore hardly a compliment to David to be similarly described. The essential difference is that whereas Esau was עין רע, represented all that is negative associated with the eye, David was the reverse, and is therefore described as יפה עינים. In David's case the positive aspects of eyes are meant: the prophet therefore describes him as טוב ראי. Solomon, who says in Kohelet 10,8: פורץ גדר ישכנו נחש, that "he who breaches the fence will be bitten by a snake,” may have referred to David's forbear Peretz, whom the Torah had described as "bursting out" (Genesis 38,29). The נחש referred to is the power of Esau. King Saul repaired the fence partially when he defeated נחש king of Ammon who went to war against Israel as reported in Samuel I 11,1. David also accomplished a great deal in this area during his reign. In the future, as the Messiah, however, he will take revenge on the forces of Esau in the manner of a serpent, as we know from Isaiah 14,29: כי משרש נחש יצא צפע, "For from the root of a snake there sprouts an asp."

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that the chief butler's dream of the vine with three shoots symbolized three days, indicating the immediacy of events. Onkelos' Aramaic translation emphasizes the rapid growth of the vine after budding. Midrash BeChiddush highlights the calculated oppression of the Israelites by the Egyptians, leading to their eventual enslavement and the unintended consequences of their actions, resulting in the loss of Egyptian wealth and the fulfillment of God's plan.

Midrash BeChiddush on Pesach Haggadah, Magid, First Fruits Declaration 8:1

וַיְעַנּ֑וּנוּ Va’yanunu:“And oppressed us.” One should know that the actions of Pharaoh and the Egyptians were planned with great shrewdness. God’s words to Abraham in the Covenant of the Pieces were not ignored , “And they shall be enslaved and oppressed.” (Gen. 15:13) Therefore they began to fulfill God’s word by placing heavy taxes and tributes upon them so that they would become impoverished. The possessions of the entire nation were reduced, similar to what the sages stated, “Like a lily among thorns…” (Song 2:2) “Just as a lily, when it is situated among the thorns, a north wind blows and tilts it and the thorn pierces it, a south wind blows and tilts it and a thorn pierces it, a west wind blows and tilts it and a thorn pierces it, and so with the four directions…” ( See Vayikra Rabbah 23:4 and Song of Songs 2:2 for two variations on this Midrash. It strikes me, that Rabbi Foa was quoting these texts from memory both here and elsewhere in the commentary and so he changes the actual version of the Midrash) So, it was with the people of Israel; they made their homes subjugated among the nations. These ones said to them, “Give us taxes (פִּיסִּים)!” ([distributions, cmp. Lat. tributum,] taxes, esp. pissim, pissin, name of a Roman tax laid on the community and distributed by the latter according to assessments, Jastrow.) and these ones said to them, “Give us your appointed service (זימון)!” and these ones said to them, “Give us your tribute!” and these ones said, “Give us your head tax.” (גִּלְגּוּלֵ). Thus, they were like a lily among the thorns. Similarly, when they rented them houses they charged them ten times the amount compared to what they would charge gentiles. They did the same with anything they sold them. (Akh) “They neither know nor understand, they go about in darkness,” (Ps. 82:5) God said, first, “They shall enslave them,” and afterwards, “They shall oppress them.” (Gen. 15:13) (Because they did it the other way around - first oppressing and then enslaving) the Egyptians never succeeded. They did just the opposite. (Instead of enslaving and oppressing the Israelites as is stated in Genesis 15:13, first Egyptians oppressed them and then they enslaved them.) The more they oppressed them, “the more the Israelites increased and spread out.” In other words the more they oppressed Israel the more the Egyptians enriched the Israelites.” The word yifrotz יִפְרֹ֑ץ comes from the verse, “the man grew exceedingly prosperous פְרֹ֥ץ הָאִ֖ישׁ,” (Gen. 30:43) which is said about Jacob. The Egyptians then saw that their decrees did not have an effect and their actions turned against Egypt. The wealth that they took from the Israelites actually destroyed the wealth of the Egyptians, as is written, “the more they increased and spread out,” (Gen. 1:12) this is to be interpreted, “The more the Israelites’s wealth increased and the more the possessions of the Egyptians were lost,” based on the verse,פָּרַ֖צְתָּ עָלֶ֣יךָ פָּ֑רֶץ “What a breach you have made for yourself!” (Gen. 38:29) This was especially true for Pharaoh who had the intention of building a treasury, and it turned into garrison cities עָרֵ֤י מִסְכְּנוֹת֙ (Some translate the expression as store cities. Here Rabbi Foa plays on the connection between miskenot, מִסְכְּנוֹת֙ and sakanah, which means danger.) which became a danger to the Egyptians. As a result, “the [Egyptians] came to dread the Israelites,” (Ex. 1:12) that is, the loss of their wealth caused the Egyptians pain that was like thorns in one’s flesh. Therefore, the Egyptians took counsel and decided to leave their wealth and only to enslave them. As it is written, “The Egyptians ruthlessly imposed slavery upon the Israelites and they made their lives bitter with hard labor…” (Ex. 1:13-14) From this point forward, the Egyptians only imposed hard labor and slavery are mentioned. It also says, “The Israelites were groaning under the bondage and cried out… their cry for help from the bondage rose up to God.” (Ex.2:23) And if you say, “, “I have marked well the oppression עֳנִ֥י of My people in Egypt…” (Ex. 3:7), ( He just said that “Oppression” wasn’t mentioned once they enslaved him and yet here we do find mention of the oppression brought upon the Israelites.) I have already answered this question in Goren Arnon: two explanations of the word עֳנִ֥י are offered. One is imposed upon them. עֳנִ֥י is an allusion to exile besides the exile experienced in Egypt, as God said, “I will be what I will be,” (Ex. 3:14) which the sages explained as, “I will be with them in this exile and I will be with them in other exiles.” See what I wrote there at length. And even if it was their intention to do this evil to Israel by oppressing them, they were not able to, “oppressed us,” since the Holy One combines thought with action…and even more so when the thoughts involve action. (I am uncertain about the last section of this passage. Possibly, Rabbi Foa is saying that thoughts of oppression are the same as actual oppression because they lead to action, and therefore the Egyptians were punished for their “thoughts.”)

Ramban on Genesis 40:10:1

AND IT WAS AS THOUGH IT BUDDED AND ITS BLOSSOM WENT UP. “It seemed as though it budded. And it was as though it budded, i.e., it seemed to me in my dream as though it budded, and after the bud its blossom shot up, and after that it brought forth the clusters and then the ripe grapes. Onkelos translates: ‘And, when it buddeth, it brought forth sprouts.’ These words are the translation of the word porachath alone.” (The Hebrew states: V’hi keporachath althah nitzah. Rashi’s intent, in quoting the Targum, is to say that Onkelos’ words, apeikath lavlevin (brought forth sprouts), is an expression which Onkelos appended to his translation of the Hebrew word porachath. Ramban will later differ with this opinion, holding that it constitutes Onkelos’ rendition of the Hebrew word althah, and signifies: “And it, when it budded, immediately brought forth sprouts.” See below, Note 271.) Thus far the words of Rashi. This is not correct. If he is speaking in terms of appearances because they are matters of a dream, he should say, “Behold, like a vine was before me, and on the vine like three shoots.” (Instead, Scripture states: “Behold, a vine was before me. And on the vine were three shoots.”(Verses 9-10.)) This kaph of comparison is found neither in the dream of the chief of the bakers nor in the dream of Pharaoh. Why then should the chief of butlers use the comparative form more than the others? Instead, in all three dreams it says v’hinei (and behold). (Verse 9, in the dream of the butler; Verse 16, in the dream of the baker, and in Chapter 41, Verse 3, the word v’hinei is used in connection with Pharaoh’s dream.) It is this word which indicates comparison, for its meaning is “as if.” But the explanation of the verse before us, And it was ‘keporachath’ its blossoms shot up, is that he saw that immediately as it budded, its blossoms shot up and its clusters ripened into grapes. This was to indicate that G-d was hastening to do it. This is how Joseph recognized that the “three shoots” indicated three days, and not months or years, and he himself deduced that on the same day the two will be summoned before the king. It may be [that this was also indicated by the dreams] because both of them dreamed in one night. Thus there is no need for the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, who says that Joseph knew of Pharaoh’s birthday. This usage of a kaph to indicate immediacy is found in many places: And it came to pass, ‘k’meishiv’ (as he drew back) his hand; (Above, 38:29.) ‘k’vo Avram’ (as Abram came); (Ibid., 12:14.) ‘uk’eith’ (and at the time) of her death the women that stood by her said, (I Samuel 4:20.) and many others. Onkelos’ rendition into Aramaic stating, “And when it budded, it brought forth sprouts,” [means to say that the expression “brought forth sprouts”] is a translation of the Hebrew word althah, meaning that it immediately brought forth sprouts of the vine. That is, as soon as it budded, it brought forth large sprouts, its blossoms shot up, and its clusters ripened into grapes. (Rashi is of the opinion that Onkelos’ expression, va’aneitzath neitz, (not mentioned by Ramban, but appearing in the Targum, following apeikath lavlevin, mentioned above in Note 265), is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew althah nitzah. Ramban however says that it is the translation only of the word nitzah, for althah (shoot up) could not refer to nitzah (sprouts). This is why, according to Ramban, Onkelos translated the word althah as apeikath lavlevin (it brought forth sprouts). In brief, according to Rashi’s understanding of the Targum, the Hebrew v’hi keporachath is rendered by the Targum as kad aphrachath apeikath lavlevin. The Hebrew althah nitzah is rendered va’aneitzath neitz. In the opinion of Ramban, v’hi keporachath is rendered by the Targum as kad aphrachath; the Hebrew althah is rendered apeikath lavlevin, and the Hebrew nitzah has its equivalent in Onkelos’ va’aneitzath nitzah.) Onkelos would not apply the word althah (shoot up) to nitzah (sprouts), as they do not “shoot up.”

Talmud

Rav Huna states that if a fetus extends its hand out of the womb and then returns it, the mother is considered impure as if she had given birth, based on the example of Tamar in the Book of Genesis [Niddah 28a:9].

Niddah 28a:9

§ Rav Huna says: If a fetus extended its hand out of the womb and then returned it, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. This is considered childbirth, as it is stated with regard to Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law: “And it happened when she gave birth that one put out a hand…and it happened that as he drew back his hand, his brother came out” (Genesis 38:28–29). Evidently, the fetus extending out its hand was considered childbirth, despite the fact that it subsequently drew back the hand.

Tanakh

David defeated his enemies at Baal-perazim, which means "Baal of Breaches," referencing the breakthrough like water breaking through a dam. The house of Boaz and Ruth is blessed to be like the house of Perez, the son of Tamar and Judah.

II Samuel 5:20

Thereupon David marched to Baal-perazim, and David defeated them there. And he said, “The LORD has broken through my enemies before me as waters break through [a dam].” That is why that place was named Baal-perazim. (Interpreted as “Baal of Breaches.” Cf. 6.8 below, and the name Perez in Gen. 38.29 and note.)

Ruth 4:12

And may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah—through the offspring which the LORD will give you by this young woman.”

Targum

After the first child withdrew his hand, his brother was born with great strength, leading his mother to say he would prevail and possess the kingdom, naming him Peretz [Onkelos Genesis 38:29; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:29].

Onkelos Genesis 38:29

When he put back his hand, behold his brother emerged, and she said, With what [great] strength you have pushed yourself. He named him Peretz.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:29

And after the child had withdrawn his hand, behold, his brother came forth, and she said, With what great power hast thou prevailed, and for thee will it be to prevail; for thou wilt possess the kingdom. And she called his name Pharets.

וְאַחַר֙ יָצָ֣א אָחִ֔יו אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־יָד֖וֹ הַשָּׁנִ֑י וַיִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ זָֽרַח׃ 30 J Afterward his brother came out, on whose hand was the crimson thread; he was named Zerah. (Zerah I.e., “brightness,” perhaps alluding to the crimson thread.)
The "crimson thread" in Genesis 38:30 represents the shining of the Light of the Face, symbolizing a warning and linked to the sun's redness at sunrise and sunset, with Zerach and Peretz symbolizing the sun and the moon respectively. Zerach was considered the firstborn by hand emergence, but Peretz was recognized as the firstborn for emerging fully from the womb, paralleling Achan's four acts of sacrilege. Judah marries Tamar, leading to the birth of twins Perez and Zarah, while Joseph is imprisoned in Egypt, and Pharaoh's officers find issues with the king's food. Chapter 38 of Genesis develops Yehuda's character, highlighting the continuity and discontinuity between generations and the lineage leading to royalty, providing crucial development for Yehuda before the story continues in Chapter 39. In labor, one of the twins puts out a hand, and the midwife ties a crimson thread on it to indicate he was the first to come out, named Zorach or Zarach due to the scarlet thread.

Chasidut

The "crimson thread" represents the shining of the Light of the Face, as seen in Genesis 38:30. This concept is related to the idea that there is no king without a nation, as stated in the Talmud Bavli and by Rabbeinu Bachaye.

Likutei Moharan 23:3:7

And the “crimson thread” corresponds to the Z’RiChat (the shining) of the Light of the Face, as in (Genesis 38:30), “…[with the crimson thread on his hand… Yehudah] named him ZeRaCh.”

The Gate of Unity 48:15

Now, we must understand the analogue of this as it is Above, because (Talmud Bavli Brachot 58a) “as the earthy kingdom is, so is the kingdom of Heaven,” in that, (Rabbeinu Bachaye to Genesis 38:30; Maamarei Admor HaZaken, Parshiot HaTorah, Vol. 2, pg. 631) “There is no king without a nation,” specifically.

Commentary

The name Zerach was given to the son born with a red thread on his hand, symbolizing a warning, and was also linked to the sun's redness at sunrise and sunset. The twins born to Tamar and Yehudah, Peretz and Zerach, symbolized the sun and the moon respectively, with the kingdom of David stemming from Peretz, representing the moon's fluctuating light. Zerach was considered the firstborn by hand emergence, but Peretz was recognized as the firstborn for emerging fully from the womb. The four mentions of "hand" in the birth story parallel Achan's four acts of sacrilege, and Zerach was named due to his reddish skin.

Chizkuni, Genesis 38:30:1

ויקרא שמו זרח, “he named him Zerach”. He was reddish skinned, and the word זרח appears in that sense in Kings II 3,22.

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 38:6

I.e., “brightness,” perhaps alluding to the crimson thread.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 38:30:1-9

ויקרא שמו זרח, “he called his name Zerach.” The name Zerach (shines) symbolised the sun, whereas the name Peretz (interruption) symbolised the moon. (the sun shines uninterruptedly, daily, whereas the moon is ineffective towards the end of the month and at its beginning). The kingdom of David stemmed from Peretz whose dynasty symbolised the moon and its ups and downs. We know that the moon’s orbit is completed every 29 days. This is why you will find that there were 29 righteous people (descended from him) listed in the Bible from the time of Peretz until the last King of the Davidic dynasty, Tzidkiyahu. They are: Peretz, Chetzron, Ram, Aminadav, Nachshon, Salmon, Boaz, Oved, Yishai and David. They were followed by Shlomoh, Rechavam, Aviyah, Assa, Yehoshaphat, Yehoram, Achazyah, Yoash, Amatzyah, Uzziah, Yotam, Achaz, Chiskiyah, Menashe, Ammon, Yoshiyahu, Yehoachaz, Yehoyakim, Yehoyachim, Tzidkiyah. These comprise a total of 29 men corresponding to the days in the lunar orbit; the lunar “sun” sets after such a period of time. The dynasty of David underwent a similar decline after Tzidkiyah and this is why the Temple was destroyed during the lifetime of Tzidkiyah who was the twenty-ninth scion counting from Peretz. [The reason we do not count from Yehudah who was promised Royalty by his father may be that Peretz was Royalty already, his mother having been the daughter of King Malki Tzedek, identical with Shem. If you find it strange that our author lists Menashe as a righteous king when the Book of Kings described him as the worst heretic ever, the reason may be that he became a penitent and G’d restored him to his throne as reported in Chronicles, II chapter 33 something not mentioned in the Book of Kings II chapter 21. See my book “The Just lives by his faith” for a possible reason for this omission Ed.] However, in Shemot Rabbah 15,26 this calculation is described differently, and the month is given as having thirty days during the first half of which the moon is progressively becoming more powerful, whereas after that it declines visibly. According to the author of that list the first 15 days of the month are characterised by the leaders of the Jewish people from Avraham to Solomon, whereas the last 15 days symbolise the decline of the Kingdom of Yehudah after the division of the country between Rechavam and Jerobam. This is based on Exodus 12,1. G’d is supposed to have told the Jewish people already prior to their departure from Egypt that the kingdom would not last for more than thirty generations, hence the words: החודש הזה לכם, ”this month (moon) is for you, etc.” The Midrash lists verses in the Bible to back up the contention that the early ancestors of the Jewish people such as Avraham and Yitzchak are already part of these 30 generations. It quotes a verse in which Avraham is described as “shining,” such as Isaiah 41, 2. It similarly is at pains to prove the same for Yitzchak and Yaakov. Starting with Yehudah, there is no need for such proofs anymore. The author of the Midrash, aware that most of the Kings of Yehudah actually worshipped idols, does not describe them as an unending string of righteous people but lumps them together as part of the decline of the Davidic dynasty, in spite of the exceptions such as Chiskiyah and Yoshiyah to name but two. According to this Midrash, the prayers of the patriarchs on behalf of their errant children helped to persuade G’d to continue to let that Kingdom exist beyond the time it had a legal right to exist. [This Midrash continues for several pages and I have decided to condense it in the interest of brevity. One of the more important points of the comparison between the orbit of the moon and the thirty generations of ascending and descending Jewish political power is the fact that King Tzidkiyah had his eyes gouged out by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. His subsequent blindness is taken by the Midrash as symbolic of the light of the Jewish “moon” having been extinguished.] A kabbalistic approach: Our verse speaks of two births, two new human beings. There is a profound mystical dimension in this, something of great impact on the dynasty of the house of David. I will reveal to you a small part of that mystical dimension and I ask you to concentrate on what I am about to reveal. We know that the name אלו-הים, with which the Torah describes G’d during the report of the creation of the universe describes Him as the king of the universe. This name is identified with the concept תשובה, another name for the emanation בינה. [In plain English, the attribute with which G’d created the universe is that which is active in the emanation בינה, the third emanation counting from the highest emanation, i.e. כתר, down. Ed.] We acknowledge this attribute especially on Rosh Hashanah, the “birthday” of the universe, (creation of man) and the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur when we conclude the third of the blessings in the עמידה prayer by saying המלך הקדוש, “the Holy King,” or המלך המשפט, “the King who dispenses justice,” instead of הא-ל הקדוש, “the Holy G’d,” or מלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט, “the King who loves righteousness and justice.” There is no King without a people or man that He can be King over. When the Torah reports G’d’s directive (Genesis 1,3) as יהי אור ויהי אור, “let there be light and there was light,” this light came into existence by means of the power of the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth which is also known as אלו-הים. The repetition of the word אור in that directive and the report that it had been carried out, suggests that there were two kinds of light. You do not find the subject of the directive repeated when the Torah reports what G’d created on the other days. In the Torah’s report of the directives G’d issued concerning the other days you only find the expression ויהי כן to indicate that the universe had responded to G’d’s directive. You should realise that though the Torah appears to speak of two kinds of light, the meaning is not that there were actually two entirely different kinds of light. What is meant is that this light embodied two sources of power, of energy. One of these forces is essentially male, the other essentially female. The creation of the original light, however, was the product of a single source of energy, one which combines within it both male and female elements. This original light later on enabled the sun, the moon, and the stars to be derived from it and to be concretised. [The original light was independent of any physical matter, sunlight is not. It requires the sun, i.e. a physical body, in order to dispense it. Ed.]. I have explained this in my commentary on Genesis 1,14. The sun was endowed with the male properties of the original light, whereas the moon was endowed with the female properties of the original light. Having absorbed this knowledge, you will understand what occurred in the case of Yehudah, Tamar, and these two children born to Tamar and Yehudah respectively. By means of these two individuals, Peretz and Zerach, we can gain a better understanding of the whole process of creation. This is what the sages had in mind in Berachot 55 when they said: מלכותא דארע כעין מלכותא דרקיע, “the kingdom on earth is essentially similar to the kingdom in the celestial regions.” Yehudah’s name יהודה, gratitude, as we know from Leah’s feelings of gratitude to G’d meant that by having born more children for Yaakov than any of his wives would he would be appreciative of this. [compare Genesis 29,35. Ed.] Seeing that Yehudah was the fourth of the twelve sons who were to make up the tribes of Israel, G’d’s Holy Name is part of his name. His tribe became the leading tribe in Israel and the Kingdom of Israel was ruled over by a king from his tribe, i.e. David and his descendants. It was therefore appropriate that Tamar, herself descended from Royalty, should be married to him. The name Tamar reflects the fact that the original light contained both male and female properties, seeing that תמר, a date or date-palm, contains both male and female elements, or rather that the name for both a female palm and a male palm is the same. The לולב, palm branch, is indicative of the male element in the palm, whereas the fruit, the product of the female palm tree goes by the same name, i.e. תמר. It is male on the outside whereas its גרעין, its pit, is female. [It is split, similar in appearance to a vagina, as explained by Naftali Wessely.] This is something unique, not found in any other kind of tree. It was therefore appropriate that Peretz and Zerach be mothered by Tamar. Zerach corresponded to the element sun, the male element, the sun which shines without interruption, whereas Peretz corresponded to the element moon, the female element, a light which is uneven, sometimes stronger sometimes waning completely such as the light of the moon. It was therefore almost a historical must that the dynasty of King David be the product of Peretz rather than Zerach, seeing that he, Peretz — as indicated by his name already — represented the type of light we get from the moon, i.e. light which fluctuates constantly in intensity as does the light of the moon. When you will examine the verse intelligently you will find that just as the sun is always aligned with the moon just like twins, so Zerach and Peretz were aligned in the womb of their mother, i.e. they were twins. This concept of their being twins was carried so far that even at birth each of them could be taken for the firstborn depending on whether you consider the emergence of the hand or the emergence of the head as determining which one is the firstborn of the two. The Torah describes Zerach as the firstborn seeing that his hand emerged first from Tamar’s womb. It says “for he emerged first.” On the other hand, the Torah continues with ויהי כמשיב ידו, “it was as he was about to pull back his hand (inside the womb).” You will note that the Torah did not say that he had actually completed the act of pulling back his hand, i.e. וישב ידו. Peretz became the firstborn by reason of forcing his way out of the birth-canal of his mother past his twin brother Zerach. This is why the Torah writes in our verse ואחר יצא אחיו אשר על ידו השני, “after that, his brother, the one who had the red string tied to his hand, emerged.” In other words, when we consider the emergence from the womb of the entire baby, פטר רחם, as the dominant criterion, Peretz was the firstborn even though Zerach had first put his hand out of his mother’s womb. The Torah determined that for halachic purposes emergence of a whole baby from the mother’s birth canal first determines who is the true firstborn (Bechorot 46). This is why when the Torah revealed the names of these two twins it first gives us the name of Peretz. You will find an interesting verse in Psalms 89,28 אף אני בכור אתנהו עליון למלכי ארץ, “I will also appoint him firstborn, highest of the kings of the earth.” G’d is on record that He considers David, who biologically was the youngest of his brothers, as a firstborn. Seeing that the kingdom of the house of David is derived from Peretz, and Peretz in turn has been likened to the moon, the sages formulated the words דוד מלך ישראל חי וקיים, “David King of Israel is alive and endures,” when we recite the monthly benedictions welcoming the arrival of the renewal of the light of the moon. When we look at the plain meaning of that statement it means simply that the moon is equated with David, (in name), seeing David is descended from Peretz who has been compared to the moon. Furthermore, seeing that the moon has been described in the Torah as the “small luminary” (Genesis 1,16), we find that the adjective “the small one” has also been applied to David (compare Samuel I 17,14). When we say the words חי וקיים, in the recital of קידוש לבנה, the sanctification of the new moon, the thought we entertain is that the moon has become visible again this month. On a more mystical level, these words are a reference to the latent power of the moon which is also known as דוד מלך ישראל, in that the word ישראל is a reference to כנסת ישראל, the mystical entity called Israel in the celestial regions. This is why this entity is described as חי וקיים, alive and well, enduring forever. Daniel 7,9 alludes to this when he said עד די כרסון רמיו, “until the thrones were set up.” There were two such thrones. In Chagigah 14 the sages have revealed to us how they understood this verse in Daniel. “Some hold that one of these thrones was reserved for G’d and the other for David. A second opinion holds that one of these thrones would be used by G’d when He employed the attribute of Justice, whereas he would use the other throne when employing the attribute of Charity. A third opinion, that of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah, contends that one of the ‘thrones’ was for sitting on, whereas the other served as a footrest.” It appears in that folio as if the sages of the first view disagreed with the view expressed by those who hold that one throne was reserved for David. Actually, the sages do not disagree with the basic concepts underlying all this. We know this as they derive their opinion from the verse ובקשו את ה' אלו-היהם ואת דוד מלכם, “and they will seek the Lord their G’d and David their king.” The words “and David their King” are a reference to this concept of כנסת ישראל. Concerning the moral/spiritual power represented by כנסת ישראל, our sages expounded (Zohar Terumah 175) that legally speaking the Israelites were not slated for exile from their land ever. The decree to exile them was not decided until they had rejected both the Kingdom of Heaven (G’d) and the Kingdom of David. We base this on Samuel II 20,1 “we have no portion in David nor in any inheritance of the son of Yishai. Every man to their tents!” [ — a proclamation by Sheva ben Bichri, a dissident and heretic, arousing the people to oppose David.] It is important to realize that the words “David” and the words “the son of Yishai” are not a repetition referring to one and the same person as those commentators who concentrate on the plain meaning of the text would have us believe. The meaning of the verse is that Sheva ben Bichri and his supporters declared their severance of allegiance to both the kingdom of heaven and the celestial aspect of the kingdom on earth as represented by David in his capacity as the son of Yishai. These people served idols instead. This is why he said “each one to his god!” [The sages inverted the letters in the word לאהליו, “to their tents,” to read “to their gods,” i.e. לאלהיו]. The verses reporting the birth of Zerach mention the word יד, hand, four times, i.e. ויתן יד, ותקשור על ידו שני, ויהי כמשיב ידו, אשר על ידו השני. These four expressions parallel the four times עכן בן זרח, [identical with Achan ben Karmi in Joshua chapter 7. Ed.] stretched out his hand, i.e. committed a trespass against loot captured by the Jewish people in their wars since their departure from Egypt. He hid and retained such loot from the battle against Amalek, against Sichon and Og, from the battle against the Canaanites and from the capture of Jericho [which was not preceded by a battle in the usual sense of the word. Ed.] (compare Bereshit Rabbah 85,14).

Radak on Genesis 38:30:1

זרח, she named him in commemoration of the red string she had wound around his hand. This colour symbolises a warning.

Rashbam on Genesis 38:30:1

זרח. On account of the woolen thread which was red in colour. The word זרח basically means red, such as the colour of the sun at the time it rises and when it sets. If it does not appear red during the day this is because of the excess amount of light during those hours making it impossible for us to notice the red colour behind all that light. We find confirmation of the redness of the sun in Kings II 3,22 when the Moabites were deceived by believing that the rising sun’s redness represented blood remaining from a violent battle and they thought they could then simply move over to the camp of the Israelites and pick up the spoils.

Rashi on Genesis 38:30:1

אשר על ידו השני THAT HAD THE SHINING RED THREAD UPON HIS HAND — The word יד is written here four times corresponding to the four acts of sacrilege which Achan, who was a descendant of Zarah, committed with his hand. Others say these correspond to the four things which he took with his hand of the spoil of Jericho: a Babylon garment, two hundred shekels, and a wedge of gold (Genesis Rabbah 85:14).

Rashi on Genesis 38:30:2

ויקרא שמו זרח AND HIS NAME WAS CALLED ZARAH — (bright, shining), because of the bright colour of the scarlet thread.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:30:1

Corresponding the four bans ... corresponding to the four things that he took... I.e., the four things Achan took, which were: a cloak from Shinar, two chunks of silver worth 200 shekels, making three, and a strand of gold, making four. Re’m objects: Sanhedrin 43b mentions a view that he violated three bans, and a view that it was five — four in Moshe’s time and one in Yehoshua’s. Either way, it was not four. Re’m answers: According to Bereishis Rabbah, [which Rashi is citing, this verse] deals only with the four bans of Moshe’s days. But this is incorrect because Bereishis Rabbah lists the four bans: those of Amalek, Sichon and Og, Yericho, and Midian. This is three in Moshe’s days and one in Yehoshua’s. There is a lengthy answer to this. But the Maharsha emends the text in Sanhedrin 43b to read: “Rabbi Yochanan said it was four bans...” [Accordingly, Rashi was following this view.] (Nachalas Yaakov)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 38:30:2

Because of the bright color of the scarlet thread. [Rashi knew this because this way Zorach] is like Peretz, who was named after what happened.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 38:30

Afterward his brother emerged, on whose hand was the crimson thread; he called his name Zerah, literally, “glow,” alluding to the gleaming red thread tied to his hand.

Midrash

Judah marries Tamar, but his sons Er and Onan die for their evil actions. Judah promises Tamar to his son Shiloh but doesn't fulfill it. Tamar conceives twins with Judah, Perez and Zarah, while Joseph is imprisoned in Egypt. Meanwhile, Pharaoh's officers find issues with the wine and bread served at the king's table. Jacob's tent remained at peace despite various troubles and incidents.

Bereshit Rabbah 79:1

“Jacob arrived intact to the city of Shekhem, which is in the land of Canaan, upon his arrival from Padan Aram, and he encamped before the city” (Genesis 33:18). “Jacob arrived intact.” “In six troubles He will deliver you, and in seven, no harm will touch you” (Job 5:19); if they are six, I will withstand them, if they are seven, I will withstand them. “In famine, He redeems you from death” (Job 5:20) – “For these two years the famine is in the midst of the land” (Genesis 45:6). “And in war, from the sword” (Job 5:20) – “It is in my power to do you harm” (Genesis 31:29). “From the scourge of the tongue you will be hidden” (Job 5:21) – Rav Aḥa said: Evil speech is so egregious that the One who created it created a place in which it could be hidden. “And you will not fear pillage when it comes” (Job 5:21) – this is Esau and his chieftains. “At pillage and hunger you will laugh” (Job 5:22) – this is Laban, who came hungry for his [Jacob’s] wealth, to rob him. “For your covenant will be with the rocks of the field…” (Job 5:23) – “he took one of the stones from the place, and placed it beneath his head” (Genesis 28:11). “You will know that your tent is at peace” (Job 5:24) – the incident of Reuben and Bilha, (See Genesis 35:22.) the incident (See Genesis 38:1–30.) of Judah and Tamar. (See Sifrei Devarim ch. 31 which states that God told Jacob that Reuben had repented. In the case of Judah and Tamar, it is explicit in the verse that Judah admitted that he was at fault. Thus, despite the falls, Jacob's tent remained at peace (see the Peirush Maharzu on the midrash here).) “When you visit your abode, you will not be lacking” (Job 5:24) – our patriarch Jacob was eighty-four years old and had never seen a drop of seminal emission. (Even unintentionally.) “You shall know also that your descendants will be many, and your offspring like the grass of the earth” (Job 5:25) – Rabbi Yudan said: Our patriarch Jacob did not pass from the world until he saw six hundred thousand of his sons’ descendants. “You will come to the grave at the right time [bakelaḥ], like a grain pile at its time” (Job 5:26). Rabbi Yitzḥak and the Rabbis, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: You will come moist [laḥ] (This means full of vitality.) to your grave. The Rabbis say: You will come complete [bekhola] to the grave, full, lacking nothing, as it is stated: “Jacob arrived intact.”

Bereshit Rabbah 85:14

“It was as he retracted his hand, and behold, his brother emerged; and she said: What breach have you breached for yourself? He called his name Peretz” (Genesis 38:29). “It was as he retracted his hand…[What breach have you breached [paretz] for yourself? He called his name Peretz]” – the one who will be ascendant over all the mighty [haparitzim] will be produced from you. (This is derived from the double usage of the term breach [peretz] in the verse (Etz Yosef). ) “The one who breaks through [haporetz] has ascended before them…” (Micah 2:13). Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said in the name of the Rabbis: All the mighty [haporetzim] will be produced from you, as it is stated: “The one who breaks through [haporetz] has ascended before them.” “Then his brother, on whose hand was the crimson thread, emerged; he called his name Zeraḥ” (Genesis 38:30). “Then his brother, [on whose hand was the crimson thread,] emerged” – numerous usages of “hand” are written here. (The reference is to verses 28–30. The word hand could have been skipped in verses 29 and 30 without impinging on the meaning of the verse (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Yudan and Rav Huna: Rabbi Yudan said: Four, corresponding to the four proscriptions to which he was destined to extend his hand. (In four instances, the Israelites fought a war in which the possessions of the enemy were proscribed, such that no Israelites were permitted to take the spoils of war. Akhan, descended from Zeraḥ, took from the spoils of Jericho nonetheless (Joshua, chap. 7), and the midrash asserts that descendants of Zeraḥ did so in the other instances as well. ) These are: The proscription of Amalek, the proscription of Siḥon and Og, the proscription of Jericho, and the proscription of the Canaanites . Rav Huna said: Corresponding to the four items that he was destined to take from the proscription. That is what is written: “I saw among the spoils a fine mantle from Shinar, [and two hundred shekels of silver, and one wedge of gold, weighing fifty shekels]” (Joshua 7:21). (Although these are only three items, Maharzu (based on Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer chap. 38) adds that these items were ornaments for an idol, and Akhan took the idol as well, which was the fourth item. ) Rav Huna said: [The fine mantle] was a Babylonian garment of purple wool. What is Babylon doing here? (Garments of purple wool were royal garments. Why was there a Babylonian royal garment in Jericho? ) Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: Any king or ruler who did not have dominion in the Land [of Israel] would say: I am not worth anything. The king of Babylon’s viceroy lived in Jericho. [The viceroy] would send him dates, and he would send [the viceroy] gifts.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 21:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT…. What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 38:29)? AND IT CAME TO PASS THAT, AS HE DREW BACK HIS HAND < … > [SO HIS NAME WAS CALLED PEREZ]. Here is kingship (according to Ruth 4:18): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF PEREZ. (The biblical text continues with a genealogy from Perez to David.) (Gen. 38:30:) THEN AFTERWARDS HIS BROTHER CAME OUT. Here is a priest. Then afterwards (in Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT, the Holy One simply brought them the good news that, wherever they went, they would have the services of a king and a priest. How so? In Egypt < they had > a king and a priest, as stated (in Exod. 7:8): NOW THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON…. Also in their Exodus < they had a king and a priest > (according to Ps. 77:21 [20]): YOU LED YOUR PEOPLE LIKE A FLOCK BY THE HAND OF MOSES AND AARON.

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 22

And in those days Judah went to the house of Shem and took Tamar the daughter of Elam, the ‎son of Shem, to wife for his first born Er. And Er came to Tamar, and she became his wife, and ‎when he came to her he outwardly destroyed his seed, and his action was evil in the sight of ‎the Lord, and the Lord slew him. And it was after the death of Er, Judah’s first born, that Judah ‎said unto Onan: Go to thy brother's wife and marry her as the next of kin, and raise up seed to ‎thy brother. And Onan took Tamar and he came to her, and Onan also did like unto his brother, ‎and his work was evil in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him likewise. And when Onan died, ‎Judah said unto Tamar: Remain thou in thy father's house until my son Shiloh shall have grown ‎up. And Judah did no more delight in Tamar, to give her unto Shiloh, for he said: Perad venture ‎he will also die like his brothers. And Tamar rose up and went home and remained in her ‎father's house, and Tamar was in her father's house for some days. And at the revolution of ‎the year, Aliyath the wife of Judah died; and Judah was comforted for his wife, and Judah ‎went up with his friend Hirah to Timnah, to shear their sheep. And Tamar heard that Judah had ‎gone up to Timnah to shear the sheep, and that Shiloh was grown up, and Judah did not ‎delight in her, and she rose up and put off the garments of her widowhood, and she put a vail ‎upon her, and she covered herself entirely, and she went and sat in the public thoroughfare, ‎which is upon the road to Timnah. And Judah passed by and saw her, and he came to her, and ‎she conceived by him. And at the time of being delivered, behold, there were twins in her ‎womb; and he called the name of the first Perez, and the name of the second Zarah. In those ‎days Joseph was still bound in the prison house in the land of Egypt. That time the officers of ‎Pharaoh were standing before him, the chief butler, and the chief baker, which belonged to ‎the king of Egypt. And the butler took wine and placed it before the king to drink, and the ‎baker placed bread before the king to eat, and the king drank of the wine and ate of the ‎bread, he and his servants and his officers that ate at the table of the king. And whilst they ‎were eating and drinking, and the chief butler and the chief baker were sitting among them, ‎the princes of Pharaoh found many flies in the wine which the chief butler had brought, and ‎nitre stones were found in the bread of the chief baker.‎

Quoting Commentary

Chap. 38 of Genesis interrupts the story of Yosef but serves to develop the character of Yehuda, showing his growth and maturity as he learns important lessons about responsibility and protection. The chapter also ties into the major theme of Genesis, highlighting the continuity and discontinuity between generations and the lineage leading to royalty. This interruption in the narrative provides a crucial development for Yehuda before the story continues in Chap. 39.

Covenant and Conversation; Genesis; The Book of the Beginnings, Toldot, The Future of the Past 20

A later episode within Genesis adds yet another retrospective element of doubt. Another pair of twins is born in Genesis 38:27–30. The passage is clearly reminiscent of the story of Esau and Jacob:

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 12:2:10

Shemot Rabbah 15,26 approaches our verse from a different angle saying that the words: “this month is yours, etc.,” describe G’d’s promise to the Jewish people even before He took them out of Egypt that Jewish sovereignty would not exceed thirty generations corresponding to the number of days in a month. I have already written on this subject when I commented on Genesis 38,30: “he called his name Zerach.”

The Five Books of Moses, by Everett Fox, Genesis, Part IV; Yosef, Yehuda and Tamar 1

Genesis 38:1-30

The Five Books of Moses, by Everett Fox, Genesis, Part IV; Yosef, Yehuda and Tamar 2-7

Chap. 38 has been the subject of many discussions, for it seems to be out of place. It interrupts the story of Yosef at a crucial dramatic spot, and is not chronologically fully consistent with it (Yehuda ages considerably; then we return to Yosef as a seventeen-year-old). Some feel that the suspension in the drama helps to raise tension; others argue that this is the only possible place to put an important tradition about the important brother. While these and other arguments may have their merit, one may discern some significant thematic connections as well, both within the context of the Yosef story and of Genesis as a whole. The episode first of all demonstrates the growth of Yehuda as a character who is central to the Yosef novella. Already in Chap. 37 he had demonstrated active leadership, albeit in a questionable cause. There he actually saved Yosef’s life, in contrast to Re’uven’s unsuccessful and ultimately self-centered rescue attempt. As the one who basically assumes responsibility, he will be made to undergo an inner development in the narrative, and again becomes the one to take charge of the youngest son (Binyamin, in Chaps. 43 and 44). The missing piece that begins to explain his nobility in this regard (Chap. 44) is the present chapter. Yehuda here learns what it is to lose sons, and to want desperately to protect his youngest. Although his failure to marry off Tamar to the youngest son leads to public humiliation (twice, actually), his response shows that he immediately accepts blame: “She is in-the-right more than I” (v.26). Such an interpretation is further confirmed by the restriction of the word “pledge” to here and 43:9. Yehuda has learned what it means to stake oneself for a principle. Only after we have been informed of Yehuda’s change can the narrative resume with Chap. 39. True to biblical thinking, redemption may start only after the crime has been punished (e.g., the Samson story, where the hero’s hair begins to grow immediately after his imprisonment). Actually the chronology works out quite well. We are told via 41:46, 53–54, that about twenty years elapse between the sale of Yosef and his meetings with the brothers in Egypt; this often signifies a period in biblical parlance and could encompass a generation or a bit less. Since Yehuda was quite possibly a father already in Chap. 37, the present story could well end just before the events reported in Chap. 43—in other words, Yehuda reaches full inner maturity just in time. The other function of this story seems to be to carry out the major theme of Genesis as we have presented it: continuity and discontinuity between the generations. What is at stake here is not merely the line of one of the brothers, but the line which (as the biblical audience must have been fully aware) will lead to royalty—King David was a descendant of Peretz of v.29. This should not be surprising in a book of origins; we noted the possible mention of Jerusalem in 14:18. Apparently a popular early theme, connected as we have noted to the power of God in history, continuity/discontinuity is repeated in somewhat similar circumstances in the book of Ruth (which contains the only other mention of “begettings” outside of Genesis and Num.3:1). The narrator has woven Chaps. 38 and 37 together with great skill. Again a man is asked to “recognize” objects, again the use of a kid, and again a brother (this time a dead one) is betrayed.

Tanakh

In Genesis 38:28, during labor, one of the twins put out a hand and the midwife tied a crimson thread on it to indicate that this twin was the first to come out.

Genesis 38:28

While she was in labor, one of them put out a hand, and the midwife tied a crimson thread on that hand, to signify: This one came out first.

Targum

In Genesis 38:30, Onkelos states that Judah's son was named Zorach because of the scarlet thread on his hand, while Targum Jonathan says he was named Zarach by his mother.

Onkelos Genesis 38:30

Then his brother emerged—the one upon whose hand was the scarlet thread. He named him Zorach.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 38:30

And afterward came forth his brother, upon whose hand was bound the scarlet thread, and she called his name Zarach.

Genesis:39:1

וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּ פּוֹטִיפַר֩ סְרִ֨יס פַּרְעֹ֜ה שַׂ֤ר הַטַּבָּחִים֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מִיַּד֙ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ שָֽׁמָּה׃ 1 J When Joseph was taken down to Egypt, Potiphar, a courtier of Pharaoh and his prefect (prefect See the second note at 37.36.) —a [type of] Egyptian official (official Cf. 2 Sam. 23.21; 1 Chron. 11.23. NJPS (rendering idiomatically via an adjective) “certain.” Traditionally taken as a generic noun of class, but see the Dictionary under ’ish.) —bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him there.
Joseph was brought down to Egypt as a slave to Potiphar, fulfilling the decree made to Abraham that his descendants would be strangers and sometimes slaves in a foreign land. Joseph's descent marked the beginning of this decree, and his time in Egypt saved Israel from Gehenna. In the Talmud, Rabbi Elazar explains that Joseph brought down Pharaoh's astrologers by interpreting dreams, while Potiphar attempted to have relations with Joseph but was castrated by an angel. Additionally, Benaiah killed a huge Egyptian man with a spear in his hand using a club, as described in II Samuel 23:21 and I Chronicles 11:23.

Commentary

Joseph was brought down to Egypt as a slave, specifically to the house of Potiphar, a high-ranking Egyptian official. Potiphar was in charge of executing prisoners and Joseph was sold to him by the Ishmaelites. This event was part of the fulfillment of the decree made to Abraham that his descendants would be strangers and sometimes slaves in a foreign land. Potiphar's wife had astrological speculations about being the ancestress of children by Joseph, leading her to act out of pure motives. Joseph's descent to Egypt marked the beginning of the fulfillment of this decree, as he was the first Israelite to become enslaved.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:1

‘And Joseph was brought down to Egypt’, etc, to the end of this Scriptural portion. There are (valid) questions arising out of these two chapters (39 & 40) also, which are as follows: Question 1: In the verse (Gen. 39:2): ‘And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master’, the verse utilizes the Hebrew verb ‘hayah’ (‘he was’) three times, which seems unnecessary repetition. It could simply have stated: ‘And the Lord was with Joseph, so that he was successful in his Egyptian master’s household’. Question 2: In connection with the Torah recording that his master handed over control of everything he had into his (Joseph’s) hands, it has already been stated previously: ‘And he appointed him over his household and all that he had he placed under his control (39:4) and yet again, subsequently, we are told: ‘And he left everything he had in Joseph’s hands and knew nothing of it’, etc (39:6). This threefold reiteration of the same point is surely unnecessary. Question 3: Why did Joseph’s master’s wife publicize what had taken place between Joseph and herself: for surely, by doing so, she was impugning her own moral dignity? It would have been better for her to maintain silence so as to retain her honor. Furthermore, (had she kept silent), the hope always remained that on some future occasion she might succeed in enticing him to comply with all her desires – in view of this, then, did she act foolishly? The commentary will cover from: ‘And Joseph was brought down to Egypt’ etc (39:1) to ‘Now it transpired, after these events’ (40:1). Scripture relates that it was part of Divine providence, for Joseph’s benefit, that the Ishmaelites who had purchased him did not take him on their own familiar routes or lead him away to a distant land, nor did they sell him (merely) to grind amongst the millstones, or to work in a lowly occupation entailing much physical labor and exertion, but (on the contrary) sold him in Egypt, which was a highly advanced country, to Potiphar, who was Pharaoh’s officer, a prince – one of his greatest officials. Now, as regards the true meaning of (the Hebrew word) ‘sarisim’ (appearing here in the text), our Sages of blessed memory held various opinions, some maintaining that they were actually eunuchs – incapable of sexual relations – and others claiming that they were high-ranking officials; the latter view is the one I believe to be correct. We are also told that the Chief Executioner was appointed for the purpose of executing and incarcerating offenders, and accordingly the prison-house was under his control, being indeed located inside his own house; and the officer in charge of the prison was subject to his jurisdiction.

Chizkuni, Genesis 39:1:1

ויוסף הורד מצרימה, “meanwhile Joseph had been transported toward Egypt;” before the first Israelite became enslaved the eventual redeemer had been born. Peretz who was destined to become the ancestor of the Mashiach was born, and only after that does the Torah report about Joseph becoming a slave in Egypt. [Joseph clearly had been brought to Egypt about 21 years earlier, as we demonstrated in our commentary on Genesis 38,1. Ed.] Joseph was the first Israelite to become enslaved.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 39:1:1

ויוסף הורד מצרים, “and in the meantime, Joseph had been brought down to Egypt;” the Torah does not describe Joseph as descending to Egypt, i.e. ירד, but in the passive mode הורד. This is a reminder to the reader that the decree revealed to Avraham at the time that his descendants would have to be both strangers and at least part of the time, even slaves, in a foreign country, had now begun to be fulfilled. (Compare Genesis chapter 15)

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 39:1:2

If we view the history of the Jewish people by comparing it to a parable, it is comparable to a cow which its owner wanted to proceed to a slaughterhouse and the cow objected strenuously; what did the owner do to overcome that objection? He brought her calf to the slaughterhouse first. As soon as the cow saw that, it became anxious to join her calf. When Yaakov found out where Joseph had been taken, he immediately voiced the wish to join him there. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah, 86,2)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:1:1-2

ויוסף הורד מצרים, “meanwhile Joseph had been brought down to Egypt.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 86,4 comment on this that “the son of a maid-servant (Midianites descendad from Hagar) sells a free man whereas the slave (Potiphar) buys him,” i.e. a reversal of the norm. Our verse confirms the truth of what Solomon said in Kohelet 10,7: “I have observed slaves riding on horses.” The person described as שר הטבחים was the man who was appointed to execute all those prisoners who had received a death sentence. He was a physically strong specimen and a cruel person such as Nebuzaradan who occupied that position in the army of Nebuchadnezzar as we know from Jeremiah 39,13: “he (Nebuchadnezzar) dispatched Nebuzaradan the chief executioner, etc.” We also find that it was he who is credited with exiling the remnant of the Jewish people (Kings II 25,11). We find in Daniel 2,14 that “Aryoch the chief executioner had set out to put to death the wise men of Babylon.” Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 3 on the words “and Joseph had been brought down to Egypt,” relates a story involving Antoninus, governor of Palestine under the Romans around 200 A.D. When said governor arrived in Caesaria he summoned Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi. The latter took with him his son Rabbi Shimon as well as the great Rabbi Chiya (his nephew). When they arrived there Rabbi Shimon saw an exceptionally tall and handsome Roman soldier and he commented to Rabbi Chiyah on the remarkable physical prowess of the descendants of Esau (referring to them as “the fatted calves”). Thereupon Rabbi Chiyah took Rabbi Shimon to the market-place and showed him gorgeous figs and grapes all of which were infested with flies, etc. Rabbi Chiyah asked Rabbi Shimon to tell him whether he considered these flies as superior to the Roman soldiers who were so impressive in their outward appearance. When Rabbi Shimon returned to his father, he related to him his conversation with Rabbi Chiyah concerning the relative importance of the Roman legionnaires and the flies. Thereupon Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi said to his son: “the Babylonian (Rabbi Chiyah) said something of substance when he compared the legionnaires to the flies. The legionnaires of the Roman Emperor are worth nothing whereas the flies are creatures of the Lord, are like soldiers of the Lord performing tasks assigned to them by their Creator.” This is the meaning of Isaiah 7,18: “On that day the Lord shall whistle to the flies at the end of the water channels of Egypt and to the bees in the land of Assyria; and they shall all come and alight in the rugged wadis.” It is also written in Exodus 23,28: “and I shall dispatch the hornet ahead of you.” During the plagues of insects and frogs these creatures were also commanded by G’d to carry out His directives. You should remember that at the time when G’d wanted to enact the decree of Genesis 15,13 where He told Avram: “you shall surely know that your descendants will be strangers in a land which is not theirs,” that He used the most insignificant little creatures to do His bidding. When Joseph was sold and brought down to Egypt to be followed by his brothers and his father, the IOU described in Genesis 15,13 began to be paid. This is why Joseph’s descent is described in such terms as “he was brought down.”

Radak on Genesis 39:1:1

ויוסף הורד, although this had been mentioned already, it is mentioned again as the narrative continues now to concentrate on what happened to Joseph.

Rashbam on Genesis 39:1:1

שר הטבחים, he would execute the people sentenced as murderers and would generally be in charge of imprisoned criminals.

Rashi on Genesis 39:1:1

ויוסף הורד AND JOSEPH WAS BROUGHT DOWN — It (Scripture) now reverts to the original subject (and consequently it states ויוסף הורד “Joseph had been brought down to Egypt” before the events last mentioned); it interrupted it only in order to connect the account of the degradation of Judah (Genesis 38:1) with that of the sale of Joseph, thus suggesting that it was on account of him (i.e. Joseph — Judah’s part in the sale of Joseph — ) that they (his brothers) degraded him from his high position. A further reason why this narrative of Judah and Tamar is interpolated here is to place in juxtaposition the story of Potiphar’s wife and the story of Tamar, suggesting that just as this woman (Tamar) acted out of pure motives so also the other (Potiphar’s wife) acted out of pure motives, for she foresaw by her astrological speculations that she was destined to be the ancestress of children by him (Joseph) — but she did not know whether these children were to be hers or her daughter’s (Genesis Rabbah 85:2).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:1:1

Wiederholt wird von Potiphar hervorgehoben, daß er ein איש gewesen, eine Eigenschaft, die sich ja von einem Beamten am ägyptischen Hofe in מצרי Ägypten von selbst verstünde. Wir kennen jedoch den Gegensatz, in welchem die Ägypter zu dem ganzen übrigen Völkerkomplex gestanden, kennen insbesondere den Hochmut, mit welchem sie auf nomadische Völker hinabblickten. Einen noch tieferen Gegensatz bildet die Sitte und Lebensweise des Ägypters zu dem "ibrischen Jüngling" wie er später genannt wird. Das Wort מצרי weist uns auf diesen Gegensatz hin und macht uns die Versuchung klar, in welcher sich der Jüngling befinden musste, inmitten eines ägyptischen Hauses und bei einer ägyptischen Herrschaft der reine Jüngling zu bleiben, also, daß Gott ihn würdigte, ihm nahe zu sein. Es lässt uns dieses Wort auch das Übermaß von Geist und Geschicklichkeit erraten, das dazu gehörte, daß ein aus asiatisch nomadischen Händen gekaufter, asiatisch nomadischer Sklavenjüngling bei einem Potiphar, einem königlichen Beamten, der noch dazu ein Ägypter war, in solche Gunst gelangte.

Sforno on Genesis 39:1:1

ויוסף הורד, whereas Joseph was brought to Egypt against his will, Yehudah, at the same time exiled himself. During that period all the things related earlier had befallen Yehudah. During that period Joseph had been brought to Egypt by the Ishmaelites, the owners of the camels who were also agents acting on behalf of others.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:1:1

[Scripture now] returns to the earlier narrative, but only interrupted it... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise [there is a question:] Is it not already written, “The Midianites sold him [in Egypt to Potiphar]” (37:36)? Perforce, Scripture “only interrupted it to relate...” (Gur Aryeh)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:1:2

Also, in order to relate the narrative of Potiphar’s wife to the narrative of Tamar... You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this before, at the beginning of the section (38:1)? There, Rashi asks why Scripture interrupted to tell the narrative of Yehudah, and Rashi explains only that “his brothers demoted him,” but he did not bring this alternate explanation. The answer is: Before, one could have objected: how does Rashi know that Tamar had pure motives? But now that Rashi proves that her motive were pure, from the verse, “She is righteous, it is from me,” he therefore brings the explanation here. (Kitzur Mizrachi) Question: According to the first explanation, Scripture should have only interrupted [by telling the narrative of Yehudah] until, “Many days passed ... the wife of Yehudah died...” (38:12), where a different episode begins. Why did it not [return and] finish the narrative of Yoseif at that point? Rashi answers, “In order to connect the narrative of Potiphar’s wife to the narrative of Tamar.” But with this explanation only, [a question arises:] The narrative of Yehudah should begin with, “Many days passed ... the wife of Yehudah died...” Why begin with, “Yehudah descended from his brothers” (38:1)? [The answer is:] Perforce, to indicate that they demoted Yehudah. Accordingly, at the beginning of the section Rashi is explaining only why “Yehudah descended from his brothers” follows after Yoseif’s sale. Thus he wrote only the first explanation. But here Rashi is explaining the reason for the entire interruption, so he brings both explanations. (Gur Aryeh)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:1

Joseph was brought down to Egypt as a slave devoid of rights. Potifar, the courtier of Pharaoh, chief executioner, an Egyptian, bought him from the Ishmaelites, who had brought him down there.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 90

“Joseph was taken down to Egypt” [39:1]. Joseph came to Egypt into the house of Potiphar and everything that Joseph did, he had great luck and success.

Jewish Thought

The passage in Akeidat Yitzchak 34:1:12 discusses how the Jews had been suffering and complaining, but only when they called out to God for salvation did their prayers find an echo in God's ears. This was especially significant due to their enslavement, as worshiping God leads to a closer relationship and a response to entreaties. The word "avodah" in this context means "worshipping" rather than bondage.

Akeidat Yitzchak 34:1:12

(14) The passage about "these many days," refers back to the extended period starting with the death of "the good old Pharaoh." Ever since, Jews had sighed, i.e. complained about their suffering, but had not called out to G-d for salvation. Once they did appeal for salvation, i.e. vayitzaku, their prayer found an echo in G-d’s ears, especially so since it was min ha-avodah, because of the enslavement. They had ample justification for appealing to G-d to save them from such persecution. We find similar flashbacks in Genesis 39,1 (also Genesis 28,10, when the Torah reverts back to events previously discussed). The meaning of the word avodah the second time in our verse is "worshipping," not bondage. Once the relationship with G-d becomes one involving worship, then "G-d knew, G-d saw etc.", G-d will respond to entreaties.

Midrash

When Solomon built the Holy Temple, the gates were too small for the Ark, but after he prayed and humbled himself, the gates opened, and fire descended from heaven. Solomon's pride led to this ordeal, but it also led to the people realizing that God had atoned for David's sin. Joseph's descent to Egypt saved Israel from Gehenna, and his suffering led to a peaceful end. Judah's story is juxtaposed to Joseph's to show how he recognized his own wrongdoing. Joseph's time in prison was marked by his refusal to give in to temptation, and God was with him even in times of prosperity.

Aggadat Bereshit 61:1

Chapter (60) 61: Torah [1] And Joseph was brought down to Egypt (Genesis 39:1). This is what scriptures say: "Good is the man who sits alone and is silent, for he will bear the yoke upon himself. He will put his mouth to the dust and hope that there may be hope, because the Lord will not cast off forever" (Lamentations 3:27-29). "Good is the man" [who bears the yoke] "in his youth". Blessed is he who accepts suffering in his youth, for his end will be peaceful. Job's friends also said to him: "Why do you complain about the suffering that has come upon you? Rather, your end will be peaceful," as it is said: "Your beginning was small, but your end will be very great" (Job 8:7). The suffering that you are experiencing now will save you from Gehenna (Hell), and you will rest in Gan Eden (Paradise), as it is said: "And he also brought you out of distress into a broad place where there was no constraint" (Job 36:16). This is to save you from the narrow mouth of Gehenna, which is narrow from above but wide from below, as it is said: "The earth is dark and barren, like a shadow" (Job 10:22). The wicked are like birds in Gehenna, because there is no air or land there. Therefore, it is wide and not constrained below, and not only did the suffering that came upon you save you from Gehenna, but you rest in Gan Eden, as it is said: "And your table will be full of fatness" (Job 36:16). Therefore, "Good is the man" [who bears the yoke in youth] and so on. [Pirkei Avot 3:5]

Aggadat Bereshit 61:3

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:3

“On the seventh day…” – that is what is written: “Lift your heads, gates…” (Psalms 24:7). You find that when Solomon built the Temple, he sought to bring the Ark into the chamber of the Holy of Holies. At that moment, the gates clung together. Solomon uttered twenty-four supplications, from the verse “For will God indeed dwell…” (II Chronicles 6:18) until “Now, rise, Lord God, to Your resting place, You, and the ark of Your might…” (II Chronicles 6:41), twenty-four verses, but he was not answered. He then said: “Lift your heads, gates; be raised, [everlasting portals, so the King of glory may enter]” (Psalms 24:7), but was not answered. He then said: “Lift your heads, gates; raise yourselves, [everlasting portals, so the King of glory may enter]” (Psalms 24:9), but he was not answered. When he said: “Lord God, do not turn away the face of Your anointed; remember the acts of kindness of David Your servant” (II Chronicles 6:42), he was immediately answered, and the gates lifted their heads, the Ark entered, the Divine Presence rested in the Temple, and fire descended from heaven, as it is written thereafter: “When Solomon had concluded praying, the fire descended from heaven, and it consumed the burnt offering and the peace offerings, and the glory of the Lord filled the Temple” (II Chronicles 7:1). Why was Solomon tormented? It is because he had been arrogant and said: “I have built [ You an abode…” (I Kings 8:13). What is “I have built”? Rabbi Yaakov son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel said: I built a built building. (Solomon took credit for building a building in which his role was very limited.) Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: Everyone assists the king, all the more so that everyone assists the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, even spirits, even demons, and even angels. Rabbi Berekhya said: “The Temple in its construction…” (I Kings 6:7) – it is not written, “that they were building,” but rather, “in its construction” – it was constructed on its own. “Was built of whole stones that were transported” (I Kings 6:7) – it teaches that the stone would transport itself, ascend, and be placed atop the course of stones. Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not wonder; is it not written: “One stone was brought and was placed over the mouth of the den” (Daniel 6:18). Are there stones in Babylon? (There are no mountains there from which to hew stones.) Rather, it teaches that it stood from the Land of Israel and came and settled over the mouth of the den. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Yosef: An angel descended at that moment and appeared in the image of a stone lion and settled on the mouth of the pit. That is what is written: “My God sent His angel, and he shut the lions’ mouths, and they did not harm me” (Daniel 6:23). If for the glory of flesh and blood one stone was brought, for the glory of the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He all the more so. That is why it is stated: “Lift your heads, gates” (Psalms 24:7). What is, “so the King of glory [hakavod] may enter” (Psalms 24:9)? Rabbi Simon said: Why is the Holy One blessed be He called the King of glory? He is the King who accords honor [kavod] to those who fear Him. Rabbi Simon said: It is written: “The people did not travel until Miriam’s readmission” (Numbers 12:15) – it teaches that the cloud lingered on her account. Rabbi Luleyani in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: It is written: “Moses would speak, and God would respond to him with a voice” (Exodus 19:19). It is not written here, “God would speak, and Moses would respond to him with a voice,” but rather, “Moses would speak, and God would respond to him with a voice.” It teaches that He would speak with him in Moses’ voice. Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Simon: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). What is written? “God was with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Aivu: I have derived only in good times, in times of trouble from where is it derived? “The warden of the prison did not oversee anything that was in his (Joseph’s) charge, for the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39:23). Another matter: “King of glory” (Psalms 24:9) – all the Tabernacle vessels were covered with taḥash hides on top of them. Regarding the Ark, it is written: “They shall spread an entirely sky-blue woolen cloth over it” (Numbers 4:6). Why to that extent? It is so the Ark would be distinctive. That is, “so the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9). Another matter: “King of glory” (Psalms 24:9) – Ḥizkiya said: In what way is the sky-blue dye different from all other dyes, that the Holy One blessed be He commanded that it should be in ritual fringes? It is because the sky-blue dye [tekhelet] is like grass, (While tekhelet is usually translated as “sky-blue,” tekhelet can also encompass the color green.) grass is like the sea, the sea is like the firmament, the firmament is like the rainbow, the rainbow is like the cloud, the cloud is like the Throne, and the Throne is like the Glory, as it is stated: “Like the appearance of the rainbow that is in the cloud…[thus…the likeness of the appearance of the Glory of God]” (Ezekiel 1:28). He allotted to those who fear Him sky-blue dye, which is a microcosm of His glory, as it is stated: “They shall place on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (Numbers 15:38). That is, “so the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9), as He accords glory to those who fear Him. Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – Rabbi Avin said: He allots of His glory to those who fear Him. A king of flesh and blood, one may not ride his horse, one may not sit on his throne, one may not use his scepter, one does not wear his garment. But the Holy One blessed be He is not so. Regarding the Holy One blessed be He it is written: “He soared on wings of wind” (Psalms 18:11), and it says: “In a storm and in a tempest is His way” (Nahum 1:3), and he gave it to Elijah, as it is stated: “Elijah went up in a tempest to the heavens” (II Kings 2:11). A king of flesh and blood, one may not sit on his throne, but regarding Solomon it is written: “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23). He gave His scepter to Moses, as it is stated: “Moses took the staff from before the Lord” (Numbers 20:9). The garment of the Holy One blessed be He is glory and grandeur, as it is stated: “You donned glory and grandeur” (Psalms 104:1), and he gave it to the messianic king, as it is stated: “You bestow glory and grandeur upon him” (Psalms 21:6). Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – as He accorded honor to Joseph the righteous because he feared God, as it is stated: “God I fear” (Genesis 42:18), as it was on his behalf that the Lord rested [His Divine Presence] upon his master, as it is stated: “His master saw that the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39:3). Rabbi Avin HaLevi ben Rabbi said: Joseph would bless the Holy One blessed be He for each and every act that he would perform. His master would see him whispering with his mouth and would say to him: What are you saying? He would respond to him and say: I am blessing the Holy One blessed be He. He said to him: I wish to see Him. Joseph said to him: The sun is one of several of His attendants, and you are unable to look at it; how will you be able to look at His glory? The Holy One blessed be He said to him: As you live, in your honor, I will reveal Myself to him, as it is stated: “His master saw that the Lord was with him.” Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – as He accorded honor to those who fear Him. Joseph the righteous feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “How could I perform this great evil, and sin against God” (Genesis 39:9)? He accorded honor to the Holy One blessed be He in that he did not touch her, because of his fear of Him. He said to him: As you live, I will repay your descendant, as I will grant him permission to present his offering on My holy day, and he will not be harmed. That is what is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim…”

Bereshit Rabbah 85:2

“It was at that time” – the verse should have said only: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). (This verse, describing the sale of Joseph to Potifar in Egypt, is the direct continuation of chapter 37, which concludes with Joseph being brought down to Egypt. This narrative is interrupted by the story of Judah in chapter 38. ) Why, then, did it juxtapose this portion to that one? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Elazar said: In order to juxtapose descent to descent. (The story of Judah’s descent is embedded within the story of Joseph’s descent to imply that Judah lost stature among his brothers due to the sale of Joseph, when they saw how much pain it caused their father (Yefe To’ar). ) Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In order to juxtapose “identify” (Genesis 37:32) to “identify” (Genesis 38:25). (Because Judah was responsible for the sale of Joseph, in which the brothers asked Jacob to identify Joseph’s tunic, he experienced the embarrassment of having to admit his error when Tamar asked him to identify the possessions he had left with her (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose the incident of Tamar to the incident of Potifar’s wife. Just as this one, [Tamar, acted] for the sake of Heaven, so too, that one, [Potifar’s wife, acted] for the sake of Heaven, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: She saw through her astrology that she was destined to bring forth a child from him, but she did not know whether it would be from her or from her daughter. That is what is written: “[The astrologers, the stargazers,] who foretell by the new moons of that which will befall you” (Isaiah 47:13). Rabbi Aivu said: [They foretell] “of that which [will befall you]” but not all that [will befall you]. (They do not provide all the details.) Similarly, “[They were both naked, the man and his wife,] and they were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25), “the serpent was…cunning” (Genesis 3:1). The verse should have said only: “The Lord God made for Adam and for his wife [hide tunics, and clothed them]” (Genesis 3:21). (Why is the story of the serpent inserted in between the verse stating that Adam and Eve were naked and the verse stating that God clothed them? ) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: It is to inform you for what reason that wicked one [the serpent] accosted them; because it saw them engaged in conjugal relations, it lusted after them. Rabbi Yaakov of Kefar Ḥanin said: So as not to end with the portion of the serpent. (The verse regarding the hide tunics was placed after the incident of the serpent so as not to conclude a passage with God’s curses, given in the aftermath of the story of the serpent. ) Similarly, “[Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt, and glorify the King of heaven…] and He is able to humble those who walk in arrogance” (Daniel 4:34), “King Belshatzar” (Daniel 5:1) and “Darius the Mede” (Daniel 6:1). Where is Evil Merodakh? (The text proceeds from discussing Nebuchadnezzar to King Belshatzar and to Darius the Mede, while skipping Evil Merodakh, who reigned between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshatzar. ) Rabbi Elazar said: To juxtapose a wicked one to a wicked one, a tormentor to a tormentor, a conceited one to a conceited one. (Both Nebuchadnezzar and his grandson Belshatzar were wicked, tormentors, and conceited.) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose a reign that was truncated to a reign that was truncated. Similarly, “During that night, Belshatzar the Chaldean king was killed” (Daniel 5:30), “and Darius the Mede [received the kingdom]” (Daniel 6:1). Where is [the chapter beginning:] “In the third year of the reign of King Belshatzar” (Daniel 8:1)? (Why does this chapter, which is set during the reign of Belshatzar, not precede the transition in the text to the reign of Darius? ) Rav Huna said: So that they will not say that this is mere literature; so that everyone will know that he said it through the divine spirit. (At times, works composed with the divine spirit arrange events out of chronological order for esoteric reasons (Maharzu). ) The Rabbis say: In order to indicate regarding the whole book that it was stated through the divine spirit. Here too, it should have said: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1), but it is written: “Judah descended from his brothers.” [Judah] said [to his brothers]: (This is an additional insight into the phrase “Judah descended from his brothers” (Yefe To’ar). ) ‘Let us disperse ourselves, for so long as we are together, the promissory note is liable to be collected.’ (Since we sinned together in the sale of Joseph, it would be fitting for the punishment to occur when we are all together (Etz Yosef). Alternatively, the promissory note refers to the prophecy to Abraham that his descendants would be oppressed in a foreign land. Judah sensed that the departure of Joseph might eventually lead to their all descending to exile. That would be more likely to occur if they were all together (Yefe To’ar). ) The Holy One blessed be He said to them: If ten people were implicated for robbery, can one not be apprehended for the act of them all? (I can punish each of you separately, or I can punish even just one of you for the entire episode. ) When they were implicated regarding the goblet, they said: “God has found [matza] the iniquity of your servants” (Genesis 44:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The creditor has found the opportunity to collect on his promissory note. Rabbi Levi said: Like this one who empties [mematze] the barrel and leaves it with only its dregs. (God is punishing us for the sin in its entirety, to the last drop. ) The Rabbis say: (The Rabbis say another reason for the juxtaposition of the story of Judah descending from his brothers and marrying, to the story of the sale of Joseph. ) [Judah said:] ‘Come and let us provide for ourselves. In the past, he [Jacob] would have felt obligated to arrange for us to marry wives, but now he is preoccupied with his sackcloth and fasting. It is not right that he should engage in [arranging for us to marry wives.’ They said to Judah: ‘Are you not the leader of us all? You arise and provide for yourself.’ Immediately, “Judah descended” – it is a descent for him that he married a gentile woman. It is a descent for him that he buried his wife and his sons.

Bereshit Rabbah 86:1

“Joseph was taken down to Egypt and Potiphar, the official of Pharaoh, the chief executioner, an Egyptian man, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him down there” (Genesis 39:1). “Joseph was taken down to Egypt.” It is written: “With ropes of man I drew them, [with bonds of love; I was for them like those who lift the yoke above their jaws, and I leaned to them to provide food]” (Hosea 11:4) – these are Israel, [as it is stated]: “Draw me; after you I will run” (Song of Songs 1:4). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – as it is written: “I loved you, said the Lord” (Malachi 1:2). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea 11:4) – as I elevated their enemies over them. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that they expressed with their jaws, as they said: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:8). (This was stated by the Israelites as they committed the sin of the Golden Calf. ) But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food” (Hosea 11:4) – I provide them with many foods to eat; “There will be abundance of grain in the land” (Psalms 72:16). Another matter, “with ropes of man I drew them [emshakhem]” (Hosea 11:4) – this is Joseph, [as it is stated]: “They pulled [vayimshekhu] and lifted Joseph from the pit” (Genesis 37:28). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – “Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea11:4) – as I elevated his enemies over him. Who was that? It was Potiphar’s wife. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that he expressed with his jaws – “Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food (Hosea 11:4) – an abundance of food. (Eventually, after his actions caused him to be brought down to Egypt, Joseph ended up providing food for his entire family, as well as for the entire population of Egypt and other lands. )

Bereshit Rabbah 86:2

Another matter, “Joseph was taken down to Egypt.” “Joseph was the ruler” (Genesis 42:6). “Joseph was taken down [hurad] to Egypt” – he ruled over them, just as it says: “He will rule [veyerd] from sea to sea” (Psalms 72:8). He subdued them, just as it says: “For he had dominion [rodeh] over the entire region across the River” (I Kings 5:4). He imposed relocation upon them, (See Genesis 47:21. ) just as it says: “He scraped it [vayirdehu] into his hands” (Judges 14:9). He caused Jacob our patriarch to descend [horid] to Egypt. Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon: This is analogous to a cow that they were pulling to the slaughterhouse, but it would not be pulled. What did they do to it? They pulled its offspring before it, and it was walking after it despite itself, and to its [ultimate] detriment. So, Jacob was supposed to descend to Egypt in chains and neck chains. (This is because of the decree of enslavement in the Covenant between the Pieces (see Genesis 15:13).) The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘Shall I take My firstborn son down [to Egypt] in disgrace? And if I introduce it into Pharaoh’s heart, would I not be taking him down [to Egypt] in public? (If I introduce it into Pharaoh’s heart to bring Jacob down to Egypt in an honorable fashion, the public nature of the spectacle of his leaving the Land of Israel would itself cause Jacob great discomfort (Etz Yosef). ) Instead, I will draw his son before him, and he will descend after him despite himself and to his [ultimate] detriment.’ He took down the Divine Presence with him. Rabbi Pinḥas said in the name of Rabbi Simon: From where do we derive that the Divine Presence descended with him? From what is written: “The Lord was with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). “To Egypt [Mitzraima]” – it is taught in the name of Rabbi Neḥemya: Any word that requires a lamed at its start, a heh [can be] placed at its end [instead]: Sedoma, Se’ira, Mitzraima, Ḥarana. (The lamed as a prefix or the heh as a suffix both mean “to.” These are examples where the verse uses the heh at the end of the name of the place, indicating “to Sodom” and the like. ) But is it not written: “The wicked will return to the netherworld [lishola]”? (Psalms 9:18). (Lishola has both a lamed at the start and a heh at the end.) Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said: [They will be sent] to the lowest compartment in the netherworld.

Bereshit Rabbah 86:3

“[Potiphar...an Egyptian man,] purchased him [from the Ishmaelites]” – those who were acquired were acquiring. (The Ishmaelites descend from Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant, and the Egyptians descend from Ḥam, of whom it is stated: “A slave of slaves he shall be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25), and they were the ones purchasing and selling Joseph.) All slaves damage the household of their masters. But this one – “the Lord blessed the house of the Egyptian for Joseph’s sake” (Genesis 39:5). All slaves are suspected of robbery, but this one: “Joseph collected all the silver…[Joseph brought the silver to Pharoah’s house]” (Genesis 47:14). All slaves are suspected of licentiousness, but this one: “But he did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10). Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: All slaves, their master feeds teruma to their slaves, but this one fed his master teruma, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Elazar took a wife from the daughters of Joseph. (Joseph was married to Potiphar’s daughter, so Potiphar’s granddaughter married Elazar, the son of Aaron, and ate teruma.) Potiphar is “Potifera” (Genesis 41:45). Potiphar – because he would fatten [mefatem] calves for idol worship. Potifera – because he would defecate [pore’a atzmo] for idol worship. (Defacation in front of the idol of Baal Peor was a form of its worship (see Sanhedrin 60b). ) When the bull [par] (Joseph, who was likened to a bull; see Deuteronomy 33:17.) descended there, [Potiphar] became wealthy. (Translation follows Matnot Kehuna. Alternatively, he became an officer, or a eunuch. ) “The official of [seris] Pharaoh” – he was castrated [nistares]. This teaches that [Potiphar] purchased [Joseph] only for intercourse, but the Holy One blessed be He castrated him. This is analogous to a she-bear that was killing its master’s children. He said: ‘Break its teeth.’ So, it teaches that [Potiphar] purchased him only for intercourse, and the Holy One blessed be He castrated him. That is what is written: “For the Lord loves justice [and does not forsake] His pious ones [ḥasidav]” (Psalms 37:28). Ḥasido is written. (The word ḥasidav is written with only one vav, such that it can be read ḥasido, “His pious one,” in singular. It should be noted however that the Masoretic text of Psalms actually has the word ḥasidav with two vavs. The midrash here cites a different tradition. Alternatively, in Midrash Shmuel the version of the text cites I Samuel 2:9 rather than Psalms, and in that verse the word in fact appears as ḥasido, with one vav (Etz Yosef). ) Who is that? It is Joseph. “They are guarded forever, while the seed of the wicked is cut off” (Psalms 37:28) – this teaches that [Potiphar] purchased him only for intercourse, and the Holy One blessed be He castrated him. “Potiphar…an Egyptian man, purchased him [from [miyad] the Ishmaelites]” – a clever man. What was his cleverness? He said: In every place, a German sells a Cushite, (A white man sells a man of dark complexion (Matnot Kehuna). ) but here, a Cushite is selling a German? This is no slave. He said to them: ‘Bring me a guarantor,’ as the term “from [miyad]” is nothing other than a guarantor, just as it says: “I will guarantee him, [from me [miyadi] you can demand him]” (Genesis 43:9). That is why it says: “From [miyad] the Ishmaelites.” Rabbi Levi said: A slave purchased, the son of a maidservant sold, and a free man was a slave to both of them. (Potiphar, the Egyptian, was a descendant of Canaan, who was cursed by Noah to be a slave (see Genesis 9:25). The Ishmaelites were sons of Hagar, described as a maidservant to Sarah (see Genesis 16:2). Joseph was, by birth, a free man. )

Bereshit Rabbah 87:10

“The Lord was with Joseph, and extended him kindness, and placed his favor in the eyes of the commander of the prison” (Genesis 39:21). “The commander of the prison placed in Joseph's charge all the prisoners who were in the prison, and everything that they did there, he would determine” (Genesis 39:22). “The Lord was with Joseph...the commander of the prison placed…” (Rav Huna understands that the commander of the prison was none other than Potiphar himself. This is based on the fact that Joseph was in the prison of the chief executioner (Genesis 40:3), an appellation earlier applied to Potiphar (Genesis 39:1). Rav Huna asserts that Potiphar still had Joseph go and attend to a variety of tasks in his own home, where his wife would continue to harass Joseph (Maharzu). ) – Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: His service was pleasant for his master, and he would go out and rinse his drinking glasses, set the tables, and make the beds. She would say to him: ‘In this matter, I mistreated [ashaktikha] you. As you live, I will mistreat you regarding other matters.’ (She continued to proposition him and to threaten him if he would not submit to her demands.) He would say to her: ‘[God] “Performs justice for the oppressed [laashukim]”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will reduce your sustenance.’ He would say to her: ‘[God] “Provides food for the hungry”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will shackle you.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord frees the imprisoned”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will cause you to be bent over.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord straightens the bent”’ (Psalms 146:8). [She would say:] ‘I will blind your eyes.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord opens the eyes of the blind”’ (Psalms 146:8). How far did she go? Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: She placed an iron bar beneath his neck until he would direct his glance toward her and look at her. Nevertheless, he would not look at her. That is what is written: “They tortured his legs with chains; his body was placed in iron” (Psalms 105:18). “The commander of the prison did not oversee anything that was in his charge, for the Lord was with him, and everything that he did, the Lord made successful for him” (Genesis 39:23). “The commander of the prison did not…” – until now, [this has been stated] regarding times of trouble; from where is it derived that [God was with Joseph] even in times of prosperity? The verse states: “And everything that he did, the Lord made successful for him.”

Bereshit Rabbah 91:1

“Jacob saw that there was grain in Egypt, and Jacob said to his sons: Why do you make yourselves conspicuous?” (Genesis 42:1). “Jacob saw that there was grain [shever] in Egypt” – “Happy is he whose help is from the God of Jacob, whose hope [sivro] is in the Lord his God” (Psalms 146:5). “Jacob saw that there was grain in Egypt” – “Behold, He demolishes, and it will not be rebuilt” (Job 12:14) – once the Holy One blessed be He stymied the intention of the tribes, (The plan of Joseph’s brothers to kill him. ) it was not restored. “He shuts a man in, and it will not be opened” (Job 12:14) – these are the ten tribes, who were entering and exiting Egypt, and they did not know that Joseph was alive. But it was revealed to Jacob that Joseph was alive, as it is stated: “Jacob saw that there was shever in Egypt” – “that there was disaster [shever]” (The word shever, generally translated in Genesis 42:1 to mean grain, can also mean disaster; see, e.g., Lamentations 2:11. ) – this is the famine; “that there was hope [sever]” (The midrash interprets the verse as though it said “hope [sever],” because the letters shin and sin are interchangeable. ) – this is the plenty. “That there was disaster [shever]” – “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1); “that there was hope [sever]” – “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). “That there was disaster [shever]” – “they will be enslaved to them and they will oppress them” (Genesis 15:13); “that there was hope [sever]” – “then they will emerge with great wealth” (Genesis 15:14). “Who says to the sun and it does not shine” (Job 9:7) – this is Jacob; “and seals the stars” (Job 9:7) – these are the ten tribes, who were entering and exiting Egypt, and they did not know that Joseph was alive. (The verse in Job is thus understood to mean that God withheld the full “shine” of the divine spirit from Jacob, and although he had a sense that Joseph was alive, he did not have clear knowledge of the matter. On the other hand, God withheld this sense entirely from Joseph’s brothers (Etz Yosef). ) But it was revealed to Jacob that Joseph was alive.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 1:50

Said R. Juda in the name of Rab: "Why was Joseph called bones while yet alive?" Because he did not protest when the honor of his father was disparaged. For, his brothers said to him (Gen. 44, 27) And thy servant our father said, "and he did not protest in the least." R. Juda said again in the name of R. Chama b. Chanina: "Why did Joseph die before his brothers? Because he assumed airs of superiority." (Gen. 39, 1) And Joseph was brought down to Egypt. Said R. Elazar: "Do not read Horad (that he was brought down) but read Horid (he caused to bring down others) i.e., he caused the removal of the astrologers of Egypt from their high positions."

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 14; The Meaning of a Chronological Problem; Connecting Yosef and Yehuda 107

Because R. Elazar does not elaborate the meaning of the connection he has raised, we need to re-examine the relevant verses to determine the significance of the parallel being drawn. (This is yet another example of techniques used by Hazal to engage the reader in interaction with their commentary and with the biblical text.) Yehuda’s descent is described in Genesis 38:1: “And it was at that time, and Yehuda went down from [being with] his brothers” (…vayered Yehuda me’et ehav). Yosef’s descent appears in Genesis 39:1: “And Yosef was brought down to Egypt…” (veYosef hurad Mitzraima).

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 14; The Meaning of a Chronological Problem; Connecting Yosef and Yehuda 179

In lines 46–48, the midrash returns to the verses with which it began (We should note that in bringing us back to the verses they began explicating, the midrashic editors in effect bring us back to the first midrashic commentary on the link between the two stories, i.e., R. Elazar’s statement that the stories are juxtaposed to connect the two descents.) : “And Yosef was brought down to Egypt…” (Genesis 39:1) and “And Yehuda went down from [being with] his brothers…” (Genesis 38:1). (The order of the verses is reversed here, with the verse from Genesis 39 preceding the one from Genesis 38. Perhaps this is yet another subtle reminder that sequential ordering is not always the most important way to connect events.) The remainder of the midrash then presents two more perspectives on the connection between these verses.

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 14; The Meaning of a Chronological Problem; Connecting Yosef and Yehuda 5

The Yosef narrative is marked by a glaring textual difficulty – the insertion of the Yehuda/Tamar episode at a critical moment in the description of Yosef’s sale into slavery. The events leading up to the sale of Yosef begin in Genesis 37:12. (Please read Genesis 37:12 through Genesis 39:1 for a complete grasp of the midrashic discussion.) Genesis 37:19–28 describes the brothers’ initial plan to kill Yosef and the discussion that leads first to their casting him into the pit, and then to the final decision to sell him. Verses 29–35 describe the aftermath of that decision and its particular effects upon Reuven and Yaakov. Verse 36 ends the passage (Fortuitously for our purposes, in the case of chapters 37–39, there is agreement between the traditional Jewish divisions of the biblical text (according to parasha, indicated by the spacing in the Torah scroll) and the later Christian divisions (indicated by chapter and verse numberings). The Christian numbering of chapters and verses is employed virtually everywhere in the Jewish world as a useful convention for ordering the Tanakh. In these three chapters at least, the chapter divisions reflect the Jewish tradition, which makes it easier to show the interpretive problems posed by the interpolation of the Tamar and Yehuda story into the Yosef narrative.) with the statement: “And the Midianites sold him [Yosef] to Egypt, to Potiphar, Par’oh’s chamberlain, the chief executioner.”

Midrash Aggadah, Genesis 39:1:1

And Joseph was brought down to Egypt." The descent is connected to another descent:

Midrash Aggadah, Genesis 39:1:2

Alternatively, "He descended to Egypt." Do not read "descended" but rather "caused the Divine Presence to descend to Egypt."

Midrash Aggadah, Genesis 39:1:3

Alternatively, "that Jacob, his father, caused to descend to Egypt."

Midrash Aggadah, Genesis 39:1:4

"And Potiphar, Pharaoh's chamberlain." Potiphar is Poti-phera (Genesis 41:50). Why is he called Potiphar? Because he fattenedthe calves for idolatry.

Midrash Aggadah, Genesis 39:1:5

"An Egyptian man." A cunning man. What was his cunning? In every place, an Egyptian was sold as a Cushite, and here a Cushite was sold as an Egyptian.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 11:3

Another interpretation (of Is. 55:8): FOR MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT < YOUR THOUGHTS >. In the case of Joseph, his brothers sold him to the Midianites, and the Midianites sold him unto the Egyptians. Before Joseph went away, Judah went away to prepare for the final redeemer, i.e., the Messianic King, (I.e., through a marriage out of which would come the Messianic King. See Gen. R. 85:1.) [for out of him would the Messianic King come forth]. "That Judah went" is not written here, but THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY. R. Johanan said: The one going away depends upon the other. The going away of Judah depends upon the going away of Joseph. (Gen. R. 85:2.) (Gen. 39:1:) WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN AWAY TO EGYPT < corresponds to > (Gen. 38:1) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY. Similarly you say on the matter (in Dan. 5:30): IN THAT VERY NIGHT WAS BELSHAZZAR THE CHALDEAN KING SLAIN. What is written next (in Dan. 6:1 [5:31])? AND DARIUS THE MEDE RECEIVED THE KINGDOM. The one destroyer depends upon the other, the destroyer of a house upon the destroyer of a house, the cessation of a kingdom upon the cessation of a kingdom.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 14:1

(Gen. 39:1:) WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT, < POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH AND CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD, BOUGHT HIM >. This text is related (to Ps. 37:28): FOR THE LORD LOVES JUSTICE AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS. Why does the Holy One love justice? Because he is called the Lord of Justice where it is stated (in Is. 30:18): FOR THE LORD IS A GOD OF JUSTICE. It also says (in Deut. 32:41): MY HAND LAYS HOLD ON JUSTICE.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 14:3

Another interpretation (of Ps. 37:28): FOR THE LORD LOVES JUSTICE < AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS >. [THEY ARE PROTECTED FOREVER]. < The verse > speaks about Joseph. And how did he protect him? [See] what is written (in Gen. 37:28): WHEN MIDIANITE TRADERS PASSED BY, < THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, THEN SOLD JOSEPH FOR TWENTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE ISHMAELITES >. And with what were they laden? (Gen. R. 84:17.) Now is it not the custom for camels to bear only < foul-smelling > 'itran? (One of various kinds of tar products or tree resin used for lighting, etc.) Yet it is written here (in Gen. 37:25): < WITH THEIR CAMELS BEARING > SPICE, BALSAM, AND LABDANUM! It is simply that the Holy One said: Should this righteous man be set in the midst of a bad odor? Instead, I will order a good odor for him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28) AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS. (Ibid., cont.:) BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. This refers to Potiphar, who did not take him for work but for something else. (I.e., for sodomy. So Rashi on Sot. 13b; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 39:1; Gen. R. 86:3.) What did the Holy One do? He castrated him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28): BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. Now CUT OFF only denotes castration. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 22:24): < ANYTHING WITH ITS TESTICLES > CRUSHED, SMASHED, TORN OUT, OR CUT OFF < YOU SHALL NOT OFFER TO THE LORD >. And where is it shown that he was not a eunuch < already >, but that the Holy One had castrated him? Where it is stated (in Gen. 39:1): < WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT >, POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 15:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT. This text is related (to Eccl. 10:7): I HAVE SEEN SLAVES ON HORSEBACK. This refers to Nebuchadnezzar, the one who destroyed the temple. When he did not enter it because he was afraid, what did Michael do? He came down, seized his horse, and brought him into the Holy of Holies. So the Holy Spirit says (ibid.): I HAVE SEEN SLAVES ON HORSEBACK, < and > this refers to Nebuchadnezzar. (Ibid., cont.:) AND PRINCES WALKING LIKE SLAVES UPON THE GROUND. This refers to Michael, as stated (in Dan. 10:21): < AND NO ONE IS MAKING EFFORTS ALONG WITH ME AGAINST THESE > (the princes of Persia and Greece) EXCEPT YOUR PRINCE, MICHAEL.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 15:3

(Gen. 39:1:) WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT. The tribe was brought down to Egypt. To what is the matter compared? To a cow. (Tanh., Gen. 9:4; Gen. R. 86:2; M. Pss. 105:5.) When they wanted to bring her to the makellon (The word is Greek.) {i.e., the slaughterhouse}, she did not want to go in. What did they do? They took her offspring {to the slaughterhouse} and brought it to the makellon. When her offspring began to low, its mother unwillingly entered after it. So < it was with > our father Jacob and his children. They were the cow, as stated (in Hos. 4:16): FOR < ISRAEL HAS BALKED > LIKE A BALKY COW. Now Joseph went down to Egypt first in order to fulfill a decree which had been decreed about the patriarch, as stated (in Gen. 15:13): WHERE THEY SHALL SERVE THEM AND BE OPPRESSED BY THEM. When Jacob was afraid to go down, what did the Holy One do? He brought Joseph down to Egypt, and drew his father unwillingly. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 16:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN < TO EGYPT, POTIPHAR … BOUGHT HIM >. What is the meaning of WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN? That he moved the Egyptians from place to place. < It is > just as you say (in Gen. 47:21): HE REMOVED THE PEOPLE BY CITIES < FROM ONE END OF EGYPT'S BORDER TO THE OTHER >. Thus he was taking them up from here and putting them there so that they would not taunt the Israelites by calling them exiles < and > children of exiles. (Hul. 60b; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 47:21; Frag. (Jerusalem) Targum, Gen. 47:21.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 16:2

(Gen. 39:1, cont.:) POTIPHAR … BOUGHT HIM. Why was he named Potiphar (rt.: PTPR). Because he fattened (rt.: PTM) bulls (rt.: PR) for idol worship. (Gen. R. 86:3.)

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 16:4

(Gen. 39:1, cont.:) < POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH AND > CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD, < BOUGHT HIM >; nevertheless (according to vs. 2): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH, < AND HE WAS A SUCCESSFUL MAN >. R. Abbahu said: Do I only have < evidence that the Lord was with him > in prosperity? Where is it shown < that the Lord was with him >, even in trouble? See, he wrote (in vs. 20): SO JOSEPH'S MASTER TOOK HIM AND PUT HIM IN PRISON. Nevertheless (according to vs. 21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH. R. Abbahu said: You have someone who loves his friend in prosperity. When trouble came to him, he acted as though he did not know him. But the Holy One is not like that. Rather (according to Gen. 39:20-21): WHILE HE WAS THERE IN PRISON, THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH. < Both > in trouble and in prosperity, he was with him.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 18:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT. This text is related (to Hos. 11:4): WITH HUMAN TIES I DREW THEM IN, WITH BANDS OF LOVE. (See Gen. R. 86:1.) Israel would have deservedly gone down to Egypt in chains and collaria, (The Latin word means “neck chains.”) just as they went down to Babylon, had not Joseph gone first. All that happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (See below, 11:11.) That which is written of Joseph is written of Zion. It is written of Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written of Zion (in Lam. 2:15): A PERFECTION OF BEAUTY. For this reason Jacob was afraid to go down to Egypt: Because it had been decreed over Abraham (in Gen. 15:13): KNOW FULL WELL THAT YOUR SEED SHALL BE ALIEN IN A LAND < NOT THEIRS WHERE THEY SHALL SERVE THEM AND BE OPPRESSED BY THEM >. So he dwelt in the land of Canaan. They came and said to him: Joseph was sold when he resembled a bull. It is so stated (of Joseph in Deut. 33:17): LIKE A FIRSTLING BULL HE HAS MAJESTY. And here he is ensconced in Egypt (Gen. 45:26)! When Jacob heard this, he said: See, I am going down to Egypt even though I am paying Abraham's bill (of indebtedness). Immediately (it says in Gen. 45:28): THEN ISRAEL SAID: ENOUGH, MY SON JOSEPH IS ALIVE. < I WILL GO AND SEE HIM BEFORE I DIE >. Immediately all the tribes went down with him. Who caused them to go down to Egypt? Joseph. (Hos. 11:4:) WITH HUMAN TIES I DREW THEM IN. This < HUMAN > is Joseph. (Gen. 39:1:) WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 19:1

[Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT.] This text is related (to Cant. 8:6): FOR LOVE IS AS STRONG AS DEATH. Love is what Jacob had for Rachel, as stated (in Gen. 29:18): AND JACOB LOVED RACHEL. (Cant. 8:6, cont.): JEALOUSY IS AS SEVERE AS SHEOL. Thus Rachel was jealous of her sister. So what is LOVE doing beside JEALOUSY (in the same verse)?

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 20:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT. There were three natures within him. < He was > a Torah scholar, a prophet, and one who nourished his brothers. < He was > a Torah scholar, for it is so written (in Gen. 37:3): BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE (ZEN). (ZQN here is interpreted in the Talmud as an abbreviation (notarikon) for Zeh Sheqanah Hokhmah, which means, “This is the one who has acquired wisdom.” See Qid. 32b. See also Targum Onqelos, Gen. 37:3: BECAUSE HE WAS A WISE SON TO HIM.) It is also written (in Deut. 32:7): ASK YOUR FATHER, AND HE WILL INFORM YOU; [YOUR ELDERS (rt.: ZQN), AND THEY WILL TELL YOU]. And where is it shown that he was prophet? Where it is stated (in Gen. 37:2): SINCE HE WAS A YOUTH WITH THE CHILDREN OF BILHAH…. It is also written (in Exod. 33:11): HIS ATTENDANT, JOSHUA BIN NUN, A YOUTH. Again it is written (in I Sam. 2:21): AND THE YOUTH SAMUEL GREW UP. (Since prophets like Joshua and Samuel are called youths, the designation must mean that Joseph also was a prophet.) And where is it shown that he fed his brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 50:21): SO NOW, FEAR NOT; I WILL NOURISH YOU….

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 21:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT…. What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 38:29)? AND IT CAME TO PASS THAT, AS HE DREW BACK HIS HAND < … > [SO HIS NAME WAS CALLED PEREZ]. Here is kingship (according to Ruth 4:18): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF PEREZ. (The biblical text continues with a genealogy from Perez to David.) (Gen. 38:30:) THEN AFTERWARDS HIS BROTHER CAME OUT. Here is a priest. Then afterwards (in Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT, the Holy One simply brought them the good news that, wherever they went, they would have the services of a king and a priest. How so? In Egypt < they had > a king and a priest, as stated (in Exod. 7:8): NOW THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON…. Also in their Exodus < they had a king and a priest > (according to Ps. 77:21 [20]): YOU LED YOUR PEOPLE LIKE A FLOCK BY THE HAND OF MOSES AND AARON.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 3:1

And Joseph was brought down into Egypt (Gen. 39:1). May it please our master to teach us whether one may recite the Havdalah prayer at the expiration of the Sabbath with a light used by an idolater? Thus did our masters teach us: It is forbidden to recite the Havdalah prayer with a light used by an idolater. Why? Because it (the light) does not rest from its work. (It remains a light used for idolatry. B. Berakhot 53b.) Furthermore, if you did recite the Havdalah prayer with a light used by an idolater, you would be treating the idolater as though he deserved to be highly regarded, and Scripture states: All the nations are as nothing before Him (Isa. 40:17).

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 3:2

It is related that when Antoninus came to Caesarea he summoned our saintly Rabbi. His son, R. Simeon, and the illustrious R. Hiyya accompanied him. R. Simeon noticed the handsome, distinguished-looking legionary, whose head reached the capitals of the columns, and he said to R. Hiyya: “See how fat the calves of Esau are.” Whereupon R. Hiyya took him to the marketplace and pointed out baskets of grapes and figs covered with flies, and said to him: “These flies and these legionaries are one and the same.” When R. Simeon returned to his father he told him: “This is what I said to R. Hiyya, and this is how he answered me.” “R. Hiyya,” he replied, “was only substantially correct in comparing the legionaries to the flies, for the legionaries are considered as nothing (before God), while the Holy One, blessed be He, used flies as His emissaries,” as it is said: And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall hiss for the fly that is in the uppermost parts of the river of Egypt (Isa. 7:18), and also: And I will send the hornet before thee (Exod. 23;28). Proof of this is that at the time when the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to fulfill the decree: Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger (Gen. 15:13), He selected as his emissary one from the smallest tribe. And so Joseph was sold into Egypt, and later Jacob and his sons went there to fulfill the decree. Therefore it is written: And Joseph was brought down into Egypt (Gen. 39:1).

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 4:1

And Joseph was brought down into Egypt (Gen. 39:1). Scripture states elsewhere in reference to this verse: Come and see the works of God; he acts circuitously in His doings toward the children of man (Ps. 66:5). R. Joshua the son of Karha declared: Even the fearful experiences You inflicted upon us, You brought about circuitously. For example, when the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world, He fashioned the angel of death on the first day. Whence do we know that? R. Berechiah said: We know it from the verse And darkness was on the face of the deep (Gen. 1:2). Darkness refers to the angel of death, for he darkens the face of man.

Midrash Tehillim 24:8

“You gates, lift your heads…” (Tehillim 24:7/9) You find that at the time when Shlomo built the Holy temple he wanted to bring the ark into the Holy of Holies, but the gate was too small. It was five cubits long and two and a half cubits wide, while the ark was one and a half cubits long, one and a half wide and one and a half tall. Can’t one and a half cubits fit into two and a half?! Rather, at that moment the gates cleaved to one another. Shlomo said twenty four songs of joy and was not answered, he said ‘you gates lift up your heads’ and was not answered. He tried again and said “You] gates, lift your heads…so that the King of Glory may enter. Who is this King of Glory?” (Tehillim 24:7-8) He was not answered. Once he said “O Lord God, do not turn back the face of Your anointed one; remember the kind deeds of David Your servant,” (Divre HaYamim II 6:42) immediately the gates lifted up their heads, the ark entered and fire descended from heaven. Why did Shlomo suffer all of this? Because he was filled with pride and said “I have surely built You a house to dwell in…” (Melachim I 8:13) Since all of Israel saw this, they immediately said ‘it is certain that the Holy One has given atonement for that sin of David.’ Immediately their expression turned black like the bottom of a pot and they were ashamed. This is what is written “Grant me a sign for good, and let my enemies see [it] and be ashamed, for You, O Lord, have helped me and comforted me.” (Tehillim 86:17) ‘Helped me’ in this world and ‘comforted me’ in the world to come.

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains that Leviticus 4:23:1 refers to the ruler acknowledging his sin or someone else revealing it to him, with "hoda" being a verb in the perfect, and the ruler offering a he-goat as a sacrifice. Rashbam argues against interpreting "eleh toledot Yaakov" in Genesis 37:2 as describing events and problems Yaakov faced, instead focusing on the generations of Yaakov's family leading to 70 members going to Egypt. Ramban clarifies that the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to the Midianites, who then sold him to the Egyptians, with the story sometimes attributing actions to both the one who commands and the one who does. Da'at Zekenim elaborates on the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites by the Midianites, who later sold him to the Egyptians, with different explanations for the multiple sales in the Torah.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 37:28:2

וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. According to Rashi, the subject here are the brothers, who sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, whereupon the latter sold him to the Midianites who in turn sold him to the Egyptians. If so, we must understand the whole paragraph as follows: They (the brothers who had sat down to eat but had not eaten yet) raised their eyes (verse 25) and they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites approaching, (from the east travelling south) while at the same time Midianite merchants arrived at the pit from a different direction who (eventually) hauled Joseph out of the pit. (verse 28) [Remember the brothers had sat down for lunch some distance from the pit so that they would not hear Joseph’s cries. Ed.] These Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver. The reason why the Torah mentions this at this stage is that we should not wonder when the Torah in verse 36 reports that the Medanim had sold Joseph already some time previously to the Egyptians. The individual Egyptian who purchased Joseph was Potiphar. Most of this had taken place while the brothers had still argued among themselves if to sell him to the Ishmaelites. They had been pre-empted in the meantime by the Midianites. The Midianites in the meantime had become witnesses to the discussions among Joseph’s brothers and had bought Joseph subsequently from the Ishmaelites. They were certain that Joseph had been hauled up from the pit in order that he could be sold to them. There were two separate groups of people, some called Medanim, and the others Midianim. The Ishmaelites who were traveling in the direction of Egypt, were the ones who sold Joseph to Potiphar once they had arrived in Egypt. If you were to say why does the Torah write in verse 36 the Medanim had sold him to Egypt, so that eventually he was sold to Potiphar, etc.? We would have expected the subject in that verse to have been the Midianites! Rash’bam in his commentary on the Chumash claims that the three people mentioned in this story, i.e. the Ishmaelites, Midianites, and Medonites, were all members of the same people though not of the same tribe. Their founder fathers were all brothers from the same mother and father Avraham-Keturah (Hagar), as we know (assuming that Keturah was identical with Hagar) (Compare Genesis 25,2) The query mentioned above was already raised by Rashi, (verse 3) we quote him (the Midrash which he quotes) literally: the word פסים in the garment described as כתונת פסים, contains a hint of future problems, being sold four times, Joseph would endure. The letter פ refers to Potiphar to whom he had been sold. The letter ס refers to the סוחרים, the merchants (verse 28) the letter י to the Ishmaelites, and the letter ם to the Medonites. The problem with the Midrash is that only three sales have been reported in the Torah. In view of this difficulty I suggest the following: concerning the line (verse 25) ‘they raised their eyes and here there was approaching a caravan of Ishmaelites, etc.;” this happened while the brothers were discussing among themselves how to proceed from there. They hit on the idea of selling Joseph to the members of that caravan. Before the caravan of |shmaelites had even reached them, another group of Midianite merchants had passed the pit from the opposite direction and hearing his cries, sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites before even having raised him from the pit, for the measly amount of 20 pieces of silver. They then hauled Joseph from the pit alive. The Ishmaelites sold him to the Medonites, and these in turn sold him to Potiphar. So we do have four separate sales. When the Torah wrote in Genesis 39,1 that Potiphar acquired him from the Ishmaelites, this is quite correct as when Potiphar set eyes on him he looked very handsome, and he reasoned that “negroes do not sell whites, whereas whites sell negroes;” in other words, he considered it unlikely that the Medonites had come by Joseph legally, and he wanted reassurance that he did not buy someone who had been kidnapped. The |shmaelites who had sold him to the Medonites gave Potiphar a guarantee that everything was completely legal. (B’reshit Rabbah 86,3)

Ibn Ezra on Leviticus 4:23:1

IF HIS SIN…BE KNOWN TO HIM. (Hebrew, o hoda elav chattato (literally, or if someone made known to him his sin).) Scripture employs an abridged style. (Or, indicates a second possibility. However, Scripture does not record the first possibility. Hence I.E. assumes that Scripture omits the first possibility. It must be supplied by the reader.) It is similar to the verse dealing with the kohen. (The kohen gadol. There too Scripture employs an abridged style. See I.E.’s first comment on verse 10.) Its meaning is, if the ruler knows on his own that he has sinned or someone else who has seen him (Sin.) makes it known to him. (Our verse is to be interpreted as if written: The ruler realizes that he has sinned or if someone makes his sin known to him.) The following is the grammatical explanation of hoda elav (be known to him): Hoda (be known) is a verb (A hifil.) in the perfect. (It is a variant of hodi’a (he made known).) Compare, ve-hetzar (Hetzar is a hifil. It is a variant of hetzir. The same is true of hoda, hodi’a.) lekha (and he shall besiege thee) (Deut. 28:52). The one who informs is omitted. (The subject governing hoda is omitted. Scripture does not read, o hoda ish elav chattato.) Compare, whom she bore (Translated according to I.E.) (Num. 26:59). (Scripture does not identify who did the bearing.) Rabbi Moses the Kohen says that hoda (be known) is a hofal, (A passive. In other words, hoda should be rendered, be known.) for the cholam and the shuruk interchange. (The usual form of the hofal for this word is huda. Hence I.E. notes that hoda is a variant of huda.) Hoda follows the paradigm of hurad (Which is a hofal.) (was brought down) in And Joseph was brought down to Egypt (Gen. 39:1). The ruler offers a he-goat as a sacrifice in keeping with The greyhound; the he-goat also (Prov. 30:31). (The complete verse reads: The greyhound; the he-goat also; And the king, against whom there is no rising up. The verse speaks of those who walk haughtily. The he-goat walks with its head held high, as does the king. Hence a goat was chosen as the animal to be offered by the ruler (the king) as a sin offering.) The latter is in accordance with the interpretation of the Gaon in the Book of Proverbs. The offering consists of a male, in keeping with the status of the ruler. However, its blood is not brought inside of the sanctuary. (In contrast to the blood of the bullock brought by the kohen gadol and the congregation.) The kohanim, as is stated in Scripture, (See Lev. 6:19.) eat of the ruler’s sin offering to atone for the ruler. The kohen gadol does not eat of his sin offering. (See I.E. on Lev. 6:16.)

Ramban on Genesis 37:25:1

AND, BEHOLD, A CARAVAN OF ISHMAELITES CAME FROM GILEAD. When they looked up and saw at a distance men approaching from the direction of Gilead, (Ramban’s intent is to explain why Scripture refers to these men first as Ishmaelites, then as Midianites (Verse 28), and again as Ishmaelites (ibid.), and finally as Midianites (Verse 36).) they recognized them as a camel caravan of Ishmaelites on their way to Egypt, for it was from Gilead that balms and spices came, and it was their custom to bring it to Egypt. This was why Judah said to them, “Behold these men come from afar and are travelling to a distant country. Let us sell him to them so that the matter should not become known.” And when they came near they discovered them to be merchants of spices and balms — Midianites, merchantmen (Verse 28 here.) — who had hired the camels from the Ishmaelites. They sold Joseph to the Midianites who purchased him for profit, but the company of Ishmaelites, the lessors of the camels, would not purchase him for their own investment purposes. The verse which states, And they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, (Verse 28 here.) means that it was to them that the Midianites who bought him turned him over, for they were the ones who transported the merchandise to Egypt. This is also the meaning of the verse, From the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither, (39:1.) for he was in their care. But the Midianites were his masters, and they made trade with him. This is the sense of the verse, And the Midianites sold him to Egypt. (Verse 36 here.) All stories in Scripture are written in this manner: sometimes it is told in the name of the authority who commands that it be done, and other times in the name of the agent who performs the act. Such a case is the verse, All the great work of the Eternal which He did, (Deuteronomy 11:7.) while elsewhere it states, Which Moses did in the sight of all Israel. (Ibid., 34:12.) Similarly it says, Thus all the work that king Solomon did in the house of the Eternal was finished, (I Kings 7:51.) but it was Hiram that did it, as it is written, And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work. (Ibid., Verse 14.) In the case of Joseph himself, the verse says, And whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it, (Further, 39:22.) thus ascribing the action both to he who commanded it and the one who did it. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that the Midianites are called Ishmaelites, just as Scripture, in speaking of Midianite kings, says, Because they were Ishmaelites. (Judges 8:24.) But the matter is not as Ibn Ezra considered it to be since the verse which states, For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites, (Judges 8:24.) alludes to “the children of the east” whose war it was, as it is written, Now all the Midianites and Amalekites and the children of the east assembled themselves together, (Ibid., 6:33.) and “the children of the east” are Ishmaelites, for concerning all the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, it is said, And he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. (Above, 25:6.) It is also possible that the kings were Ishmaelites who ruled over Midian. Otherwise, why should “kings of Midian” (Judges 8:26.) be called by the name of Ishmael their brother? In line with the literal sense of Scripture the correct interpretation concerning the sale of Joseph is as we have said. But our Rabbis have said (Bereshith Rabbah 84:2.) that he was sold several times [and have thereby explained why his captors are alternately referred to as Midianites and Ishmaelites].

Rashbam on Genesis 37:2:2

אלה תולדות יעקב, “the following describes events and problems which Yaakov encountered in his life.” [by the way, Seforno, who lived hundreds of years later than Rash’bam, also accepts the interpretation described as nonsensical by Rash’bam. Ed.] This exegesis is nonsense. Whenever the expression תולדות occurs in the Bible, sometimes this word introduces the names of the grandsons of the party referred to, such as in Genesis 6,9 where the Torah after describing the righteousness of Noach tells us that Noach had three sons and proceeds to give us their names. The names of the sons could not be the purpose of the story there, as we had been told earlier in 5,32 that Noach at the age of 500 sired three sons and we were already told their names. The Torah then continues to describe mankind’s ongoing corruption and that Noach was the only one with whom G’d was pleased. When the Torah commences a second time with the line אלה תולדות נח in 6,9, clearly the Torah does not mean to repeat itself, but it leads to the Torah telling us of Noach’s grandchildren, something that is reported in greater detail in 10,1 under the heading of “and these are the generations of the sons of Noach.” [Perhaps the reason for the repetition of אלה תולדות בני נח in chapter 10, is that if, as the author says, the grandchildren were meant already in chapter 6, now after the deluge, the task of these children to generate a new mankind began in earnest, whereas up to that point they were charged with merely surviving the deluge. Ed.] Just as the Torah reported the growth and development of mankind after the deluge until we have a total of 70 such descendants of Noach being named, so in chapter 36,6 we have been told of the descendants of Esau who have been born in the land of Canaan, i.e. the land in which his father lived. After that, the Torah reported Esau’s further development in Mount Seir, commencing with verse 9 of that chapter. The Torah reports the development of Yaakov’s family in a parallel manner, 35,23 extending through verses 26-27 and listing all his children who had been born in exile, while he was in Padan Aram with Lavan. Now the Torah continues with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, concentrating forthwith on the grandchildren who combine to make up a total of 70 prior to the descent of the family to Egypt. Details of the birth of these various grandchildren are being provided, beginning with the chronicle of what happened to Joseph, who at 17 years of age experienced traumatic events, as a result of which his older brother Yehudah separated from the other brothers and started his own family in Keziv and Adulam, siring three sons, and grandsons respectively, i.e. Shelah, Peretz and Zerach. The history of Yaakov’s family became complicated further with Joseph having been brought to Egypt as a slave where Menashe and Ephrayim were born for him. Having attained high office, Joseph invited his father and family to join him in Egypt so that ultimately 70 members of Yaakov’s family wound up in Egypt. Moses had to record all this in order to substantiate his claim in Deuteronomy 10,22 that “your fathers descended to Egypt when they numbered only 70 persons.”

Second Temple

Some minds are enslaved to the pleasures of the body, deprived of noble practices and unable to receive divine messages, living in the prison of passions. The chief cook in the story of Joseph represents the weak-willed soul's servants who provide feasts, arousing fruitless passions that should be tamed. The wife of Potiphar, Pharaoh's head-cook, symbolizes the mind that is incapable of begetting wisdom, serving as a eunuch to Pharaoh, the disperser of noble things.

Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III 84:1

[236] One of these women is the wife of Potiphar, Pharaoh’s head-cook (Gen. 39:1 ff.). How, being a eunuch, he comes to have a wife, is a point to be considered: for those, who are occupied with the literal wording of the law rather than with its figurative interpretation, will find that it involves what appears to such a difficulty. For the Mind, that is really an eunuch and chief cook, dealing not in the simple pleasures only but in excessive ones also, deserves the title of eunuch as one who is incapable of begetting wisdom, seeing that he serves as eunuch none other than Pharaoh, the disperser of noble things. For you must bear in mind that from another point of view to become an eunuch would be a very good thing, if so our soul should be able to escape wickedness and unlearn passion.

On Drunkenness 51:1

[210] The weak-willed incontinent soul has three servants who provide its feasts, the chief baker, the chief butler and the chief cook, whom our most admirable Moses mentions in these words, “And Pharaoh was wroth with his two eunuchs, with the chief butler and the chief baker, and he put them in prison under the chief gaoler” (Gen. 40:2, 3). But the chief cook is also a eunuch, for we have in another place, “and Joseph was brought down into Egypt and became the property of the eunuch of Pharaoh, the chief cook” (Gen. 39:1), and again “they sold Joseph to the eunuch of Pharaoh, the chief cook” (Gen. 37:36).

On the Change of Names 32:2

[173] He makes other offers, offers which mean loss though he speaks of them as profit. “Take your father and your wealth,” he says, “and come to me” (ibid. 18) into Egypt, come, that is, to this King of terror, who when our paternal and our truly real wealth had in virtue of its natural liberty left the body behind in its advance, draws it back and throws it with violence into a prison of exceeding bitterness; and over this prison he sets for keeper, as the oracular text tells us, Potiphar (Gen. 39:1) the eunuch and chief cook : eunuch, because he has scant store of excellence and has lost by mutilation the soul’s organs of generation, unable further to sow and beget anything that tends to discipline; cook, because in cook-like fashion he slaughters living beings, chops and divides them, piece by piece, limb by limb, and moves in a chaos of lifeless carcasses, immaterial rather than material;  and with his elaborately seasoned dishes arouses and excites the appetites of fruitless passions, appetites which should rather be tamed and calmed.

On the Unchangeableness of God 24:3

[111] But there is a different mind which loves the body and the passions and has been sold in slavery to that chief cateress (Gen. 39:1) of our compound nature, Pleasure. Eunuch-like it has been deprived of all the male and productive organs of the soul, and lives in indigence of noble practices, unable to receive the divine message, debarred from the holy congregation (Deut. 23:1) in which the talk and study is always of virtue. When this mind is cast into the prison of the passions, it finds in the eyes of the chief jailer a favour and grace, which is more inglorious than dishonour.

Talmud

In Sotah 13b:11, Rabbi Elazar explains that Joseph brought down Pharaoh's astrologers by interpreting dreams. In Sotah 13b:12, it is said that Potiphar tried to have relations with Joseph but was castrated by an angel. In Tractate Soferim 21:9, Abraham built a city for his sons, and Jacob used stones to identify Joseph's tribe. In Bava Metzia 117a:6, it is discussed who should repair a broken ceiling between two residents in a house.

Bava Metzia 117a:6

§ The Gemara relates: An incident occurred with these two people who were residing in the same house, one in the upper story, and the other one in the lower story. The plaster of the floor of the upper story broke, so that when the resident of the upper apartment would wash with water, it would run down and cause damage to the lower story. The question was: Who must repair the ceiling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: The upper resident repairs it, and Rabbi Elai says in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Yosei: The lower resident repairs it. The Gemara comments: And the following verse can serve as a mnemonic device to remember who issued which ruling: “And Joseph was brought down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Yosei, indicated by Joseph, is the Sage who maintains that the owner of the lower story, indicated by: Brought down, must repair the ceiling.

Sotah 13b:11

After describing that Judah “went down” from his greatness, the Gemara discusses a similar term employed with regard to Joseph, as the verse states: “And Joseph was brought down [hurad] to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). Rabbi Elazar says: Do not read the word as “hurad,” meaning that he was passively brought down, but rather read it as horid, meaning: He, Joseph, brought down others, as Joseph brought down the astrologers [itztagninei] of Pharaoh from their position of eminence because he knew the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams when they did not.

Sotah 13b:12

The continuation of that verse states: “And Potiphar, an officer [seris] of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites, who had brought him down there” (Genesis 39:1). Rav says: He purchased the handsome Joseph for himself, for the intended purpose of homosexual intercourse, but was unable to fulfill his desires, as the angel Gabriel came and castrated Potiphar [seireso]. Then Gabriel came again and further mutilated him [fero] in the same part of his body. This is alluded to in the verses that write Potiphar’s name differently: Initially, it is written “Potiphar” (Genesis 39:1) and in the end it is written “Potiphera” (Genesis 41:45). The change in his name indicates that a part of himself was mutilated.

Tractate Soferim 21:9

(From this point to the end of the tractate is an aggadic addendum.) The greatest man among the Anakim (Josh. 14, 15.) —among the Anakim refers to our father Abraham whose height was equal to that of seventy-four men; his eating and drinking were of a similar proportion, equal to those of seventy-four men; so too his strength. What did he do? (This is probably a reference to Gen. 25, 6, But unto the sons of the concubines … Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away … eastward, unto the east country.) He removed the sixteen (So GRA in accordance with Gen. 25, 2-4. V, M and H incorrectly ‘seventeen’.) sons of Keturah, built for them a walled city of iron and settled them in it. The sun never penetrated into it because it was exceedingly high, so Abraham handed to them disks of precious stones and pearls of which use will be made (So GRA. V, M and H read, ‘and they will be used’.) in the hereafter when the Holy One, blessed be He, will cause the sun and moon to be confounded, as it is written, When the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, (Is. 24, 23.) because use will be made of these [disks as luminaries]. Og (King of Bashan; Deut. 3, 11.) is identical with Eliezer, (Abraham’s servant; cf. Gen. 15, 2, XXIV, 2ff.) and [he was so huge that] he could hide Abraham’s feet in the palm of his hand. Once he was rebuked [by Abraham] and from fright his tooth fell out. Abraham picked it up and made ivory beds of it in which he slept. Others say that he made of it a chair which he used (lit. ‘and sat in it’.) all his life. Who gave him to Abraham? Nimrod. (Mentioned in Gen. 10, 8ff.) Og went and built sixty cities, the smallest of which was sixty miles high, as it is stated, Threescore cities, all the region of Argob. (Deut. 3, 4.) And what did he eat? A thousand oxen and the same [number of] other animals, and his drink consisted of a thousand measures. A (So GRA. V, M and H read ‘and what was the’.) drop of his semen weighed thirty-six pounds. (V and H add ‘and so for all generations’, which makes no sense.) It was taught: What did our father Jacob do when his sons brought him the coat [stained] with blood? (Cf. Gen. 37, 31ff.) He did not believe them at all. Whence do we infer this? For it is written, But he refused to be comforted, (ibid. 35.) because no consolations are acceptable for a living person. One, however, who is dead passes naturally from the mind, (lit. ‘he is forgotten from the heart of his own accord’.) as it is stated, I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind. (Ps. 31, 13.) What then did he do? He proceeded to make a test with sheaves, (GRA transposes the order of V, M and H by putting the test of the sheaves before that of the stones, and omits ‘according to the first opinion’.) writing upon them the respective names of the tribes, their constellations and the months, and said to them, ‘I order you to prostrate yourselves before Levi because he wears the Urim and Thummim’, (Cf. Ex. 28, 30.) but they did not stand up. ‘Before Judah who is king’, but they did not stand up; but when he mentioned Joseph to them, they all stood up and bowed before Joseph. But it was not yet quite clear that he was alive. So Jacob went to the mountains, hewed twelve stones, arranged them in a row, and wrote on each the name of its tribe, the name of its constellation and the name of its month. On one stone he wrote ‘Reuben, lamb, Nisan’ (The name of the tribe, constellation and month.) and similarly on every stone. He began from Simeon and said to them, ‘I order you to stand up for Reuben’, but they did not stand up. ‘For Simeon’, but they did not stand up. ‘For every tribe’, but the stones did not stand up. As soon, however, as he mentioned the name of Joseph to them, they stood up at once and bowed before Joseph’s stone. (The translation follows the text of GRA.) For this reason, all the tribes were written on Joseph’s stone. Similarly, all Israel are called by Joseph’s name, as it is stated, Thou that leadest Joseph like a flock. (Ps. 80, 2 where Joseph is a synonym of all Israel.) So also all the heads of the families of the priests and Levites, [e.g.] Eliashib, (Neh. 3, 1.) because of the phrase lahashibo ’el ’abiw; (In the story of Joseph (Gen. 37, 22), E.V. to restore him to his father. The name Eliashib is broken up in three parts corresponding in sound and meaning to these three Heb. words. From ‘For this reason’ to ’abiw is the reading of GRA. V and H have instead: ‘but from the mishmaroth, Eliashib the priest’.) Elḳanah, (Connected with ḳanah, ‘he bought’.) because Potiphar had bought him [as it is stated,] And Joseph ms brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar … bought him. (Gen. 39, 1. V inserts in parentheses, And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Ẓaphenath, paneah, etc. (ibid. XLI, 45), which has no relevance to the subject.) When Rebekah left her father’s house (Cf. ibid. XXIV, 59ff.) she was three years old, (V, M and H add ‘and three days’.) because it is customary among kings, when a daughter is born to them, to hear of it after three days; (H reads ‘after three years and three days’.) but as her father did not hear [of her birth] he did not defile her up to that time; and now a miracle happened to her in that her father died so that he should not defile her, as it is written, Neither had any man known her, (Gen. 24, 16.) and by man only her father could be meant, (From ‘he did not’ to ‘meant’ is GRA’s reading. V, M and H read: ‘therefore a miracle happened to her that she should not be defiled’.) for such was the practice of the Arameans to lie with their virgin daughters after they were three years of age, (‘After … age’ is inserted by GRA; omitted in V, M and H.) and then to give them away in marriage. (V, M and H add: ‘on account of that which is written, Neither had any man known her, and by man only her father could be meant’.) Dinah was six years old when she bore Asenath from [her association with] Shechem, (Cf. Gen. 34.) corresponding to (lit. ‘the number of’.) the six years which Jacob served Laban in payment for the flock, (ibid. XXXI, 41.) thus completing (lit. ‘until’.) the twenty years of his service. [The Archangel] Michael then descended and took her away to the house of Potiphar. From here onward let the man of understanding increase knowledge. (From ‘completing the twenty years’ to ‘knowledge’ is GRA’s text. V and M have instead: ‘and he added twenty years, because he died. From this point onwards let the man of understanding increase knowledge. And Michael descended and led her to Potiphar’s house’.)

Tanakh

Benaiah killed a huge Egyptian man who had a spear in his hand by using a club to wrench the spear away and kill him with it, as described in II Samuel 23:21 and I Chronicles 11:23.

I Chronicles 11:23

He also killed an Egyptian, a giant of a man five cubits tall. The Egyptian had a spear in his hand, like a weaver’s beam, yet [Benaiah] went down against him with a club, wrenched the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and killed him with his own spear.

II Samuel 23:21

He also killed an Egyptian, a huge (Meaning of Heb. uncertain. 1 Chron. 11.23 reads “a giant of a man.”) man. The Egyptian had a spear in his hand, yet [Benaiah] went down against him with a club, wrenched the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and killed him with his own spear.

Targum

Joseph was brought down to Egypt and purchased by Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and chief of the slaughterers, with a pledge from the Yishmaelites [Arabs] who had brought him there.

Onkelos Genesis 39:1

Yoseif was brought down to Egypt. He was purchased by Potiphar—an officer of Pharaoh, the chief of the slaughterers, an Egyptian—from the Yishmaelites [Arabs] who had brought him down there.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:1

But Joseph was brought down into Mizraim; and Potiphar, … a man of Mizraim, a chief of Pharoh, a chief of the executioners, bought him with the pledge of the Arabians who had brought him down thither.

וַיְהִ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֔ף וַיְהִ֖י אִ֣ישׁ מַצְלִ֑יחַ וַיְהִ֕י בְּבֵ֖ית אֲדֹנָ֥יו הַמִּצְרִֽי׃ 2 J יהוה was with Joseph, and he was a successful man; and he stayed in the house of his Egyptian master.
The text explores how the inner essence of Bnei Yisrael remains with them in exile, using the story of Joseph in Egypt as an example of divine truth being revealed and hidden. Joseph's success is attributed to God's protection and favor, leading to his rise to power in his master's household. The first degree of prophecy inspires individuals to perform good deeds and achieve noble goals, as seen in figures like the judges of Israel and kings like Saul and David. Additionally, the text from the Midrash illustrates how trouble is signified by certain phrases, such as "it was in the days," and how God's presence with Joseph led to his success. Rabbeinu Bahya and Abarbanel provide interpretations of symbolism in the Bible, linking gemstones on the High Priest's breastplate to specific tribes and discussing the significance of repeated verbs in verses about Joseph's success. Ultimately, Joseph's prosperity is attributed to God's assistance and divine influence.

Chasidut

The text discusses how the inner essence of Bnei Yisrael accompanies them wherever they go, even in exile, though it may be obscured at times. The story of Yosef in Mitzrayim exemplifies the fluctuating experiences of divine truth being revealed or hidden. Despite interruptions in clarity, the hidden light and connection to Hashem persist, providing hope and strength to Bnei Yisrael even in the darkest times.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 10:5

The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 86:4) explains the verse (Bereishis 39:2), "Hashem was with Yosef in the house of his Egyptian master...and he was successful," to indicate that Yosef would "jump." This means that wherever a member of Bnei Yisrael goes, their inner essence accompanies them. In exile, this essence is often obscured, leading to an unsteady spiritual life force. Clarity occasionally arises, allowing one to draw strength from the revealed light available to the tzadik and all Bnei Yisrael, who are called tzadikim, "Your entire nation are righteous" (Yeshaya 60:21). In Yosef's story in Mitzrayim, the Torah repeatedly uses the phrase ויהי, "and it was," to highlight the fluctuating experiences. Sometimes, divine truth was revealed; other times, it was hidden by negative forces and impurities. When recounting Yosef's time in prison, the Torah repeats ויהי ה' את יוסף - "Hashem was with Yosef" to indicate an interruption in clarity, symbolizing that holiness was not consistently established during his exile. Despite this, hidden light persists in exile, as our sages teach that "there is an unlimited inheritance," and “not even a division of steel can separate Bnei Yisrael from their Father in Heaven.” This enduring connection ensures that even in the darkest times, the inner essence and divine light remain with Bnei Yisrael, providing hope and strength.

Commentary

Joseph was saved from those who would take advantage of him, he succeeded in all his ventures, performed tasks in his master's private room, was promoted to guard, then personal valet, and eventually became the general manager of the household. God was with Joseph, ensuring his success and protecting him from harm amongst the non-Jews. Joseph kept the fear of God in mind, leading to his success in all his endeavors, and he was favored by being allowed to work inside his master's house rather than in the fields.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:2:1

Now Joseph, despite being merely a slave to the ruling classes, constantly retained the fear of God before his eyes, and had the Almighty in mind throughout the course of his activities. It is regarding this that (the Torah) states: ‘And the Lord was with Joseph’, i.e. that the thought of Him was always in Joseph’s mind. Accordingly, as a reward for this, he became a person who succeeded in every venture he undertook.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:2:2

However, I personally consider the most accurate overall interpretation of these verses to be that Scripture here records three enormous acts of grace conferred by the Holy One, blessed be He, upon Joseph there (in the jail). The first was that, despite being but a slave, with a depressed spirit, he nonetheless enjoyed Divine influence to such a degree that when he heard a dream, he could interpret it in accordance with what would actually transpire in the future – and it was impossible for this to be on account of (his) inherent gift of discernment, simple knowledge (of current events), and well-developed analytical powers possessed by him, as such powers are variable in their results – they do indeed predict the truth on some occasions, whilst on others they fail to do so. (We are thus forced to conclude that) it was the spirit of the Almighty speaking through him, and that His word was upon his (Joseph’s) tongue; and accordingly, not a single one of his predictions failed to be fulfilled; he could also see dreams fulfilled in accordance with his predictions; and it is thus, in relation to all this, that Scripture states: ‘And the Almighty was with Joseph’. The second (act of Divine grace) was that he succeeded in all his affairs. Concerning this aspect, we are told, ‘And he was a successful person’ in that whatever he turned his hand to prospered. The third (act of Divine grace) was that, despite the general custom amongst high-ranking officials, on purchasing a slave, to leave him to labor in the fields, [indeed the Egyptians, in particular, would treat Hebrews in this fashion, as they were hated by them on account of their (i.e. the Hebrews) being meat-eaters], in this instance the Almighty favored him in his master’s house by allowing him to remain working inside the house, (even) in Egypt, where he could relax, rather than dispatching him to the fields to toil away there. In regard to this point, the verse emphasizes: ‘And he was in the house of his Egyptian master’. Moreover, since each of these three (acts of grace) were quite distinct, the narrative repeatedly utilizes the word ‘va’yehi’ (‘and he was’) in each particular instance. Thus, in the light of this interpretation, the first of the questions initially posed (by us) has been satisfactorily resolved.

Bekhor Shor, Genesis 39:2:1

And the Eternal was with Yosef that he didn't become sullied by the non-Jews with whom he travelled. A metaphor: it's like an animal-driver who brought twelve camels loaded with jugs of wine. One of them entered the shop of a non-Jew, and the animal-driver left the eleven and entered the non-Jew's house [to pursue the stray twelfth]. [Someone] said to the animal-driver, "Why did you leave the eleven and pursue the one?" The animal-driver responded, "Those that are on the path need no guarding at all, for no-one will libate the wine they carry [making it unsuitable for Jews to drink]. But this one needs guarding, so that no non-Jew will libate its wine." And so, the Eternal was with Yosef, who had entered amongst the non-Jews - [this is from] Rabbi Ovadiah, may the memory of the righteous be a blessing. And so too with "May the Eternal our God be with us" (Malachim Alef 8:57) - since we are exiled amongst the non-Jews. הגה"ה.

Chizkuni, Genesis 39:2:1

ויהי ה' את יוסף, “Hashem was with Joseph;” he required Divine assistance in order to insulate him against the temptation to adopt the corrupt ways of that country.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 39:2:1

ויהי ה' את יוסף , “and the Lord was with Joseph;” the Midrash sees in this line a lesson for us to compare G–d’s method of befriending us to how human beings befriend their masters or superiors. As long as their superiors are successful and amass glory the underlings surround the king and flatter him nonstop. As soon however, as the king or master falls on hard times, his former “friends,” and flatterers abandon him as they would a ship about to sink. The reverse is true of Hashem. As soon as Joseph fell on hard times, G–d went out of His way to show him that far from having abandoned him, on the contrary, He now went out of His way to make life easier for him. He supported him when he became viceroy of Egypt for 80 years, as well as when he was still a slave in the house of Potiphar, and even when jailed for supposedly having tried to rape his wife. It is remarkable that also Joseph’s way of responding to the way the brothers had treated him were quite different from the way ordinary people would have reacted to this given the chance. Normally, poor people display some fear of G–d, as He is the only one from whom they can expect help. Joseph, even when in a position of power, repeatedly refused to do something that G–d would not approve of (Compare Genesis 42,18 as well as 39,9) An alternate interpretation of the line: ויהי ה' את יוסף. Imagine someone blessed with ten children, each one of whom lives in a different country. Instead of visiting them all in rotation, he concentrated on spending time with the youngest, as he was less well endowed than his brothers, and depended more on advice and assistance from his father. Take another parable illustrating our subject. A wine merchant had loaded ten donkeys with barrels of wine and began to lead them on the public highway. Suddenly one donkey veered and entered the house of a pagan. Right away the owner abandoned all the other nine donkeys out of concern that a pagan might touch the wine on the back of the last mentioned animal and make it unfit for Jews to drink from. Similarly, as soon as G–d saw that Joseph had been brought to the house of an Egyptian who was now his master, He hurried to supervise his fate to protect him from harm. He was afraid that unless He did so, Joseph might learn to copy the lifestyle of his master.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:2:1

ויהי בבית אדוניו, He stayed in the house of his master, etc. The Torah described how G'd arranged for a variety of promotions Joseph experienced while in the service of Potiphar. At the beginning Joseph performed menial labour outside the home of Potiphar. When he did so successfully he was promoted to work inside the home. He then became a guard in the home. Eventually, he performed all his duties only indoors, i,e. בבית אדוניו. Still later he became Potiphar's personal valet, i.e. וישרת אותו. This made Joseph's life comfortable. Still later Potiphar appointed Joseph as the general manager over his entire household, i.e. ויעזוב כל אשר לו ביד יוסף. Eventually, Potiphar left every initiative to Joseph, not even bothering to ask him to account for what he was doing.

Radak on Genesis 39:2:1

ויהי ה' את יוסף ויהי איש מצליח, he was successful in all things he undertook on his own behalf and also was successful in the house of his Egyptian master. Every task that was assigned to him he managed to carry out successfully.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:2:1

(2-4) Dreimal heißt es ויהי. Die Weisen bemerken: die Brüder, erwachsen, zu Hause, in väterlicher und Geschwistergemeinschaft, bedurften der besonderen Gottesnähe nicht; allein Josef, der isolierte, verstoßene, in eine solche Umgebung verstoßene Jüngling, er bedurfte des besonderen Gottesschutzes. Darum wanderte Gott mit ihm, und da ward er denn der treffliche Mensch, zu dem er schon immer die Anlage in sich trug, und der nur eben solcher Ereignisse bedurfte, um völlig geweckt und rein von all den kleinen irdischen Schwächen hervorzutreten, die ihm in glücklicher Umgebung noch anhaftend gewesen. Wenn Gott mit Josef war, so kann dies nur sein, weil Josef mit Gott war. Wenn die Ziele, die der Mensch anstrebt, mit Gottes Zielen zusammen fallen, so gestaltet Gott die Verhältnisse der Erreichung dieser Ziele günstig und förderlich.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:2:2

(צלח verwandt mit שלח, vielleicht auch שלח .סלח: schicken, zu einem Ziele hin bewegen. סלה vielleicht: fahren lassen; die unverziehene Sünde ist ein Hemmnis im Lebenslauf des Menschen, er wird angehalten, סליחה löst den Knoten und gestattet einen ungehinderten Fortgang. צלח ist: ein Hindernisse überwindendes Fortschreiten zum Ziele.) Josef ward ein Mann, der alles, was er unternimmt, glücklich zum Ziele führt. Da überwand der Mizri den Widerwillen gegen den Iwri und nahm ihn sogar in sein Haus, wies ihm in seiner Nähe Beschäftigung an. Und als nun, V. 3, auch dort sein Herr sah, daß auch dort "Gott mit ihm war" und alles, was er unternahm, Gott gelingen ließ — es war dies die erste Gottesoffenbarung in einem mizrischen Kreise; in einem Kreise, in welchem das Gute und Sittliche nichts galt, zeigt sich plötzlich ein Jüngling, der arm und in tiefster Erniedrigung war, und dem doch alles gelang, weil er es tat, zeigt sich mit einem Male die segnende Kraft eines reinen und sittlichen Wollens — da fand endlich Josef חן in seinen Augen, so daß er ihn zuerst zu seinem persönlichen Diener erhob und ihn dann zum Verwalter seines ganzen Hauses machte. מצא חן (siehe zu Kap. 6, 8).

Sforno on Genesis 39:2:1

ויהי ה' את יוסף, to save him from anyone who would take advantage of him.

Sforno on Genesis 39:2:2

ויהי איש מצליח, he achieved every venture that he set out to accomplish.

Sforno on Genesis 39:2:3

ויהי בבית אדוניו המצרי, he would perform tasks in his master’s private room. The meaning of the word היה here is the same as the meaning of the word עמד elsewhere, i.e. stationed, remaining in a fixed position. Examples of the word היה occurring in this sense are found in Deuteronomy 31,26 והיה שם, “it would remain there.” Compare also Deuteronomy 10,5 ויהיו שם כאשר צוני ה', “they remained there as the Lord had commanded me.”

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:2

The Lord was with Joseph, and he was a successful man in the house of Potifar. Joseph arrived in Egypt as an inexperienced youth and with no knowledge of the Egyptian language. He also needed to cross the cultural divide between his upbringing in a small village to life in a developed city. Nevertheless, his success was evident for all to see. And he was in the house of his master, the Egyptian.

Jewish Thought

The first degree of prophecy involves divine assistance that inspires a person to do good deeds, such as saving a group of people from harm or bringing happiness to many. This divine influence, known as "the spirit of the Lord," is seen in figures like the judges of Israel, noble chiefs, and kings like Saul and David. This faculty does not make individuals speak on a specific topic but rather motivates them to take action to help others or achieve noble goals. It is not applied to every successful endeavor but only to those that are truly good and significant, like Joseph's success in Egypt leading to important events.

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 2 45:4

(1) The first degree of prophecy consists in the divine assistance which is given to a person, and induces and encourages him to do something good and grand, e.g., to deliver a congregation of good men from the hands of evildoers; to save one noble person, or to bring happiness to a large number of people; he finds in himself the cause that moves and urges him to this deed. This degree of divine influence is called “the spirit of the Lord”; and of the person who is under that influence we say that the spirit of the Lord came upon him, clothed him, or rested upon him, or the Lord was with him, and the like. All the judges of Israel possessed this degree, for the following general statement is made concerning them:—“The Lord raised up judges for them; and the Lord was with the judge, and he saved them” (Judges 2:18). Also all the noble chiefs of Israel belonged to this class. The same is distinctly stated concerning some of the judges and the kings:—“The spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah” (ibid. 11:29); of Samson it is said, “The spirit of the Lord came upon him” (ibid. 14:19); “And the spirit of the Lord came upon Saul when he heard those words” (1 Sam. 11:6). When Amasa was moved by the holy spirit to assist David, “A spirit clothed Amasa, who was chief of the captains, and he said, Thine are we, David,” etc.(1 Chron. 12:18). This faculty was always possessed by Moses from the time he had attained the age of manhood: it moved him to slay the Egyptian, and to prevent evil from the two men that quarrelled; it was so strong that, after he had fled from Egypt out of fear, and arrived in Midian, a trembling stranger, he could not restrain himself from interfering when he saw wrong being done; he could not bear it. Comp. “And Moses rose and saved them” (Exod. 2:17). David likewise was filled with this spirit, when he was anointed with the oil of anointing. Comp. “And the spirit of God came upon David from that day and upward” (1 Sam. 16:13). He thus conquered the lion and the bear and the Philistine, and accomplished similar tasks, by this very spirit. This faculty did not cause any of the above-named persons to speak on a certain subject, for it only aims at encouraging the person who possesses it to action; it does not encourage him to do everything, but only to help either a distinguished man or a whole congregation when oppressed, or to do something that leads to that end. Just as not an who have a true dream are prophets, so it cannot be said of every one who is assisted in a certain undertaking, as in the acquisition of property, or of some other personal advantage, that the spirit of the Lord came upon him, or that the Lord was with him, or that he performed his actions by the holy spirit. We only apply such phrases to those who have accomplished something very good and grand, or something that leads to that end; e.g., the success of Joseph in the house of the Egyptian, which was the first cause leading evidently to great events that occurred subsequently.

Midrash

Rabbi Tanḥuma and Rabbi Ḥiyya say that whenever it is stated "it was in the days," it signifies trouble. They illustrate this with examples such as Abraham being confronted by the Chaldeans, Aḥaz closing synagogues, and Yehoyakim's time of emptiness. They also mention the trouble during the days of Aḥashverosh when Haman sought to destroy the Jews. The text also discusses how Joseph's success was due to the Lord being with him and how the persecuted will be sought by God. Additionally, the text presents examples of how the Holy One, blessed be He, has already done things that are anticipated for the future.

Bamidbar Rabbah 13:5

“Was [vayhi].” Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Every place that vayhi is stated, it is trouble or joy; if it is trouble, it is unparalleled trouble, if it is joy, it is unparalleled joy. Rabbi Shmuel bat Naḥman came and made a distinction: Every place thay vayhi is stated it is trouble, [every place that] vehaya [is stated, it is] joy. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “God said: Let there be light, and there was [vayhi] light” (Genesis 1:3). He said to them: ‘That, too, is not joy, as the world was not privileged to utilize that light, as Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: That light that the Holy One blessed be He created on the first day, a person could look and see from one end of the world to the other end. When the Holy One blessed be He saw the generation of Enosh, the generation of the Flood, and the generation of the Dispersion, He stood and sequestered it, and designated it for the righteous in the future, as it is stated: “But the path of the righteous is like a radiant light, growing brighter until noon”’ (Proverbs 4:18). They raised an objection to him: “It was [vayhi] evening; it was [vayhi] morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). He said to them: ‘That, too, is not joy, as everything created on the first day is destined to erode, as it is stated: “For the heavens will be eroded like smoke and the earth will be tattered like a garment, and its inhabitants, likewise, will die, but My salvation will be forever and My righteousness will remain unbroken”’ (Isaiah 51:6). They raised an objection to him: All the instances of vayhi during the six days of Creation. He said to them: ‘They, too, are not joy, as everything that was created during the six days of Creation requires action, e.g., mustard requires sweetening, lupines require boiling, and wheat requires grinding.’ They raised an objection to him: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joseph, and he was [vayhi] a successful man and he was [vayhi] in the house of his master, the Egyptian” (Genesis 39:2). He said to them: ‘That, too, is not joy, as the bear (This is a metaphor for Potiphar’s wife.) solicited him.’ “It was [vayhi] on the day that Moses concluded [to erect the Tabernacle]” (Numbers 7:1). He said to them: ‘That, too, is not joy, as it was sequestered when the Temple was built.’ “It was [vayhi] on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1). He said to them: ‘That, too, is not joy, as on that very day, Nadav and Avihu were killed.’ But is it not written: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joshua; his renown was throughout the land”? (Joshua 6:27). ‘That, too, is not joy, as on that very day, he rent his garments, as it is stated: “Joshua rent his garments, fell on his face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord until the evening, he and the elders of Israel”’ (Joshua 7:6). But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] when the king was settled in his house”? (II Samuel 7:1). He said to them: ‘That, too, is not joy, as on that very day, Natan the prophet came to him, and the Holy One blessed be He said to him: “However, you will not build the House”’ (II Chronicles 6:9). But is it not written: “The one who presented his offering…was [vayhi]”? (Numbers 7:12). He said to them: ‘That, too, is not joy, as it was seen before the Holy One blessed be He that they (The heads of the twelve tribes, who brought the offerings when the Tabernacle was erected.) would go with Koraḥ and his assembly in his dispute.’ Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Levi ben Perata: This is analogous to the son of a high ranking official who stole in the bathhouse. The bathhouse attendant feared identifying him by name. Nevertheless, he publicized him as a certain lad garbed in white. So, even though it [the Torah] did not explicitly mention the names of the princes who participated with Koraḥ and went along with him, it publicizes them by means of allusion: “Princes of the assembly, the distinguished of the convocation, people of renown” (Numbers 16:2), just as it says: “These are the distinguished of the assembly, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they are the heads of the thousands of Israel” (Numbers 1:16). “People of renown [shem],” as their names [shemotan] were mentioned in the census of the banners, just as it says: These are the names of the men who will stand with you…” (Numbers 1:5). They said to him: ‘We have said ours; you say yours.’ (We cited proof that vayhi could also connote joy. You rejected those proofs. Now, prove your claim that vehaya connotes joy. ) He said to them: ‘Everywhere that vehaya is stated, it is joy. “It will be on that day, that the mountains will drip nectar…” (Joel 4:18). “It will be on that day that spring water will emerge from Jerusalem” (Zechariah 14:8). “It will be on that day that the Lord will continue, [setting His hand a second time to acquire the remnant of His people]” (Isaiah 11:11). “It will be on that day, each man will maintain a young cow [and two sheep]” (Isaiah 7:21). “It will be on that day, that a great shofar will be sounded…” (Isaiah 27:13). “It will be that [it will be said of] the remaining in Zion…[Holy, for everyone written for life in Jerusalem]”’ (Isaiah 4:3). [They said to him:] ‘But is it not written: “It was when Jerusalem was captured”? (Jeremiah 38:28). He said to them: ‘that, too, is not trouble, but joy, as on that day Menaḥem (A name for the messianic king.) was born and Israel paid off their debt for their iniquities, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Israel paid off their debt for their iniquities on the day that the Temple was destroyed, as it is stated: “Your iniquity is completed, daughter of Zion; He will not continue to exile you”’ (Lamentations 4:22).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:3

“On the seventh day…” – that is what is written: “Lift your heads, gates…” (Psalms 24:7). You find that when Solomon built the Temple, he sought to bring the Ark into the chamber of the Holy of Holies. At that moment, the gates clung together. Solomon uttered twenty-four supplications, from the verse “For will God indeed dwell…” (II Chronicles 6:18) until “Now, rise, Lord God, to Your resting place, You, and the ark of Your might…” (II Chronicles 6:41), twenty-four verses, but he was not answered. He then said: “Lift your heads, gates; be raised, [everlasting portals, so the King of glory may enter]” (Psalms 24:7), but was not answered. He then said: “Lift your heads, gates; raise yourselves, [everlasting portals, so the King of glory may enter]” (Psalms 24:9), but he was not answered. When he said: “Lord God, do not turn away the face of Your anointed; remember the acts of kindness of David Your servant” (II Chronicles 6:42), he was immediately answered, and the gates lifted their heads, the Ark entered, the Divine Presence rested in the Temple, and fire descended from heaven, as it is written thereafter: “When Solomon had concluded praying, the fire descended from heaven, and it consumed the burnt offering and the peace offerings, and the glory of the Lord filled the Temple” (II Chronicles 7:1). Why was Solomon tormented? It is because he had been arrogant and said: “I have built [ You an abode…” (I Kings 8:13). What is “I have built”? Rabbi Yaakov son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel said: I built a built building. (Solomon took credit for building a building in which his role was very limited.) Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: Everyone assists the king, all the more so that everyone assists the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, even spirits, even demons, and even angels. Rabbi Berekhya said: “The Temple in its construction…” (I Kings 6:7) – it is not written, “that they were building,” but rather, “in its construction” – it was constructed on its own. “Was built of whole stones that were transported” (I Kings 6:7) – it teaches that the stone would transport itself, ascend, and be placed atop the course of stones. Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not wonder; is it not written: “One stone was brought and was placed over the mouth of the den” (Daniel 6:18). Are there stones in Babylon? (There are no mountains there from which to hew stones.) Rather, it teaches that it stood from the Land of Israel and came and settled over the mouth of the den. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Yosef: An angel descended at that moment and appeared in the image of a stone lion and settled on the mouth of the pit. That is what is written: “My God sent His angel, and he shut the lions’ mouths, and they did not harm me” (Daniel 6:23). If for the glory of flesh and blood one stone was brought, for the glory of the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He all the more so. That is why it is stated: “Lift your heads, gates” (Psalms 24:7). What is, “so the King of glory [hakavod] may enter” (Psalms 24:9)? Rabbi Simon said: Why is the Holy One blessed be He called the King of glory? He is the King who accords honor [kavod] to those who fear Him. Rabbi Simon said: It is written: “The people did not travel until Miriam’s readmission” (Numbers 12:15) – it teaches that the cloud lingered on her account. Rabbi Luleyani in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: It is written: “Moses would speak, and God would respond to him with a voice” (Exodus 19:19). It is not written here, “God would speak, and Moses would respond to him with a voice,” but rather, “Moses would speak, and God would respond to him with a voice.” It teaches that He would speak with him in Moses’ voice. Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Simon: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). What is written? “God was with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Aivu: I have derived only in good times, in times of trouble from where is it derived? “The warden of the prison did not oversee anything that was in his (Joseph’s) charge, for the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39:23). Another matter: “King of glory” (Psalms 24:9) – all the Tabernacle vessels were covered with taḥash hides on top of them. Regarding the Ark, it is written: “They shall spread an entirely sky-blue woolen cloth over it” (Numbers 4:6). Why to that extent? It is so the Ark would be distinctive. That is, “so the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9). Another matter: “King of glory” (Psalms 24:9) – Ḥizkiya said: In what way is the sky-blue dye different from all other dyes, that the Holy One blessed be He commanded that it should be in ritual fringes? It is because the sky-blue dye [tekhelet] is like grass, (While tekhelet is usually translated as “sky-blue,” tekhelet can also encompass the color green.) grass is like the sea, the sea is like the firmament, the firmament is like the rainbow, the rainbow is like the cloud, the cloud is like the Throne, and the Throne is like the Glory, as it is stated: “Like the appearance of the rainbow that is in the cloud…[thus…the likeness of the appearance of the Glory of God]” (Ezekiel 1:28). He allotted to those who fear Him sky-blue dye, which is a microcosm of His glory, as it is stated: “They shall place on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (Numbers 15:38). That is, “so the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9), as He accords glory to those who fear Him. Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – Rabbi Avin said: He allots of His glory to those who fear Him. A king of flesh and blood, one may not ride his horse, one may not sit on his throne, one may not use his scepter, one does not wear his garment. But the Holy One blessed be He is not so. Regarding the Holy One blessed be He it is written: “He soared on wings of wind” (Psalms 18:11), and it says: “In a storm and in a tempest is His way” (Nahum 1:3), and he gave it to Elijah, as it is stated: “Elijah went up in a tempest to the heavens” (II Kings 2:11). A king of flesh and blood, one may not sit on his throne, but regarding Solomon it is written: “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23). He gave His scepter to Moses, as it is stated: “Moses took the staff from before the Lord” (Numbers 20:9). The garment of the Holy One blessed be He is glory and grandeur, as it is stated: “You donned glory and grandeur” (Psalms 104:1), and he gave it to the messianic king, as it is stated: “You bestow glory and grandeur upon him” (Psalms 21:6). Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – as He accorded honor to Joseph the righteous because he feared God, as it is stated: “God I fear” (Genesis 42:18), as it was on his behalf that the Lord rested [His Divine Presence] upon his master, as it is stated: “His master saw that the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39:3). Rabbi Avin HaLevi ben Rabbi said: Joseph would bless the Holy One blessed be He for each and every act that he would perform. His master would see him whispering with his mouth and would say to him: What are you saying? He would respond to him and say: I am blessing the Holy One blessed be He. He said to him: I wish to see Him. Joseph said to him: The sun is one of several of His attendants, and you are unable to look at it; how will you be able to look at His glory? The Holy One blessed be He said to him: As you live, in your honor, I will reveal Myself to him, as it is stated: “His master saw that the Lord was with him.” Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – as He accorded honor to those who fear Him. Joseph the righteous feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “How could I perform this great evil, and sin against God” (Genesis 39:9)? He accorded honor to the Holy One blessed be He in that he did not touch her, because of his fear of Him. He said to him: As you live, I will repay your descendant, as I will grant him permission to present his offering on My holy day, and he will not be harmed. That is what is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim…”

Bereshit Rabbah 42:3

Another interpretation, “it was in the days of Amrafel” – Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great and Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The following exposition was brought with us in our hands when we came up from the Diaspora: (When the exiles of Israel returned to the land of Israel with Ezra from Babylon.) Wherever it is stated: “It was [vayhi] in the days,” it indicates trouble. (Vayhi is seen as a combination of the words vay and hi, both expressions of woe and misfortune.) “It was in the days of Amrafel” – what was the trouble there? “They waged war” (Genesis 14:2). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: There are five such instances. (For the other four instances, see: Isaiah 7:1; Jeremiah 1:3; Ruth 1:1; Esther 1:1.) This is analogous to a friend of a king who lived in a certain province, and for his sake the king took an interest in that province. Once some barbarians came to attack him, and they said: ‘Woe unto us, as the king will not show favor to the province as was his wont if they kill his friend.’ That is what is written: “They turned back, and came to Ein Mishpat, which is Kadesh” (Genesis 14:7) – Rabbi Aḥa said: They came only to fight against the eyeball [ein] of the world; (Abraham is called the eyeball of the world, because it was only for his sake that God took an interest in and looked out for the benefit of the people of the world.) they sought to blind the eye [ayin] that overcame the attribute of justice [mishpat] in the world. “Which is [hi] Kadesh” – Rav Aḥa said: Hu is written. It is he [hu] who sanctified [kiddesh] the name of the Holy One blessed be He in the fiery furnace. When the barbarians came to attack him, everyone began crying out: ‘Woe [vay].’ That is what is written: “It was [vayhi] in the days of Amrafel.” “It was in the days of Aḥaz” (Isaiah 7:1) – what was the trouble there? “Aram from the east and the Philistines from the west” (Isaiah 9:11). (Israel was under attack from all sides.) This is analogous to a king’s son, whose caretaker resolved to kill him. He said: ‘If I kill him, I will be liable to execution by the king. Instead, I will take away his wet nurse from him, and he will die on his own.’ So, too, Aḥaz said: ‘If there are no kids, there will be no goats, and if there are no goats there will be no flock, and if there is no flock there will be no shepherd, and if there is no shepherd, there will be no world.’ (That is, the world will not be able to function in its conventional manner.) That is what Aḥaz thought to himself: ‘If there are no children [in school], there will be no students, if there are no students there will be no scholars, if there are no scholars there will be no elders, if there are no elders there will be no prophets, if there are no prophets the Holy One blessed be He will not rest His Divine Presence upon them [Israel]. (Consequently, he closed all the schools.) That is what is written: “Bind the testimony, seal the Torah in my disciples” (Isaiah 8:16). Rabbi Ḥonya bar Rabbi Elazar said: Why was he named Aḥaz? It is because he locked up [aḥaz] the synagogues and study halls. Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: Isaiah said: ‘“I will hope for the Lord, who conceals His face from the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 8:17). There was no moment that was as grim as that time, in whose regard it is stated: “I will conceal My face on that day” (Deuteronomy 31:18). But at that very time, I [Isaiah] hoped for Him, as it is written [immediately afterwards]: “For it will not be forgotten from the mouths of their descendants” (Deuteronomy 31:21). (When God said that He would hide His face from Israel, He continued, that nevertheless the Torah would never be forgotten by them.) Of what use was it to him [Ahaz]? (Despite his best efforts, the Torah continued to be taught, as the Midrash goes on to explain.) [Of no use, as Isaiah declared:] “Behold, I, and the children whom the Lord gave me, are to become signs and wonders in Israel”’ (Isaiah 8:18). Were they (The young men Isaiah was referring to.) his children? Were they not actually his students? However, we learn from here that they [his students] were as beloved to him as sons. When he [Aḥaz] locked up the synagogues and study halls, people began crying out: ‘Woe [vay]’ – “it was [vayhi] in the days of Aḥaz.” “It was in the days of Yehoyakim” (Jeremiah 1:3) – what was the trouble there? [It was as Jeremiah prophesied:] “I saw the land, and behold, it is emptiness and disorder” (Jeremiah 4:23). This is analogous to a king who sent a proclamation throughout the province. What did the residents of one province do to it? They took it, ripped it, and burned it in fire. Thus it is stated: “It happened that as Yehudi would read three or four sections…” (Jeremiah 36:23) (It was the Book of Lamentations that was being read.) – this means three or four verses. When he reached the fifth verse, “Its besiegers have become dominant” (Lamentations 1:5) – “He cut it up with a scribe’s razor and cast it into the fire that was in the fireplace, until the entire scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the fireplace” (Jeremiah 36:23). When everyone saw this, they began crying out: ‘Woe [vay]’ – “it was [vayhi] in the days of Yehoyakim.” “It was in the days that the judges judged” (Ruth 1:1) (A more literal translation would be, “in the days of the judging of the judges.”) – what was the trouble there? “There was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1). This is analogous to a province that owed a tax to the king. The prince sent a tax collector to collect it. What did the residents of the province do to him? They took him and beat him. They then said: ‘Woe to us when the king becomes aware of these events; what he sought to do to us, (Subdue us.) we did to him.’ So, too, in the days of the judging of the judges – when a person of Israel would engage in idol worship, and the judge sought to implement against him the attribute of strict justice, (And decree for him corporal punishment.) he would come and flog the judge. He said: ‘What he sought to do to me, I did to him.’ (“The judging of the judges” is interpreted to mean that the people committed acts of judgment and punishment against their judges.) They said: ‘Woe [vay] to the generation that judges its judges.’ That is what is written: “It was [vayhi] in the days when the judges judged, there was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1). “It was in the days of Aḥashverosh” (Esther 1:1) – what was the trouble there? [Haman’s decree:] “to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate [all the Jews]” (Esther 3:13). This is analogous to a king who had a certain vineyard, and three enemies rose up against it. The first began picking unripe grapes, the second began cutting off the clusters, and the third began uprooting the vines. So too, Pharaoh [said]: “Every son who is born you shall cast into the Nile…” (Exodus 1:22). Nebuchadnezzar [exiled] “the ḥarash and the masger, (These are two classes of Torah scholars (Gittin 88a).) one thousand” (Jeremiah 29:2) – Rabbi Berekhya said: One thousand ḥarash and one thousand masger; the Rabbis said: They were one thousand altogether. Haman sought to uproot the entire vineyard, as it is stated: “To destroy, to kill, and to eliminate all the Jews…” (Esther 3:13). When everyone saw that it was so, they began crying out: ‘Woe [vay].’ That is what is written: “It was [vayhi] in the days of Aḥashverosh.” Rabbi Shimon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Everywhere that vayhi is stated it refers either to trouble or to joy; if the context is one of trouble, it is unparalleled trouble, if it is one of joy, it is unparalleled joy. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman came and made a distinction: Everywhere that vayhi is stated, (Even when it is not connected with “in the days of.”) it alludes to trouble, and vehaya [alludes to] joy. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “And there was [vayhi] light”? (Genesis 1:3). He said to them: That was nevertheless not complete joy, as the world was not privileged to use that light. Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Simon said: By the light that was created on the first day, a person could see from one end of the world to the other. When the Holy One blessed be He foresaw the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion, He hid it away for the righteous in the future. That is what is written: “But the path of the righteous is like a dawning light, growing brighter until the day is established” (Proverbs 4:18). They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, one day”? (Genesis 1:5). He said to them: That was nevertheless not complete joy, as everything that was created on the first day is destined to wear away, as it is stated: “For the heavens will vanish like smoke and the earth will wear away like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6). They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, a second day” (Genesis 1:8), “…a third day” (Genesis 1:13), “a fourth day” (Genesis 1:19), “a fifth day” (Genesis 1:23), “a sixth day”? (Genesis 1:31). He said to them: That was nevertheless not complete [joy], as everything that was created during the six days of Creation requires some act [to perfect it], e.g., mustard requires sweetening, wheat requires grinding, and lupines require sweetening. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joseph”? (Genesis 39:2). He said to them: That was nevertheless not complete joy, as that bear (Potifar’s wife.) then accosted him. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] on the eighth day, Moses summoned”? (Leviticus 9:1). He said to them: That was nevertheless not complete joy, as Nadav and Avihu died [that day]. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] on the day that Moses completed assembling the Tabernacle”? (Numbers 7:1). He said to them: That was nevertheless not [complete] joy, as it was hidden away with the building of the Temple. (Moses’ Tabernacle was stored away forever when the permanent Temple was built.) They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joshua”? (Joshua 6:27). He said to them: That was nevertheless not [complete] joy, as it became necessary for him to rend his garments. (Joshua 7:6.) They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] when the king (David.) resided in his house, and the Lord had given him respite…”? (II Samuel 7:1). He said to them: It was nevertheless not complete joy, as Natan then came and said to him: “However, you will not build the House…for My name” (I Kings 8:19). They said to him: We have said our [arguments], now you say yours. He said to them, (To prove his contention that vehaya always alludes to a joyous event.) is it not written: “It will be [vehaya] on that day that spring water will emerge…” (Zechariah 14:8). It will be [vehaya] on that day, each man will keep a calf of the herd…” (Isaiah 7:21). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, the mountains will drip with nectar” (Joel 4:18). “It will be on that day that the Lord will continue…[to acquire the remnant of His people]” (Isaiah 11:11). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, a great shofar will be sounded…” (Isaiah 27:13). They raised an objection to him: “And it was [vehaya] when Jerusalem was captured” (Jeremiah 38:28). He said to them: That was nevertheless joyous, as on that day, Israel gained atonement for its sins, as Rav and Shmuel say: Israel gained great atonement for their iniquities on the day that the Temple was destroyed, as it is stated: “Your sin is completed, daughter of Zion, He will not continue to exile you again” (Lamentations 4:22).

Bereshit Rabbah 86:2

Another matter, “Joseph was taken down to Egypt.” “Joseph was the ruler” (Genesis 42:6). “Joseph was taken down [hurad] to Egypt” – he ruled over them, just as it says: “He will rule [veyerd] from sea to sea” (Psalms 72:8). He subdued them, just as it says: “For he had dominion [rodeh] over the entire region across the River” (I Kings 5:4). He imposed relocation upon them, (See Genesis 47:21. ) just as it says: “He scraped it [vayirdehu] into his hands” (Judges 14:9). He caused Jacob our patriarch to descend [horid] to Egypt. Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon: This is analogous to a cow that they were pulling to the slaughterhouse, but it would not be pulled. What did they do to it? They pulled its offspring before it, and it was walking after it despite itself, and to its [ultimate] detriment. So, Jacob was supposed to descend to Egypt in chains and neck chains. (This is because of the decree of enslavement in the Covenant between the Pieces (see Genesis 15:13).) The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘Shall I take My firstborn son down [to Egypt] in disgrace? And if I introduce it into Pharaoh’s heart, would I not be taking him down [to Egypt] in public? (If I introduce it into Pharaoh’s heart to bring Jacob down to Egypt in an honorable fashion, the public nature of the spectacle of his leaving the Land of Israel would itself cause Jacob great discomfort (Etz Yosef). ) Instead, I will draw his son before him, and he will descend after him despite himself and to his [ultimate] detriment.’ He took down the Divine Presence with him. Rabbi Pinḥas said in the name of Rabbi Simon: From where do we derive that the Divine Presence descended with him? From what is written: “The Lord was with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). “To Egypt [Mitzraima]” – it is taught in the name of Rabbi Neḥemya: Any word that requires a lamed at its start, a heh [can be] placed at its end [instead]: Sedoma, Se’ira, Mitzraima, Ḥarana. (The lamed as a prefix or the heh as a suffix both mean “to.” These are examples where the verse uses the heh at the end of the name of the place, indicating “to Sodom” and the like. ) But is it not written: “The wicked will return to the netherworld [lishola]”? (Psalms 9:18). (Lishola has both a lamed at the start and a heh at the end.) Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said: [They will be sent] to the lowest compartment in the netherworld.

Bereshit Rabbah 86:4

“The Lord was with Joseph, and he was a successful man, and he was in the house of his master, the Egyptian” (Genesis 39:2). “The Lord was with Joseph” – but with the rest of the tribes, He was not? Rabbi Yudan said: [This is analogous] to an animal driver, who had twelve animals laden with wine before him. One of them entered the shop of an idolater; he forsook the eleven and followed after it. They said to him: ‘Why do you forsake eleven [animals] and follow the one?’ He said to them: ‘These are in the public domain, and I am not concerned lest [the wine] become libation wine.’ (I am not concerned that an idolator will take the wine and use it for a libation to an idol, rendering it forbidden. Alternatively, this means – I am not concerned that an idolator will pick up the wine, rendering it forbidden by rabbinic law, as though it was poured as a libation to an idol. ) So, these [Joseph’s brothers] were adults, and in their father’s domain, but this one was young and on his own. That is why, “the Lord was with Joseph.” “He was a successful [matzliaḥ] man” – Rabbi Berekhya said: A leaping man, (He was able to surmount all obstacles.) just as it says: “They crossed [vetzalḥu] the Jordan before the king” (II Samuel 19:18). This is analogous to a she-bear that was standing in the street adorned with gems and precious stones. They said: ‘Anyone who jumps on it can take everything that is on it.’ There was a certain clever man there. He said to them: ‘You are looking at what is on it. I am looking at its teeth.’ (Thus, while the masses approached the bear, the clever man distanced himself from it. Similarly, Joseph recognized the danger of the wife of Potiphar, and sought to distance himself from her. ) Rabbi Berekhya said: All the power of that she-bear is in that it is able to jump, and you are greater that it. (The wife of Potiphar expended great effort to entice Joseph, yet he withstood her advances (Nezer HaKodesh). ) Astonishing!

Bereshit Rabbah 86:5

“His master saw that the Lord was with him, and everything that he did, the Lord made his undertaking successful” (Genesis 39:3). The Rabbis say: “His master saw that the Lord was with him” – but ultimately, he forgot, as it is written: “God has caused me to forget all my toil” (Genesis 41:51). (“The Lord was with him” in that Joseph would review his Torah studies, but ultimately, over time, he forgot them (Etz Yosef). ) Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Aḥa: He would whisper and enter and whisper and exit. (He was constantly whispering his studies, or praying (see Yefeh To’ar). ) [Potiphar] would say to him: ‘Pour me boiling water,’ and it would be boiling; lukewarm [water], and it would be lukewarm. (“The Lord was with him” and granted Joseph success beyond the natural order of the world. ) He said: ‘What, Joseph, are you bringing straw to Efrayim, earthenware pots to Kefar Ḥanina, fleeces to Damascus, sorcery to Egypt – sorcery in a place of sorcerers?’ Until when? Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Until he saw the Divine Presence standing over him. That is what is written: “His master saw that the Lord was with him.”

Esther Rabbah, Petichta 11

Rabbi Tanḥuma, Rabbi Berekhya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great interpreted in the name of Rabbi Elazar: This midrash came up with us from the Exile. Everyplace that vayhi is stated, it means nothing but trouble. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman interpreted in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: This midrash came into our possession. Everyplace that vayhi bimei is stated, it means nothing but trouble. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: They are five: “It was during the days of [vayhi bimei] Amrafel king of Shinar, Ariokh, king of Elasar, Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal, king of Goyim” (Genesis 14:1). What was the trouble there? “They waged war with Bera, king of Sodom…” (Genesis 14:2). [This is analogous] to the beloved of a king who resided in a province and, for his sake, the king attended to that province. When barbarians came and afflicted him [the beloved of the king], they [the other residents of the province] said: ‘Woe unto us that the king is not attending to the province the way that he once did.’ So too, Abraham our patriarch, the beloved of the Holy One, blessed be He, “all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you” (Genesis 12:4). For his sake, the Holy One blessed be He attended to His entire world. That is what is written: “They returned and came to Ein Mishpat, which is Kadesh” (Genesis 14:7). They sought to afflict only the eye of the world [Abraham]. They sought to blind the eye that acts upon the attribute of justice in the world. ( This probably means that Abraham is responsible for the suppression of the attribute of justice, the result of which is that God rules the world through the attribute of mercy.) “Which is [hi] Kadesh” – Rabbi Aḥa said: Hu [i.e. he rather than she] is written. He [Abraham] sanctified [kiddesh] the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and he went into the fiery furnace. When everyone saw that all the kings came to afflict him, they began screaming: ‘Woe [vai];’ “it was [vayhi] during the reign of Amrafel.” “It was during the days [vayhi bimei] when the judges judged; there was a famine in the land and a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to stay in the field of Moab, he, his wife, and his two sons” (Ruth 1:1). What was the trouble there? “There was a famine in the land.” [This is comparable] to a province that owed a tax to the king, and the king sent a tax collector to collect it. What did the residents of the province do? They suspended him [on a pole] and struck him and extracted it [the money] from him. They said: Woe unto us when the king becomes aware of these matters; we did to the emissary of the king what he sought to do to us. So too, when one of the people of Israel would perform inappropriate actions, they would take him to the judge, and what the judge sought to do to the defendant, the defendant would do to the judge. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: You humiliate your judges; by your lives, I will bring upon you a matter that you are unable to endure. What is that? It is famine, as it is stated: “It was during the days when the judges judged, there was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1). “It was during the days of [vayhi bimei] Aḥaz son of Yotam, son of Uziyahu, king of Judah; Retzin, king of Aram and Pekaḥ, son of Remalyahu, king of Israel, went to war against Jerusalem, but he was unable to make war against it” (Isaiah 7:1). What was the trouble there? It was as it is written: “Aram from the east and the Philistines from the west” (Isaiah 9:11). [This is comparable] to a king who handed his son over to a tutor, and his tutor hated him. He said: If I kill him, I will be condemned to death by the king; instead, I will withhold his nurse from him, and he will die on his own. So too, Aḥaz said: If there are no kids, there are no goats, and if there are no goats there is no flock, and if there is no flock there is no shepherd, and if there is no shepherd, the world cannot exist. So Aḥaz thought and said: If there are no children, there are no adults, and if there are no adults there are no students, if there are no students there are no scholars, if there are no scholars there are no elders, if there are no elders there is no Torah, if there is no Torah there are no synagogues and study halls, if there are no synagogues and study halls, the Holy One, blessed be He, will not rest His Divine Presence in the world. What did he do? He arose and locked all the synagogues and study halls, so that no one would engage in Torah study. That is what is written: “Bind the testimony, seal the Torah in my disciples” (Isaiah 8:16). Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Why was he named Aḥaz? It is because he seized [aḥaz] the synagogues and study halls. Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Aḥa derived it from this verse, as it is written: “I will wait for the Lord, who conceals His face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope for Him” (Isaiah 8:17). There was no time that was as grim for Israel as that time, as it is stated: “I will conceal My face on that day because of all the evil that they did…” (Deuteronomy 31:18). But from that moment I hoped for Him, (A reference to the verse quoted above “I will wait for the Lord, who conceals His face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope for Him” (Isaiah 8:17).) as it is written: “As it will not be forgotten from the mouths of their descendants” (Deuteronomy 31:21). What did you [Aḥaz] accomplish? “Behold, I [Isaiah] and the children whom the Lord gave me are to become signs and wonders in Israel” (Isaiah 8:18). Were they his children? Surely, they were nothing but his students! Rather, from here [we learn] that a person’s student is called his son. Once everyone saw that he seized the synagogues and study halls, they began screaming: Woe [vai]: “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥaz.” “It was during the days of [vayhi bimei] Yehoyakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the exile of Jerusalem in the fifth month” (Jeremiah 1:3). What was the trouble there? “I saw the land, and behold, it is emptiness and disorder; the heavens, and their light is not” (Jeremiah 4:23). [This is comparable] to a king who sent letters from province to province and in each and every province that his letters reached, they would embrace and kiss them, standing on their feet, baring their heads and reading them with reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling. When they reached the king’s province, they read them, ripped them, and burned them. That is what is written: “It was, as Yehudi would read three columns or four,” (Jeremiah 36:23) – three or four verses. When they reached the fifth verse: “Its besiegers are ascendant” (Lamentations 1:5), immediately: “He would cut it with a scribe’s razor and cast it into the fire that was in the fireplace” (Jeremiah 36:23). Once everyone saw that it was so, they began screaming: ‘Woe [vai];’ “it was [vayhi] during the days of Yehoyakim.” “It was during the days of [vayhi bimei] Aḥashverosh; that Aḥashverosh who reigned from India to Kush, one hundred and twenty-seven provinces” (Esther 1:1). What was the trouble there? It was “to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” (Esther 3:13). [This is comparable] to a king who entered a vineyard and encountered three enemies: The first began picking unripe grapes, the second began trimming the clusters, and the third began uprooting vines. So too, wicked Pharaoh began picking unripe grapes; that is what is written: “Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying: Every son who is born you shall cast into the Nile…” (Exodus 1:22). Nebuchadnezzar, may his bones be crushed, began trimming the clusters; that is what is written: “He exiled Yehoyakhin…and the artisans and the smiths, one thousand” (II Kings 24:14). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Yehuda said: One thousand artisans and one thousand smiths; the Rabbis said: One thousand artisans and smiths. Rabbi Yuda son of Rabbi Simon said: These are the Torah scholars. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitzḥak said: These are the notables. Haman the wicked, may he be crushed and wiped out, began uprooting the vines; that is what is written: “To destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” (Esther 3:13). He sought to undermine the foundation of Israel, he wanted to devastate the whole house [of Israel]. Once everyone saw that it was so, they began screaming: ‘Woe [vai];’ “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥashverosh.” Shimon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yonatan said: Everywhere that vayhi is stated it refers to trouble or to joy; if it is to trouble, it is unparalleled trouble, if it is to joy, it is unparalleled joy. Rabban Shmuel bar Naḥman came and suggested a different distinction: Everywhere that it says vayhi (it was), it refers to trouble, everywhere that it says vehaya (it will be), joy. They objected: Is it not written: “God said: Let there be light, and there was [vayhi] light”? He said to them: Even that is not joy, as the world did not merit to use that light. Rabbi Yuda son of Rabbi Simon said: By the light that was created on the first day, a person could look out and see from one end of the world to the other end. When the Holy One, blessed be He, perceived that the generation of Enosh, the generation of the flood, and the generation of the dispersion (after the Tower of Babel) were destined to sin before Him, He arose and concealed it from them. That is what is written: “From the wicked was withheld their light” (Job 38:15). Where did He conceal it? In the Garden of Eden; that is what is written: “Light is sown for the righteous and joy for the upright” (Psalms 97:11). They objected: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as everything that was created on the first day is destined to wither; that is what is written: “As the heavens will be eroded like smoke and the earth will be tattered like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6). They objected: It is written: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, a second day,” “…a third day,” through the sixth day. He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as everything that was created during the six days of Creation requires action, as they were not completely made, e.g. wheat requires grinding, and mustard and lupines require sweetening. They objected: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as that resulted in that bear (Potifar’s wife.) confronting him. They objected: “It was [vayhi] on the eighth day, Moses summoned Aaron and his sons” (Leviticus 9:1). He said to them: That, too, is not good, as on that day, Nadav and Avihu died and all of Israel lamented them, as it is stated: “Your brethren, the entire house of Israel, will lament the burning” (Leviticus 10:6). They objected: “It was [vayhi] on the day that Moses completed assembling the Tabernacle” (Numbers 7:1). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it was put away when the eternal Temple was built. They objected: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joshua” (Joshua 6:27). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as on that day Ya’ir, who was equivalent to the majority of Sanhedrin, was killed; that is what is written: “The men of Ai smote them, about thirty-six men” (Joshua 7:5). Thirty-six men is not written, but rather “like thirty-six;” ( The verse says: “The men of the Ai killed about thirty-six [ki-shloshim ve-shisha] men…” The prepositional ‘ki-’ can designate approximation, “about thirty-six” or comparison, “like thirty-six.”) that is Ya’ir, who was equivalent to the majority of Sanhedrin [of 70 or 71 members]. What is written there? “Joshua rent his garments” (Joshua 7:6). They objected: “David was [vayhi] successful in all his ways” (I Samuel 18:14). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it resulted in what is written: Saul felt enmity to David” (I Samuel 18:9). They objected: “It was [vayhi] when David dwelled in his house” (I Chronicles 17:1). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as on that day, Natan the prophet came and said to him: “It will not be you who builds Me the House” (I Chronicles 17:4). They said to him: We said ours, now you say yours. He said to them, it is written: “It will be [vehaya] on that day, the mountains will drip with nectar and the hills will flow with milk” (Joel 4:18). “It will be [vehaya] on that day that spring water will emerge from Jerusalem” (Zechariah 14:8). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, each man shall keep a calf of the herd and two sheep alive, and from the abundance of milk produced, he will eat butter, for everyone who remains in the midst of the land will eat butter and honey” (Isaiah 7:21-22). “The remnant of Jacob will be [vehaya] among the nations, in the midst of many peoples like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he passes, tramples and mauls, and there is no deliverer” (Micah 5:7). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, that a great shofar will be sounded, and the lost in the land of Assyria and the outcasts in the land of Egypt will come and bow down to the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 27:13). “He will be [vehaya] like a tree planted near streams of water which yields fruit in season; its leaves shall not wither, and whatever he does will prosper” (Psalms 1:3). They objected to him: “And it was [vehaya] when Jerusalem was captured” (Jeremiah 38:28). He said to them: Even that is not trouble but joy, as on that day, Menaḥem (The Messiah.) was born and Israel made penance for its sins, as Rav and Shmuel say: Israel made great penance at the moment that the Temple was destroyed. That is what is written: “Your sin is completed, daughter of Zion” (Lamentations 4:22).

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Emor 12:2

(Eccl. 3:15:) THEN GOD SEEKS THE PERSECUTED. R. Huna said in the name of R. Joseph: The Holy One is going to claim the blood of the persecuted from the hand of those who persecute them. (Lev. R. 27:5.) When a righteous person persecutes a righteous person, GOD SEEKS THE PERSECUTED. When a wicked person persecutes a wicked person, GOD SEEKS THE PERSECUTED. [When a wicked person persecutes a righteous person, THEN GOD SEEKS THE PERSECUTED. Even if you come back and say: When a righteous person persecutes a wicked person, in every case, THEN GOD SEEKS THE PERSECUTED.] (Cf. PR 48:2.) You know that this is so. Note that Abel was persecuted by Cain; therefore, it is stated (in Gen. 4:4): AND THE LORD PAID HEED UNTO ABEL AND UNTO HIS OFFERING. Noah was persecuted by his generation, BUT (according to Gen. 6:8): NOAH FOUND FAVOR < IN THE EYES OF THE LORD >. As for his generation, (cf. Gen. 7:23): AND HE BLOTTED OUT ALL EXISTENCE. Abraham was persecuted by Nimrod; (cf. Neh. 9:7:) YOU ARE THE LORD, THE GOD WHO CHOSE ABRAHAM. Isaac was persecuted by Philistines; (cf. Gen. 26:28:) AND THEY SAID: WE SEE PLAINLY < THAT THE LORD HAS BEEN WITH YOU >. Jacob was persecuted by Esau; (cf. Ps. 135:4:) FOR THE LORD HAS CHOSEN JACOB FOR HIMSELF. Joseph was persecuted by his brothers; (cf. Gen. 39:2:) AND THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH. Moses was persecuted by Pharaoh; (cf. Ps. 106:23:) THEREFORE HE SAID HE WOULD DESTROY THEM, HAD NOT MOSES HIS CHOSEN < STOOD IN THE BREACH BEFORE HIM >. Israel is being persecuted by the nations of the world; (cf. Deut. 7:6:) THE LORD YOUR GOD HAS CHOSEN YOU. R. Judah bar Simon said in the name of R. [Jose bar] Nehoray. Here also (in the case of sacrificial animals) the bull is persecuted by the lion; the sheep is persecuted by the wolf; the goat is persecuted by the leopard. The Holy One said: You shall not bring me a sacrifice from the persecutor but from the persecuted. Thus it is stated (Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT….

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Nasso 32:1

[(Numb. 7:48:) ON THE SEVENTH DAY IT WAS THE PRINCE OF THE CHILDREN OF EPHRAIM. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi:] This text is related (to Eccl. 8:4–5): FOR A KING's WORD IS SUPREME…. WHOEVER OBSERVES A COMMANDMENT SHALL NOT KNOW ANYTHING EVIL. And so it says (in II Sam. 23:3–4): THE GOD OF ISRAEL HAS SPOKEN; THE ROCK OF ISRAEL HAS SAID TO ME: ONE WHO RULES OVER A PERSON, WHO RULES RIGHTEOUSLY {IN} THE FEAR OF GOD, Who is this? This is the one who rules over his drive. (See above, Gen. 5:6.) And who was this? this was Joseph, the father of {Manasseh} [Ephraim], the father of the father of Joshua ben Nun. What is written about him (in Gen. 39:7–8)? AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER THESE THINGS THAT HIS MASTER'S WIFE CAST HER EYES UPON JOSEPH…. BUT HE REFUSED…. The Holy One said to him: You did not heed her. By your life I am making you king over Egypt. Then they all shall obey you, as stated (in Gen. 41:55): THEN PHARAOH SAID {UNTO} [TO] ALL EGYPT: GO UNTO JOSEPH. It also says (in vs. 40): YOU SHALL BE OVER MY HOUSE, and the children of my palace (Lat.: praetorium; Gk.: praitorion.) shall do nothing without your consent. So it says (in Gen. 42:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS THE GOVERNOR OVER THE LAND. Because he governed his drive, he became governor over the land. (Gen. 39:2:) AND HE WAS A SUCCESSFUL MAN. It was only necessary to say "righteous man." Why did write SUCCESSFUL MAN? The Holy One said to : You achieved what the first Adam did not achieve. (I.e., unlike Adam, Joseph resisted temptation and overcame his evil drive.) SUCCESSFUL (rt.: TsLH) simply means achievement. Thus it is stated (in II Sam. 19:18): AND THEY CROSSED (rt.: TsLH) THE JORDAN AHEAD OF THE KING. (The context is the successful return of King David to Jerusalem after his forces had achieved the defeat of Absalom. Cf. also Gen. R. 86:4.) The Holy One said to him: No sacrifice by an individual overrides the Sabbath; yet By your life, the sacrifice by your son (Ephraim) will override the Sabbath, because of the good work (mitswah) that you did (in resisting temptation). Ergo (in Numb. 7:48): ON THE SEVENTH DAY IT WAS THE PRINCE OF THE CHILDREN OF EPHRAIM, ELISHAMA BEN AMMIHUD. R. Azariah said: The Holy One said to him, to Joseph, you have kept commandment (mitswah) (from Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17:) YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. So you have fulfilled the Torah before I gave it. No tribe shall come between your two sons. Instead (according to Numb. 7:48) Ephraim on the seventh day; and (according to Numb. 7:54) Manasseh, on the eighth day.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 16:5

(Gen. 39:2, cont.:) AND HE WAS A SUCCESSFUL MAN. He used to gird up his loins; and, when his master would say to him: Pour me a glass of water, he would pour it. < Then he would say > : Give me cold < water >, and he would give it to him out of the same vessel. When his master would say to him: Give me wine, he would give it to him. < Then he would say >: Give it to me tripled (i.e., mixed with two parts of water). (So Buber, p. 186, n. 66.) He would give it to him, and it would become sweet by itself. (Cf. Tanh., Gen. 9:8; Gen. R. 86:5.) It is therefore stated (in Gen. 39:2, cont.): AND HE WAS A SUCCESSFUL MAN.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 16:6

(Gen. 39:3:) WHEN HIS MASTER SAW THAT THE LORD WAS WITH HIM…. He saw that his works were different. And why all this? (Gen. 39:2:) THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH.

Midrash Tanchuma, Emor 9:1

(Lev. 22:27:) “When a bull or a sheep or a goat.” This text is related] (to Eccl. 3:15), “That which is has already happened.” R. Judah and R. Nehemiah [differ]. (PRK 9:4; Lev. R. 27:4; Eccl. R. 3:15 (1).) R. Judah says, “If someone says to you that if the first Adam had not sinned, he would have remained alive forever, you say to him, ‘Look at Elijah. Since he did not sin, he has remained alive forever.’ (Ibid., cont.:) ‘And that which is to be has already happened.’ If someone says to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, will be raising the dead, say to him, ‘Look, He has already done so through Elijah, through Elisha, and through Ezekiel.’” [But] Rabbi Nehemiah says, “If someone says to you that the whole world was water within water, you say to him, ‘The ocean is all water within water.’ (Ibid., cont.:) ‘And that which is to be has already happened.’ If someone says to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to make the sea into dry ground, say to him, ‘He has already done so in the days of Moses, as stated (in Exod. 14:29), “But the Children of Israel went through the sea on dry ground, and the waters were a wall for them to the right and to the left.”’” [Moreover,] R. Aha said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahman, “Everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to do in the world to come He has already anticipated and partly done at the hands of the righteous in this world. In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to raise the dead; He has already done so at the hands of Elijah, at the hands of Elisha, and at the hands of Ezekiel. In the future, He is going to make the sea into dry ground; He has already done so (ibid.), “But the Children of Israel went through the sea on dry ground.” In the future, He is going to open the eyes of the blind; He has already done so, as stated (in II Kings 6:17), ‘so the Lord opened the eyes of the servant [and he saw].’ In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to going visit barren women; He has already done so through Abraham and Sarah, as stated (in Gen. 21:1), ‘Then the Lord visited Sarah […].’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, (in Is. 49:23), ‘Kings shall be your guardians [… they shall bow down before you, nose to the ground, and lick the dust of your feet].’ It has already happened at the hands of Daniel, when the wicked Nebuchadnezzar bowed down to Daniel, as stated (in Dan. 2:46), ‘Then king Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, [paid homage to Daniel].’” This is what Scripture stated (in Eccl. 3:15, cont.), “then God seeks the pursued.” R. Huna said in the name of R. Joseph, “In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to claim the blood of the pursued from the hand of those who pursue them. (Lev. R. 27:5.) When a righteous person pursues a righteous person, God seeks the pursued. When a wicked person pursues a wicked person and when a wicked person pursues a righteous person, then God seeks the pursued. It comes out that you will say that even when a righteous person pursues a wicked person, in any case, then God seeks the pursued.” (Cf. PR 48:2.) You know that this is so. Note that Abel was pursued by Cain; and therefore (in Gen. 4:4), “and the Lord paid heed unto Abel and unto his offering.” Noah was pursued by his generation, but (according to Gen. 6:8), “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” Abraham was pursued by Nimrod; and it is written (Neh. 9:7) “You are the Lord, the God who chose Abraham […].” Isaac was pursued by the Philistines; and it is written (Gen. 26:28), “And [they] said, ‘We see plainly that the Lord has been with you […].’” Jacob was pursued by Esau; and it is written (Ps. 135:4) “For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself.” Joseph was pursued by his brothers; and it is written (Gen. 39:2) “And the Lord was with Joseph […].” Moses was pursued by Pharaoh; and it is written (Ps. 106:23), “therefore He said He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen [stood in the breach before Him…].” Israel is being pursued by the nations of the world; and it is written (Deut. 7:6), “the Lord your God has chosen you […].” R. Judah bar Simon said in the name of R. Nehoray, “Here also (in the case of sacrificial animals), the bull is pursued by the lion; the sheep is pursued by the wolf; the goat is pursued by the leopard. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘You shall not bring me a sacrifice from the pursuer but from the pursued.’ [Thus it is stated] (Lev. 22:27), ‘When a bull or a sheep or a goat […].’”

Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 28:1

(Numb. 7:48:) “On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim.” This text is related (to Ps. 60:9), “Gilead is Mine and Manasseh is Mine; Ephraim also is My chief stronghold; Judah is My scepter.” Resh Laqish said, “If the idolaters should say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not enliven the dead, say to them, ‘See here, Elijah bears witness that I enlivened the dead through his hand.’ (Cf. Numb. R. 14:1.) Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), ‘Gilead is mine,’ as Elijah was of the inhabitants of Gilead. (Ibid., cont.:) ‘And Manasseh is Mine.’ If they should say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not receive repentant sinners, say to them, ‘See here, Manasseh bears witness that I received him through repentance, since it is stated (in II Chron. 33:13), “When he (i.e., Manasseh) prayed unto him, He (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He,) granted his request, heard his [entreaty,] and restored him to Jerusalem and to his kingdom […].”’ Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), ‘and Manasseh is Mine.’ (Ibid., cont.:) ‘Ephraim also is My chief stronghold.’ And if they say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not attend to (pqd) barren women, say to them, ‘See here, Elkanah of Mount Ephraim bears witness that I attended to (pqd) his wife Hannah, as stated (in I Sam. 2:21), “For the Lord visited (pqd) hannah; [so she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters].”’ (Ibid., cont.:) ‘Judah is my scepter.’ If they say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not rescue from the fire, say to them, ‘See here, Hananiah and his friends bear witness that I rescued them from the fire, as stated (in Dan. 1:6), “Now among those from the Children of Judah were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.”’ Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), ‘Judah is my scepter.’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 60:9), “Gilead is Mine”: If someone says to you, “Why did Elijah build an altar up on Mount Carmel and sacrifice on it, when the Temple existed at that time? For Moses has said (in Lev. 17:3–4), ‘If any single person from the house of Israel slaughters [an ox, a lamb or a goat in the camp]…, And does not bring it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting [to offer a sacrifice to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord, blood guilt shall be imputed to that person],’” say to him, “Everything that Elijah did, he did for the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and by divine command. (yTa‘an. 2:8 (65d); Lev. R. 22:9.) It is so stated (in I Kings 18:36), ‘And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the oblation (minhah), the prophet Elijah drew near and said […, and that I have done all these things at Your bidding].’” Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), “Gilead is Mine.” (Ibid., cont.:) “And Manasseh is Mine.” If someone says to you, “Why did Gideon sacrifice in a high place (bamah); see here, it was forbidden because there was Shiloh in existence?” [In answer to this question,] R. Abba bar Lahana said, “Gideon did seven [unlawful] things: (yMeg. 1:14 (or 12) (72c); Zev. 14:6; M. Sam. 13; see Tem. 28b-29a.) (1) He sacrificed a bull which had been worshipped, (2) a bull which had been set aside (for idolatry), (3) he built an altar, (4) he cut wood [for it] from the asherah, (5) he sacrificed at night, (6) without the high priest, and (7) he was among idol-serving priests. Yet whatever he did, he did by divine command. It is so stated (in Jud. 6:25-26), ‘And it came to pass during that night that the Lord said to him, “Take the bull ox that belongs to your father […]”’” Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), “and Manasseh is Mine.” (Ibid., cont.:) “Judah is my scepter.” If someone says to you, “See here, David transgressed against a negative commandment,” (Buber, n. 147, suggests that the allusion is to the Bathsheba incident (II Sam. 11). This interpretation is suggested by citation of Ps. 51:15 which follows, since according to the introduction of this Psalm, David wrote it when Nathan came to him to condemn him for the Bathsheba affair. Cf. also Numb. R. 14:1, which alludes in this context to David building an altar and offering sacrifices on a high place (II Sam. 24:18-25 // I Chron. 21:18-26).) the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Say to him, ‘David taught the penitents, like a scribe teaching children.’” It is so stated (in Ps. 51:15), “Let me teach transgressors your ways and the sinners shall return unto You.” Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), “Judah is My scepter. (Ibid.:) “Ephraim also is My chief stronghold.” If someone says to you, “Why did Joshua profane the Sabbath in Jericho,” say to him, “He acted on divine command.” It is so stated (in Joshua 6:2), “Then the Lord said unto Joshua, ‘See, I have given Jericho into your hand […].’” It is also written (in vss. 3-4), “So you shall go around the city […]; thus shall you do for six days. And seven priests […]; but on the seventh day you shall go around the city seven times, [and the priests shall blow on the shofars].’” And how is it shown that it was on the Sabbath? In that there are never seven days without a Sabbath. (See yShab. 1:3 or 8 (4ab); Gen. R. 14:10; Seder Olam Rabbah 11.) Ergo, “Ephraim also is My chief stronghold.” Now Joshua did yet another thing on his own initiative, which was not told to him. When Jericho was conquered, it was Sabbath. He said, “All of the Sabbath is holy, so whatever we conquer on the Sabbath will be holy to the Lord, as stated (in Josh. 6:19), “But all the silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are holy to the Lord […].” R. Berekhyah the Priest Berabbi said, “He treated it like a city condemned (for idolatry), and in the case of a city condemned (for idolatry) it is forbidden [to derive] benefit [from it]. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 13:17), ‘and you shall burn with fire the city with all its plunder, wholly for the Lord your God.’” R. Judah bar Shallum the Levite said, “[Joshua] taught Israel what the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel (in Numb. 15:20), ‘You shall set aside the first of your dough [as a hallah offering].’ Joshua said, ‘In as much as we conquered it first, we shall dedicate all its booty to the most high.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘In as much as you have done so, see, your offering is supporting your tribe and overriding the Sabbath.’ Thus it is stated (in Numb. 7:48), ‘On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim (who made the offering).’” This text is related (to Eccl. 8:4–5), “For a king's word is supreme […]. Whoever observes a commandment shall not know anything evil.” And so it says (in II Sam. 23:3), “The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me, ‘One who governs over a person, who governs righteously the fear of God.” And who is the one who governs over his [evil] drive. (See above, Gen. 5:6.) One who does the will of the Omnipresent. And who is this? This was Joseph, the father of [Ephraim], the father of the father of Joshua ben Nun. What is written about him (in Gen. 39:7–8)? “And it came to pass after these things that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph […]. But he refused […].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You did not heed her. By your life, I am making you king over Egypt. Then they all shall obey you, as stated (in Gen. 41:55), “then Pharaoh said to all Egypt, ‘Go unto Joseph.’” It also says (in vs. 40), “You shall be over my house,” and the children of my palace (Lat.: praetorium; Gk.: praitorion.) shall do nothing without your consent. So it says (in Gen. 42:6), “Now Joseph was the governor over the land.” Because he governed his [evil] drive, he became governor over the land. (Gen. 39:2:) “And he was a successful man. It was only necessary to say "righteous man." Why is “successful man,” written? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to [Joseph], “You achieved what the first Adam did not achieve.” (I.e., unlike Adam, Joseph resisted temptation and overcame his evil drive.) Successful (rt.: tslh) simply means achievement. Thus it is stated (in II Sam. 19:18), “and they crossed (rt.: tslh) the Jordan ahead of the king.” (The context is the successful return of King David to Jerusalem after his forces had achieved the defeat of Absalom. Cf. also Gen. R. 86:4.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “No sacrifice by an individual overrides the Sabbath; yet by your life, the sacrifice by your son (Ephraim) will override the Sabbath, because of the good work (mitswah) that you did (in resisting temptation).” Ergo (in Numb. 7:48), “On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim, Elishama ben Ammihud.” R. Azariah said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, [i.e.] to Joseph, ‘You have kept the commandment (mitswah) (from Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), of “You shall not commit adultery.” So you have fulfilled the Torah before I gave it. By your life, no tribe shall come between your two sons with a sacrifice. Instead (according to Numb. 7:48) Ephraim [shall bring an offering] on the seventh day; and (according to Numb. 7:54) Manasseh, on the eighth day.’” R. Meir and R. Joshua ben Qorhah were interpreting the names, “Elishama [means], he (Joseph) heeded (shama') my God (Eli), and he did not heed his mistress. Ben Ammihud (‘MYHWD) means, His glory (HWDW) was with me (‘MY) and not with another. Similarly also in the case of (Numb. 7:54), Gamaliel ben Pedahzur [prince of the Children of Manasseh, means that] Joseph said, God (El) has recompensed (gamal) my people with a good recompense (gemulim).’ Ben pedahzur (pdhtswr) means, the Rock (tswr) redeemed (pdh) me from my distress of the prison. And so is it written (according to Ps. 18:21), ‘The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the purity of my hands…’” R. Samuel bar Abba said, “What is the meaning of ‘according to the purity of my hands?’ According to the purity of my hands, because I was pure through good works.” (yTa’an. 3:12 (or 10) (67a).) (Ps. 18:21:) “The Lord rewarded me.” How? When someone is poor, he trusts in the Holy One, blessed be He; but when he [becomes] wealthy, he trusts in his wealth and has no fear of [God]. However, when Joseph was a slave, he feared the Lord. When his mistress enticed him with words, he said to her (in Gen. 39:9), “then how shall I do this great evil and sin against God?” Also when he became king he added [to his] fear [of the Holy One, blessed be He], as stated (in Gen. 42:18), “And Joseph said to them on the third day, ‘Do this and live, for I fear God.’” And when his brothers came down to him a second time (according to Gen. 43:16), “When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, [he said… ‘Slaughter and prepare (wehakhen) an animal, for the men will eat with me at noon].’” (Because this verse uses the word, wehakhen, and because the same word also occurs in Exod. 16:5, it is assumed that the conditions of Exod. 16:5 apply here to Gen. 43:16.) Now surely it is not customary for kings to prepare [food] one day ahead for the next. R. Johanan said, “It was the Sabbath, as stated (in Gen 42:16, ‘and prepare.’ And prepare only means [preparation for] the Sabbath, as stated (in Exod. 16:5), ‘And it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that when they prepare.’” (Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Beshallah, 1; Numb. R. 14:2; TDER 24 (or 26), p. 131.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You have kept the Sabbath before it was given. By your life, I will have the son of your son offer [his sacrifice] on the Sabbath day, as stated (in Numb. 7:48), “On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim.”

Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 9:1

And it was on the eighth day: Rabbi Tanchuma, Rabbi Chiya, Rabbah and Rabbi Berakhiya in the name of Rabbi Elazar [all] said, "Any place that it is stated, 'and it was (vayehi),' it is nothing but a term of grief [hinting to the sound, (vay), meaning woe]." Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Natan, "This midrash came up to our hands from the exile - 'Any place that it is stated, "and it was in the days of," it is nothing but a term of grief.'" And there are five: (1) "And it was in the days of Amrafel" (Genesis 14:1). What grief was there over there? They made a war to kill Avraham, our father, as it is stated (Genesis 14:2), "made war." [It is comparable] to a dear friend of a king who entered a province, and on his account was the king [concerned] about that whole province. [Then people] came and grappled with him with words. And when he wanted to leave, they all said to him, "Woe that the king will no longer be concerned about the province as he was." So [too,] was Avraham a dear friend of the Holy One, blessed be He - as it is written about him (Isaiah 41:8), "the seed of Avraham, My dear one"; and it is written (Genesis 12:3), "and through you shall all the families of the world be blessed." And when the kings came and grappled with him, they all said, "Woe that the Holy One, blessed be He, will not be concerned with the world as He was; since He was concerned with the world for his sake." This is [the meaning of] that which the verse stated (Genesis 14:7), "And they came to Ein Mishpat (which can be understand as the eye of justice)" - Rabbi Acha said, "They sought to grapple with no less than the eyeball of the world." They said, "They sought to blind the eye that [suppressed] the trait of [strict] judgment in the world." [The verse continues -] "It (hee) is Kadesh," [but] it is written, "he (hu) is Kadesh"; meaning to say, he sanctified (hu kidesh) the name of the Holy One, blessed be He and went down to the fiery furnace. When they saw that the things were like this, they cried out. (2) "And it was in the days of Achaz the son of Yoshiah, King of Yehudah" (Isaiah 7:1). What grief was there over there? "It is what is stated by the verse (Isaiah 9:11), "Aram is in front and the Philistines are behind, etc." [It is comparable] to a king that gave his son over to a mentor, and the mentor hated him. He said, "If I kill him, I will become liable for death. Rather, I will take away his nourishment from him and he will die on his own." So did the evil Achaz say, "If there are no goats, there will be no rams; if there is no flock, there will be no shepherd, [and] where will the world be?" So did he say, "If there are no masters, there will be no students; if there are no students, there will be no sages; if there is no Torah, there will be no synagogues and study halls." What did he do? He passed all the synagogues and study halls and sealed them. And this [is the meaning of] that which the verse states (Isaiah 8:16), "Bind up the message; seal the instruction with My disciples." And when they saw that the things were like this, they all started to cry out, "Woe that the world is being destroyed" - when [study of] the Torah was negated, that was in the days of Achaz. (3) "And it was in the days of Yehoyakim the son of Yoshiyahu" (Jeremiah 1:3). What grief was there over there? "I looked at the earth, and behold it was empty and void; at the heavens and their light was not" (Jeremiah 4:23), [It is comparable] to edicts of the kings that were brought to the provinces of the kingdom. In each and every province, when it came to their hands, everyone would stand on their feet, uncover their heads and read them with fear, trembling and perspiration. But when they were brought to the province of the king, they tore them up and burned them: When the Holy One, blessed be He, sends His messenger to the nations of the world, they repent, cover themselves in sackcloth and fast - as did the people of Nineveh, as it is stated (Jonah 3:7), "from the order of the king and his principals, etc." They, may their memory be blessed, said, "One who had a beam or a stone that was stolen in his house would destroy the house and remove it and return the theft." And because of this did Yonah fear to prophesy to Nineveh. As Rabbi Tarfon said, "The fish was designated, etc." And the nations of the world are afraid in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, and [so, they are] close to repentance, whereas Israel is stiff-necked. This is what the verse stated (Jeremiah 36:23), "And it was when Yehudi would read three columns or four" - meaning to say, he read four verses - and in the fifth verse, he read, "And her tormentors became the head" (Lamentations 1:5) - and it is is written (Jeremiah 36:23), "he would tear it with a scribe's blade and throw it into the fire until the end of all of the scroll." And when they saw this, everyone began to cry out, "Woe for the decree that is hanging over us." And the other (4) - "And it was in the days of Achashverosh" (Esther 1:1). What grief was there over there? [It is comparable] to a king that had a vineyard, and he had three enemies. What did they do? One cut the small berries, the second ripped the clusters and the third uprooted the vines: The king is King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He; His vineyard is Israel, as it is stated (Isaiah 5:7), "For a vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the House of Israel"; [And] their three enemies are Pharaoh, Nevukhadnetsar and Haman. Pharaoh began with the small berries, as it is stated (Exodus 1:22), "Any son that is born, throw him into the river." Nevukhadnetsar ripped the clusters, as it is stated (Jeremiah 29:2), "the craftsmen and the smiths." Who are the craftsmen (charash)? These are the ones that pray the mute prayer silently, and are victorious with their prayer over all the nations of the world. The smiths? That all the nations of the world come in a vice in front of them but [then] flee, as they put a vice on all the nations - and Nevukhadnetsar come to destroy them; and he destroyed the craftsmen and the smiths, and exiled them. The evil Haman [then] came [to] uproot the vines, as it is stated (Esther 3:13), "to annihilate, to kill and to destroy." Everyone began to cry out, "Woe," and they mourned in front of the Omnipresent. (5) "And it was in the days when the judges ruled" (Ruth 1:1) - there was famine there; and what grief is greater than famine? And from where [do we know] that there was famine? As it is stated (Ruth 1:1), "and there was a famine in the land." And why was there a famine? Because Israel and the judges were not judging true judgement; as it is is stated, "And it was in the days when the judges ruled" - [and] we find [following it], "he", which indicates evildoers. [As] so do we find, "he was Datan and Aviram" (Numbers 26:9); "he was Achashverosh" (Esther 1:1); "he was [...] Achaz" (II Chronicles 28:22). So too were the judges. And to what is the matter comparable? To a province that was liable a tax to the king. [So] he sent collectors to collect it. The people of the province rose and smote the collectors and hung them. The judgment that they were liable - as they appointed other judges for themselves - they did to the collectors. So did they do at that time, as Elimelekh would judge the judges; [since] he was a strongman and there were many men below him. He saw the distress and the famine, but he did not warn the sinners to repent from their evil. And he stopped living in Beit Lechem for himself to live in the field of Moav - to sustain his soul during the famine, and the soul of his wife during the famine, and the soul of his sons; and he did not know that [it is] the Torah that sustains its masters and not the vanities of the world. And he was one who was important, as it is stated (Ruth 1:1), "and a man went from Beit Lechem, Yehudah." And we only say, "man," about an important man, as it is stated (Numbers 12:3), "And the man, Moshe, was very humble." As Elimelekh was an important man, as they would consider him [so] in his place - and [yet] he went to save his soul and the soul of his household, and did not trouble himself about the matters of the community; even as he was an important man and they would have believed his words, [such as] to make them repent from their evil and bring them to repentance. And therefore, it occurred to him as it is written in the verse (Ruth 1:3), "And Elimelekh, the husband of Naomi died." And so [too,] his sons died, as it is stated (Ruth 1:5), "And [...his] two [sons,] Machlon and Khilyon died, and the woman survived her two children and her husband." As so were they judging their judges, like Sodom. Rabbi Shimon ben Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "Any place that it is stated, 'and it was (vayehi),' it is used for grief and it is used for joy. And when for grief, there is no grief like it, and when for joy, there is no joy like it." (The text is missing the following integral part of the midrash, found in Bereishit Rabbah 42:3 and other places: Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman came and divided it, "Any place that it is stated 'it will be,' it is used for joy; [but] 'and it was' [is for] grief.") The Sages responded, "Behold 'And God said, "Vayehi (here used as a command form, and not past tense) light"' [is] joy!" He said to them, "It too is not of joy, as the world did not merit to use that light. As so did Rabbi Yehudah bar Simon say, '[Regarding] the light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day, Adam [could] look and observe from [one] end of the world to the [other] end. [But] since the Holy One, blessed be He, saw the deeds of the generation of Enosh and the generation of the flood, He arose and hid it from them. That is [the meaning of] what the verse states (Job 38:15), "From the wicked is their light withheld." And to where is it hidden? [It is] in the Garden of Eden, for the righteous ones, as it is stated (Psalms 97:11), "Light is sown for the righteous, and joy for the straight-hearted."'" They responded to him further, "It states, 'And it was evening and it was morning, one day.'" He said to them, "On that day too, it is not of joy, as all the acts of the first day are destined to wither, as it is stated (Isaiah 51:6), 'when the heavens melt away like smoke and the earth wither like a garment.'" They responded to him, "Behold, the [acts of] the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day." He said to them, "They too are not of joy, as all the acts of the six days of creation require further action - for example, wheat needs to be ground; mustard needs to be mellowed; lupine need to be mellowed." They responded to him, "[And what about,] 'And it was that the Lord was with Yosef and he was a successful man' (Genesis 39:7)?" He said to them, "It too is not of joy, as that 'bear' chanced upon him from this, as it is stated in the verse, 'after' - 'And it was after these things, and the wife of his master raised, etc.' (Genesis 39:7)." They responded to him, "[And what about,] 'And it was that the Lord was with Yehoshua, and his reputation was in all the land' (Joshua 6:27)?" He said to them, "It too is not of joy, as Yair the son of Menashe, whose weight corresponded to the majority of the Sanhedrin, fell at that time; as it is stated (Joshua 7:5), 'And the men of Ai smote of them, like thirty-six men' - and the master said, 'That is Yair the son of Menashe, whose weight corresponded to the majority of the Sanhedrin.'" They responded to him, "And is it not written (I Samuel 18:14), 'And it was that David was successful in all of his ways and the Lord was with him'?" He said to them, "It too is not of joy, as enmity descended into the heart of Shaul from this, as it is stated (I Samuel 18:9), 'And it was that Shaul eyed David.'" They responded to him, "And is it not written (II Samuel 7:1), 'And it was when the king sat in his house and the Lord allowed him rest from all of his enemies'?" He said to them, "It too is not of joy, as on that same day, Natan the prophet came to David and said to him, 'However you will not build the House' (I Kings 8:19)." They said to him, "Behold, we have said what is ours; [now] say what is yours - that 'and it will be' is joy." He said to them, "'And it will be on that day that the mountains will drip with nectar' (Joel 4:18), that will be in the days of the messiah, and there will be great joy for Israel. And so [too,] 'And it will be on that day that a man shall save alive a heifer of the herd and two sheep' (Isaiah 7:21). And so [too,] 'And it will be on that day that living waters will come out from Jerusalem' (Zechariah 14:8). And so [too,] 'And he will be like a tree planted over streams of water' (Psalms 1:3). And so [too,] 'And the remnant of Yaakov will be among many nations' (Micah 5:6)." They said to him, "But behold, it is written (Jeremiah 38:28), 'vahaya (here used in the past tense, and not like the other examples) when Jerusalem was captured'!" He said to them, "It too is not of grief, as on that day was the verdict of Israel for their sins taken; as so is it written (Lamentations 4:22), 'Your sin has been completed, Daughter of Zion, He will not again exile you.'"

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 8:1

But he refused, and said unto his master’s wife (Gen. 39:8). Scripture states elsewhere in reference to this verse: Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord (Jer. 17:7). You find that while Joseph dwelt in his master’s home, the Lord was with Joseph, and he prospered, and his master saw that the Lord was with him (Gen. 39:2–3). How did the wicked Potiphar recognize, then, that the Holy One, blessed be He, was with him? In what way was the Lord with him? The name of the Holy One, blessed be He, never left Joseph’s lips. When Joseph entered to serve him, he would whisper to himself: “Master of the Universe, you are the One in whom I trust; you are the One who is my protector, may I find grace, kindness, and mercy in your sight, and in the sight of all who see me, and in the eyes of my master, Potiphar.” Thereupon Potiphar asked him: “What are you whispering about? Perhaps you are trying to weave a spell over me?” “No,” he replied, “I am praying that I may find favor in your sight.” Hence it is written: And his master saw that the Lord was with him.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:2

Everything fortunate that occurred to Joseph likewise happened to Zion. It is written of Joseph: And Joseph was of beautiful form and fair to look upon (Gen. 39:6), and of Zion it is stated: Fair in situation, the joy of the whole earth (Ps. 48:3). Concerning Joseph it is written: He is not greater in this house than I (Gen. 39:9), and of Zion: The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former (Hag. 2:9). Joseph: The Lord was with him (Gen. 39:2), Zion: And My eyes and My heart shall be there (II Chron. 7:15). Joseph: And showed kindness unto him (Gen. 39:21), Zion: I remember for thee the affection of thy youth (Jer. 2:2). Joseph: And he shaved himself and changed his raiment (Gen. 41:14), Zion: And the Lord shall have washed away (Isa. 44:4). Joseph: Only in the throne will I be greater than thou (Gen. 41:40), Zion: At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord (Jer. 3:17). Joseph: And arrayed him in vestures of fine linen (Gen. 41:42), Zion: Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments (Isa. 52:1). Joseph: He sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:29), Zion: Behold, I send My messenger (Mal. 3:1).

Midrash Tehillim 24:8

“You gates, lift your heads…” (Tehillim 24:7/9) You find that at the time when Shlomo built the Holy temple he wanted to bring the ark into the Holy of Holies, but the gate was too small. It was five cubits long and two and a half cubits wide, while the ark was one and a half cubits long, one and a half wide and one and a half tall. Can’t one and a half cubits fit into two and a half?! Rather, at that moment the gates cleaved to one another. Shlomo said twenty four songs of joy and was not answered, he said ‘you gates lift up your heads’ and was not answered. He tried again and said “You] gates, lift your heads…so that the King of Glory may enter. Who is this King of Glory?” (Tehillim 24:7-8) He was not answered. Once he said “O Lord God, do not turn back the face of Your anointed one; remember the kind deeds of David Your servant,” (Divre HaYamim II 6:42) immediately the gates lifted up their heads, the ark entered and fire descended from heaven. Why did Shlomo suffer all of this? Because he was filled with pride and said “I have surely built You a house to dwell in…” (Melachim I 8:13) Since all of Israel saw this, they immediately said ‘it is certain that the Holy One has given atonement for that sin of David.’ Immediately their expression turned black like the bottom of a pot and they were ashamed. This is what is written “Grant me a sign for good, and let my enemies see [it] and be ashamed, for You, O Lord, have helped me and comforted me.” (Tehillim 86:17) ‘Helped me’ in this world and ‘comforted me’ in the world to come.

Ruth Rabbah, Petichta 7

Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great, and Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Elazar: This midrash came up with us from the Exile: (From Babylonia. Presumably, this is a way of stating that it is an ancient tradition.) Any place that “It was [vayhi]” is stated, [it alludes to] trouble. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great: Any place that “It was [vayhi]” is stated, it can serve [to allude to] either trouble or joy. If it is trouble, there is none like it. If it is joy, there is none like it. Rabbi Shmuel said: There are five [instances of] “during the days of [bimei].” “It was [vayhi] during the days of [bimei] Amrafel” (Genesis 14:1) – what was the trouble there? They waged a war. [It is analogous] to the friend of a king who was located in a certain province. Because of him, the king took care of the province. One time, barbarians came and beset him [the king’s friend]. They say: Woe for us, the king will no longer care for the province as he had done. Likewise, the entire world was created only due to the merit of Abraham our patriarch; that is what is written: “They turned back and came to Ein Mishpat, (Ein Mishpat literally means ‘eye of justice’.) which is [hi] Kadesh” (Genesis 14:7). Rabbi Aḥa said: They came to beset the eyeball of the world. (Abraham.) The eye that overcame the attribute of justice in the world you seek to blind? (The midrash is rhetorically addressing the kings that attacked Abraham.) “Which is [hi] Kadesh” – Rabbi Aḥa said: Hu Kadesh. (The word hi, meaning ‘which is,’ is spelled with a vav as the middle letter, which could be read as the masculine hu. The midrash is reading hi Kadesh as hu kidesh, he sanctified.) He [Abraham] sanctified [kidesh] the name of the Holy One blessed be He in the fiery furnace. (See Tanḥuma, Lekh Lekha 6.) When everyone saw that all the kings came to beset him, they began screaming: Woe [vai]; that is, “It was [vayhi] during the reign of Amrafel.” “It was during the days of Aḥaz” (Isaiah 7:1) – what was the trouble there? “Aram from the east and the Philistines from the west” (Isaiah 9:11) – [it is analogous] to the son of a king who had a tutor who sought to kill him. He [the tutor] said: If I kill him, I will be condemned to death by the king; instead, I will withhold his wet nurse from him, and he will die on his own. So did Aḥaz say: If there are no kids, there are no rams, and if there are no rams there is no flock, and if there is no flock there is no shepherd. So Aḥaz thought to say: If there are no children, there are no adults, and if there are no adults there are no students, if there are no students there are no scholars, if there are no scholars, there are no synagogues and study halls, if there are no synagogues and study halls, the Holy One blessed be He, as it were, cannot rest His Divine Presence in the world. Therefore, I will seize all the synagogues and study halls. That is what is written: “Bind the testimony, seal the Torah in my disciples” (Isaiah 8:16). Rabbi Ḥanina said: Why was he named Aḥaz? It is because he seized [aḥaz] the synagogues and study halls. Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Avin: Isaiah said: “I will wait for the Lord, who conceals His face from the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 8:17). There was no time that was as difficult for Israel as that time, as it is stated: “I will conceal My face” (Deuteronomy 31:18) – in this world. But from that moment, “I hoped for Him” (Isaiah 8:17), as it is written: “As it will not be forgotten from the mouths of their descendants” (Deuteronomy 31:21). Was it [this verse] fulfilled for him [Isaiah]? “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me” (Isaiah 8:18) – were they his [Isaiah’s] children? Were they not his students? It teaches that they were as dear to him as his sons. Once everyone saw that he seized the synagogues and study halls, they began screaming: Woe [vai]: that is, “It was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥaz.” “It was during the days of Yehoyakim” (Jeremiah 1:3) – what was the trouble there? “I saw the land, and behold, it is emptiness and disorder, and the heavens, and their light is not” (Jeremiah 4:23) – [it is analogous] to a king who sent a proclamation to a province. What did the residents of the province do to it? They took it, ripped it, and burned it in fire. They said: Woe to us when the king becomes aware of these matters. That is what is written: “It was, as Yehudi would read three columns or four” (Jeremiah 36:23) – three or four verses. When he reached the fifth verse: “Its besiegers are ascendant” (Lamentations 1:5), (This is the fifth verse of the first chapter of Lamentations.) immediately: “He would cut it with a scribe’s razor and cast it into the fire that was in the fireplace, until the end of the scroll, upon the fire that was in the fireplace” (Jeremiah 36:23). Once they saw that it was so, they began screaming: Woe [vai]; that is, “it was [vayhi] during the days of Yehoyakim.” “It was during the days of Aḥashverosh” (Esther 1:1) – what was the trouble there? [It was] “to kill, and to eliminate all the Jews” (Esther 3:13). [It is analogous] to a king who entered a vineyard and three enemies beset him: The first began picking unripe grapes, the second began trimming the clusters, and the third sought to uproot all the vines. Likewise, the wicked Pharaoh begin picking the unripe grapes; that is what is written: “[Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying:] Every son who is born you shall cast into the Nile” (Exodus 1:22). The wicked Nebuchadnezzar began trimming the clusters; that is what is written: “[He exiled Yehoyakhin.…] and the artisans and the smiths, one thousand” (II Kings 24:15–16). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Yehuda said: One thousand artisans and one thousand smiths; Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All of them were one thousand. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitzḥak said: These are the notables. Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Simon said: These are the Torah scholars. Haman the wicked sought to uproot the entire egg; (Egg, in the sense of the very origins of Israel.) [as] they say buy [the hen] with the egg (A aphorism meaning that he sought to complete the task, leaving no future.) – “to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” (Esther 3:13). When they saw that it was so, they began screaming: Woe [vai]; “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥashverosh.” “It was during the days when the judges judged” (Ruth 1:1) – what was the trouble there? “There was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1) – [it is analogous] to a province that owed a tax to the king. What did the king do? He sent a tax collector to collect it. What did the residents of the province do? They took him, struck him, and extracted it [the money] from him. They said: What he sought to do to us we did to him. Likewise, during the days when the judges judged, an Israelite person would worship idols, and a judge would seek to bring him to trial, and he would come and flog the judge. He would say: What he sought to do to me, I did to him. Woe unto a generation whose judges are judged; (The midrash is reading the verse to mean that it was in the days that the judges were judged, i.e. punished.) that is, “It was during the days when the judges judged.” Shimon bar Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Everywhere that it [“it was,” vayhi] is stated, [it alludes to] trouble or to joy; if trouble, there is no trouble like it, if joy, there is no joy like it in the world. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman came and suggested a [different] distinction: Everywhere that it says, “it was [vayhi],” [it alludes to] trouble, everywhere that it says “it will be [vehaya],” joy. But it is written: “God said: Let there be light, and there was [vayhi] light.” He said to them: Even that is not light of joy, as the world did not merit to use that light. By the light that was created on the first day, a person could look out and see from one end of the world to the other end. When He perceived that the wicked were destined to appear, like the generation of Enosh, the generation of the Flood, and the generation of the Dispersion, (After the Tower of Babel.) and like the people of Sodom, He took it [the light] away. That is what is written: “From the wicked their light is withheld” (Job 38:15). He sequestered it for the righteous in the future, as it is stated: “Light is sown for the righteous” (Psalms 97:11). They objected to him: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as the heavens are destined to wither; that is what is written: “As the heavens will be eroded like smoke” (Isaiah 51:6). They objected to him: Is it not written: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, a second day.… third.… fourth.… fifth.… sixth” (Genesis 1:8–31). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as everything that was created during the six days of Creation requires action, e.g., it is necessary to sweeten mustard, lupines must be sweetened, and wheat requires grinding. But it is written: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it is written: “For they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). But it is written: “It was [vayhi] on the day that Moses completed [assembling the Tabernacle]” (Numbers 7:1). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it was sequestered when the Temple was built, as it is stated: “Moses was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting” (Exodus 40:35). (The verse does not seem to be related to the point. Perhaps it is brought to communicate that even on the day that the construction of the Tabernacle was completed, the celebration was tempered by the fact that Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting.) But it is written: “It was [vayhi] when Joshua was [at Jericho]” (Joshua 5:13). He said to them: That too is not joy, as Joshua rent his garments, as it is stated: “Joshua rent his garments” (Joshua 7:6). (After the setback at Ai.) But it is written: “It was [vayhi] on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1). (The day of the dedication of the Temple.) He said to them: That too is not joy, as on that day Nadav and Avihu died. (See Leviticus 10:1–2.) But it is written: “It was [vayhi] when the king (David.) dwelled in his house” (II Samuel 7:1). He said to them: That too was not joy, as it was then that Natan the prophet came and said to him: “However, you will not build the House” (I Kings 8:19). They said to him: We said ours, now you say yours. (Prove that every place it says vehaya it is an expression of joy.) He said to them: It is written: “It will be [vehaya] on that day, the mountains will drip with nectar” (Joel 4:18). “It will be [vehaya] on that day that spring water will emerge [from Jerusalem]” (Zechariah 14:8). “It will be on that day that the Lord will set His hand again the second time, [to recover the remnant of His people]” (Isaiah 11:11). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, each man shall keep [a calf of the herd and two sheep] alive” (Isaiah 7:21). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, that a great shofar will be sounded, [and they will come…and bow down to the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem]” (Isaiah 27:13). “It will be that one who is left in Zion and he that remains in Jerusalem [will be called holy]” (Isaiah 4:3). They objected to him: It is written: “And it was [vehaya] when Jerusalem was captured” (Jeremiah 38:28). He said to them: Even that is not trouble but joy, as on that day, Israel made complete penance for their iniquities, on the day that the Temple was destroyed. Conclusion of the prologue to Rut Rabba

Vayikra Rabbah 11:7

Rabbi Tanḥuma and Rabbi Ḥiyya say, and Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i: This midrash came up from the Diaspora in our possession. Wherever it is stated, “it was in the days,” it is nothing other than trouble. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says: They are five. “It was in the days of Amrafel” (Genesis 14:1). What was the trouble there? “They waged war, etc.” (Genesis 14:2). This is analogous to the friend of a king who entered a province and, for his sake, the king attended to that province. Barbarians came and confronted him. When they came and confronted him, everyone said: ‘Woe unto us, for the king will not attend to the province the way that he once did.’ So too, Abraham our patriarch, the beloved of the Holy One blessed be He, in whose regard it is written: “[All the families of the earth] shall be blessed in you” (Genesis 12:3). For his sake, the Holy One blessed be He attended to the entire world. The Chaldeans came and confronted him. [People] said: ‘Woe unto us that the Holy One blessed be He will not attend to His world the way that He once did.’ That is what is written: “They returned and came to Ein Mishpat, which is Kadesh” (Genesis 14:7). Rabbi Ḥiyya said: They sought to confront only the eyeball [galgal eino] of the world. (Abraham was as precious to the world as the eyeball is to a person. ) They sought to blind the eye [ayin] that confronted the attribute of justice in the world. (The name Ein Mishpat is interpreted as a reference to eye [ayin] and justice [mishpat]. ) “Which [hi] is Kadesh,” Rabbi Aḥa says: Hu (The word “which” is pronounced hi, but written hey-vav-aleph, such that it can be read hu, which literally means “he.” is written, [indicating that] it was he who sanctified [kiddesh] the name of the Holy One blessed be He, and descended into the fiery furnace. When the kings came to confront him, they began screaming: Woe, woe [vai, vai]; “it was [vayhi] in the days of Amrafel the king of [Shinar].” “It was during the days of Aḥaz” (Isaiah 7:1). What trouble was there? “Aram from the east and the Philistines from the west; [they devour Israel with an open mouth]” (Isaiah 9:11). This is analogous to a king who entrusted his son to a steward, but the steward hated him. He said: If I kill him, I will become liable to be executed by the king. Rather, I will withhold his wet nurse from him and he will die on his own. So too, Aḥaz said: If there are no kids, there are no goats, and if there are no goats, there is no flock, and if there is no flock, there is no shepherd, and if there is no shepherd, there is no world. So said Aḥaz: If there are no children, there are no students,17If there are no children at the beginning stages of their studies there will be no students at the intermediate level. and if there are no students, there are no scholars, if there are no scholars, there is no Torah, if there is no Torah, there are no synagogues and study halls, if there are no synagogues and study halls, the Holy One blessed be He will not rest His Divine Presence in the world. What did he do? He arose and locked all the synagogues and study halls. That is what is written: “Bind the testimony, seal the Torah in my disciples” (Isaiah 8:16). Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Why was his name called Aḥaz? Because he seized [aḥaz] the synagogues and study halls. Rabbi Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: You may derive it from this [verse]: “I will wait for the Lord, who conceals His face” (Isaiah 8:17). There was no time that was as grim as this time, in whose regard it is stated: “I will conceal My face on that day” (Deuteronomy 31:18). From that moment “I sought Him” (Isaiah 8:17), as it is written: “As it will not be forgotten from the mouths of their descendants” (Deuteronomy 31:21). What did [Aḥaz] accomplish? “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me [are to become signs and wonders in Israel]” (Isaiah 8:18).18This is stated by the prophet Isaiah. Despite the attempts of Aḥaz, Torah would not be forgotten from Israel. But were they his children? Were they not merely his students? Rather, it is derived from here that a person’s student is called his son. Once everyone saw that he seized the synagogues and study halls, they began screaming: Woe, woe [vai, vai] – “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥaz.” “It was during the days of Yehoyakim son of Josiah” (Jeremiah 1:3). What was the trouble there? “I saw the land, and behold, it is emptiness and disorder, [and the heavens, and their light is not]” (Jeremiah 4:23). This is analogous to letters of a king that entered a province. In each and every province that his letters would reach, the residents of the province would stand on their feet, bare their heads, and read them with reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling. But when they reached the king’s province, they read them, ripped them, and burned them. That is what is written: “It was, when Yehudi read three columns or four,” (Jeremiah 36:23). When they reached the fifth verse: “Its besiegers are ascendant” (Lamentations 1:5), immediately: “He cut it with a scribe’s razor and cast it into the fire that was in the fireplace” (Jeremiah 36:23). When they saw this, they began screaming: Woe, woe [vai, vai] – “it was [vayhi] during the days of Yehoyakim.” “It was during the days of Aḥashverosh” (Esther 1:1). What was the trouble there? It was “to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” (Esther 3:13). This is analogous to a king who had a vineyard and three enemies confronted him. The first began picking unripe grapes, the second began trimming the clusters, and the third began uprooting vines. Pharaoh began picking unripe grapes; that is what is written: “Every son who is born [you shall cast him into the Nile]” (Exodus 1:22). Nebuchadnezzar began trimming the clusters; that is what is written: “And the artisans and the smiths, one thousand” (II Kings 24:16).19This is a reference to the social elites, who were exiled in the exile of Yehoyakhin, eleven years before the destruction of the Temple. Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbi, Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Yehuda says: One thousand artisans and one thousand smiths, and the Rabbis say: Both together were one thousand. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon says: These are Torah scholars. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These are the benefactors. The Rabbis say: These are the counselors. The wicked Haman began uprooting the vines. That is what is written: “To destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” (Esther 3:13). He sought to undermine the foundation of Israel. He sought to purchase every foundation.20A literal translation of the Hebrew is: “He sought to purchase every egg,” meaning to control and extinguish all future potential before it could be developed. When everyone saw that Aḥashverosh was selling and Haman purchasing, they began screaming: Woe, woe [vai, vai] – “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥashverosh.” “It was during the days when the judges judged” (Ruth 1:1). What was the trouble there? “There was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1). This is analogous to a province that owed a tribute to the king, and the king sent a tax collector to collect it. What did residents of the province do? They arose and hung him and appropriated it from him. They [then] said: ‘Woe unto us when the king becomes aware of these matters, that we did to the emissary of the king what he sought to do to us.’ So too, when one of the people of Israel would do something improper, they would take him to the judge, and what the judge sought to do to the defendant, the defendant would do to the judge. The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You demean your judges; as you live, I will bring upon you a matter that you are unable to withstand.’ What is that? It is famine, as it is stated: “There was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1). Shimon bar Rav Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Wherever [the term] vayhi is stated, it refers to trouble or joy; if trouble, it is unparalleled trouble, if joy, unparalleled joy. Rabbi Yishmael came and suggested a different distinction: Wherever vayhi is stated there is no joy; wherever vehaya is stated, there is no trouble. They raised an objection: “God said: Let there be light, and there was [vayhi] light” (Genesis 1:3). He said to them: That too, is not joy, as the world was not privileged to utilize that light, as Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said: With the light that the Holy One blessed be He created on the first day a person could observe and see from one end of the world to the other. When the Holy One blessed be He saw that the actions of the generation of Enosh and the actions of the generation of the Flood were corrupt, He arose and concealed it from them. That is what is written: “The light is withheld from the wicked” (Job 38:15). Where did He conceal it? In the Garden of Eden; that is what is written: “Light is sown for the righteous and joy for the upright” (Psalms 97:11). They raised an objection: “It was [vayhi] evening [and it was morning, one day]” (Genesis 1:5). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as everything that was created on the first day is destined to come to an end. That is what is written: “As the heavens will be eroded like smoke and the earth [will be tattered like a garment]” (Isaiah 51:6). They raised an objection: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, a second day” (Genesis 1:8), [and] third, fourth, fifth, the sixth.21The same phrasing is used in the descriptions of the creation of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth days. See Genesis 1:13, 19, 23, 31. He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as everything that was created during the six days of Creation require completion; wheat requires grinding, mustard requires sweetening, and lupines require sweetening. They raised an objection: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joseph and he was a successful man” (Genesis 39:2). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, for as a result, that wicked woman confronted him. They raised an objection: “It was [vayhi] on the eighth day [Moses summoned Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel]” (Leviticus 9:1). He said to them: That, too, was not joy, as on that day, Nadav and Avihu died. They raised an objection: “It was [vayhi] on the day that Moses concluded [erecting the Tabernacle]” (Numbers 7:1). He said to them: That, too, was not joy, as on the day of the Temple’s construction, it was sequestered.22The Tabernacle was not permanent, and was hidden when the Temple was completed. They raised an objection: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joshua” (Joshua 6:27). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as Ya’ir, who was equivalent [in stature] to the majority of the Sanhedrin, was killed. That is what is written: “The men of Ai smote them, approximately thirty-six men” (Joshua 7:5). Thirty-six men is not written, but rather approximately, or like, thirty-six; that is Ya’ir ben Menashe, who was equivalent to the majority of Sanhedrin. They raised an objection: “David was [vayhi] successful in all his ways” (I Samuel 18:14). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it is written there: “Saul was hostile to David” (I Samuel 18:9). They raised an objection: “It was [vayhi] when the king had settled in his house, and the Lord had given him respite” (II Samuel 7:1). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as on that day, Natan the prophet came and said to him: “It will not be you who will build [Me] a house” (I Chronicles 17:4). They said to him: We said ours, now you say yours.23We have stated our objections; now you state the proofs to your position. He said to them, it is written: “It will be [vehaya] on that day, the mountains will drip with nectar” (Joel 4:18). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, each man shall keep alive a calf of the herd [and two sheep]” (Isaiah 7:21). “It will be [vehaya] on that day that spring water will emerge [from Jerusalem]” (Zechariah 14:8). “He will be [vehaya] like a tree planted near streams of water” (Psalms 1:3). “The remnant of Jacob will be [vehaya] among the nations, [in the midst of many peoples, as a lion among the flocks of sheep]” (Micah 5:7). They raised an objection to him: “It was [vehaya] when Jerusalem was captured” (Jeremiah 38:28). He said to them: That, too, is not trouble, as on that day, Israel received retribution for its sins, as Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Naḥman said: Israel received great retribution on the day that the Temple was destroyed.24Israel was punished for its sins through the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Were it not for that, the entire populace would have been killed as a result of their sins (Etz Yosef). That is what is written: “Your sin is completed, daughter of Zion, and He will not continue to exile you” (Lamentations 4:22).)

Quoting Commentary

Rabbeinu Bahya explains the symbolism behind the gemstones on the breastplate of the High Priest, associating each stone with a specific tribe based on biblical narratives and qualities of the stones. The gemstones represent various aspects of the tribes' histories and characteristics. Additionally, Abarbanel discusses the repetition of the verb "hayah" in a verse about Joseph's success, and the significance of the Lord taking account of Sarah's situation and fulfilling the promise of giving her a son.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 21:1:12

And the Lord took account of Sarah, etc. [until] and Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian (Genesis 21:1-9): Since it stated above (Genesis 20:18) that, "The Lord surely sealed every womb in the house of Avimelekh for the matter of Sarah, the wife of Avraham," it juxtaposed it to, "And the Lord took account of Sarah" - meaning to say that the Lord sealed up her enemies, but took account of her, that she should give birth when she was barren. And [the Sages,] may their memory be blessed, said that one who prays for the sake of his fellow is first answered himself. And so it was that since Avraham prayed for Avimelekh, the Lord took account of Sarah his wife. And the expression, taking account (pekidah) is truthfully, visiting and paying attention, as in "I have surely taken account of (pekod pakadati) you and that which is being done to you in Egypt" (Exodus 3:16). For it is since they thought that He, may He be blessed, was not paying attention to them that He said this. And this is like, "and Shimshon took account of his wife with goat clothing" (Judges 15:1); "Lord, in distress did they take account of You." Until on account of this did [people] call those counted, pekudim, and those counting them, pokedim. And the explanation of this verse is that the angel of God had said in God's name, "I will surely return to you next year" (Genesis 18:10). And the content of this returning and this coming is the benefit that He will give him a son from Sarah. For the action indicates the presence of the actor; and since the action was here, the Actor was [also] here. And that is why it is stated (Joshua 6:27), "And the Lord was with Yehoshua"; "And the Lord was with Yosef" (Genesis 39:2) - in that His goodness and His attention was with him. And that is the meaning of, "And the Lord took account of Sarah" - that He payed attention to her matter and that which He had forecast for her. But since there is a taking account for the good and a taking account for the bad - as He stated (Exodus 32:24), "but on the day of My taking account, I will take account" - it was necessary to explain here that the taking account of Sarah was when "the Lord did to her like He had spoken," when He gave her the son that He had forecast to her. And He did not mention that He took account of Avraham for [the following reason]: Because the retention and the pregnancy is with the woman; also because the thing was stranger and more difficult from the perspective of Sarah than it was from the perspective of Avraham. And it is [also] possible to explain, "And the Lord took account of Sarah as He had said," by giving her seed, "and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken" - that He gave her a male child, and not a daughter. And his name was called Yitzchak, because that is what He said to her. However, from the perspective of Avraham, it said, "And Sarah conceived and bore Avraham a son in his old age" - meaning to say that she gave birth to the son mentioned from him even with all of his age. And that is the reason for its stating, "in his old age." As it did not say it to denote the time at which she gave birth, but rather to say that also this kindness and this taking account - from the perspective of his being elderly - was done for him. And it is also possible that this is to say that Yitzchak would be the child of his old age, and that is a child that helps his father and serves him; so he would need him for his old age. And with this explanation, it is indicated that its stating, "At the set-time of which God had spoken" - that this is the mention of the time at which he was born; not that which it says, "in his old age." And two questions are solved with this, the first and the second.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:1:2

Question 1: In the verse (Gen. 39:2): ‘And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master’, the verse utilizes the Hebrew verb ‘hayah’ (‘he was’) three times, which seems unnecessary repetition. It could simply have stated: ‘And the Lord was with Joseph, so that he was successful in his Egyptian master’s household’.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 28:15:3

Scientific books claim that the basic number of gemstones, (not allowing for variants, mutations) are only 12 in number, so that they were all represented on the breastplate of the High Priest. They may be considered as the “patriarchs” of all other precious stones. The reason that the gemstone assigned to the tribe of Reuven was the אודם was the fact that it symbolised the blush on his face when he owned up to being guilty of his misdemeanour in Bilhah’s tent. The fact that he was not ashamed to admit his guilt is a credit to him reflected by this red-coloured stone known as “rubin.” It is supposedly found in certain areas at the bottom of the sea. It is chipped of a great rock beneath the sea, and is mined similar to silver and gold. The rock is known as Balax. Rubin and Balax are supposedly two names for the same kind of stone. The difference between them is only that the variety known as rubin is reddish looking. Onkelos also translates the word אודם as סמקן, a red stone. It is the choicest of a number of sub-categories of the same basic kind of precious stone. Seeing it is red, an essential colour reminding us of blood, it is reputed to have the power to protect a woman who wears this jewel against ever aborting any fetus she carries. Women who wear jewelry made from this stone will give birth to babies that have been growing in their wombs for the full nine months. The stone is even supposed to have positive effects upon women who are having a difficult delivery. If this stone will be crushed into powder and consumed with food and drink it displays properties similar to those of the דודאים (mandrakes?), the plant which Leah “sold” Rachel in order to help her achieve pregnancy (compare author’s comment on Genesis 30,14). The shape of those dudaim which Reuven had found at the time was the outline of a human being. This is the reason that the word אודם, normally spelled with the letter ו was spelled without that letter in order to draw our attention to the spelling which could be read “Adam,”אדם . The reading of the word teaches the nature of the stone, whereas the spelling teaches the effect of that stone, its function. Shimon’s stone פטדה, is a greenish-looking gemstone, similar to the turquoise colour of the sea in certain coastal cities. Onkelos also translates it as ירקן (emerald?). It is of the same group as the gemstone נפך, the stone with the name of Yehudah inscribed on it. Both are of similar colour, except that the stone described as נפך is the more precious of its group. It sparkles very much. The פטדה is inferior to the נפך both in colour and in sparkle. The greenish colour symbolises the terrible sexual licentiousness committed by that tribe who had caused the face of their leader Zimri to turn green in shame (Numbers 28,14). The same happened to all the other members of the tribe of Shimon who took part in that sin at that time. Darkon, dropsy, was the illness from which these people died. The positive feature of that gemstone is that it cools the body. This may be the reason it is found in hot countries such as Nubia (the Sudan). The people in that country are especially steeped in sexual licentiousness. They need to “cool off” in order to counteract their tendencies. This is why we read in Job 28,19 “topaz from Nubia cannot match its value (that of rubies).” The reason Job made this comparison was because these stones were found in Nubia. The stone which bore the name of Levi was the ברקת, known popularly as carbuncle (a rounded gemstone without facets). It is so called as it flashes just like a bolt of lightning, ברק. It illuminates like a lamp. Onkelos also translates it as ברקן, a flashing stone. This was the gemstone Noach hung in the ark to provide him with light. The Torah referred to this light in Genesis 6,15 צהר תעשה לתבה. Isaiah refers to it as אקדח, in Isaiah 54,12 where, speaking of the future of Israel he writes: ”I will make your battlements rubies and your gates of precious stones, i.e. לאבני אקדח.” The name is justified as it appears glowing like red-hot coals. A similar expression occurs also in Isaiah 50,11: “kindlers of fire.” The reason this stone was chosen to symbolise Levi was that the Levites illuminate the people by teaching them spiritual illumination, i.e. Torah, as we know from Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל, “they teach Your judgments to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel.” We also know of Moses, who was of the tribe of Levi, that the whole house was filled with light when he was born as the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 1,24) interpreted the words in Exodus there (Exodus 2,2) that “she (his mother) saw that he was good.” Furthermore, when Moses returned from Mount Sinai with the second sets of Tablets the Torah testified that the skin of his face emitted rays of light (Exodus 34,29). We have another verse (Kohelet 8,1) “a man’s wisdom lights up his face.” The positive value of this gemstone is that it is apt to enlighten the foolish, providing him with insights he never had. This is in addition to the general usefulness of that jewel in providing light just as does a lamp. People say that if one pounds this carbuncle into fine dust and mixes it with food or drink as one mixes certain medicinal herbs into the food it proves very capable of providing wisdom and opening up previously “closed” hearts. Yehudah’s name was inscribed on the gemstone called נפך as we mentioned already. This jewel is known either as merkedy or zemurah in Arabic. Onkelos’ translation azmoragdin, (emerald) can support either one of these names. He chose a combination of these two words. As already mentioned, it is a greenish stone of high luster and represented his shame-facedness in accusing his daughter-in-law Tamar’s pregnancy as being the result of harlotry when he himself had fathered the child she was carrying (Genesis 38,26). Seeing that he overcame his embarrassment and made a public confession of his own involvement, this stone, i.e. its color, was chosen as appropriate for him. In addition he also had had to bear the shame, i.e. his face turning green, in the matter of having sold Joseph and his father suspecting him of this though the matter had never been spoken of. When Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his deathbed saying: “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself,” he wanted him to know that he suspected him of having been involved in the deception which had made Yaakov call out in anguish: “a wild beast has torn Joseph to shreds (Genesis 37,33).” When hearing his father say that he considered Yehudah as having elevated himself, i.e. having exonerated himself from that guilt, his face was restored to its original colour after all these years. It then resembled the appearance of the emerald giving off a sparkle. It is also written of Yehudah (Genesis 49,8) “your hand is at the neck of your enemy,” and the outstanding feature of the gemstone emerald is that people wearing it experience that their enemies turn their neck towards them, i.e. that they attempt to flee. This is the reason this jewel is known as נפך. The Bible comments on Yehudah’s bravery in battle more than once, and it is written of David (Samuel I 18,7) that he defeated his enemies in their tens of thousands, Of the messiah it is written: (Isaiah 11,4) “with the spirit (breath) of his mouth he will kill the wicked.” Issachar’s name was inscribed on a jewel called ספיר, sapphire, a jewel known as sephily of a blue colour. It had been assigned to Issachar because he was extremely wise and his tribe excelled in Torah knowledge. This has been attested to in Chronicles I 12,32. We have a tradition that the Tablets with the Ten Commandments were made of sapphire (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 26). We also find another reference to this jewel in Exodus 24,10 where the vision of G’d seen by the elders and the nobles is described as their observing with their mental eyes the appearance of bricks made of sapphire. It is a well known fact that the souls of Torah scholars are part of a whole bundle of souls beneath the throne of G’d’s attribute כבוד. This is derived from Ezekiel 1,26: “as the semblance of a throne, in appearance like sapphire.” The blue color of this jewel is not like the blue which denotes haughtiness similar to certain shades of red or green; on the contrary, it is a color symbolizing humility, modesty, a character trait equally becoming to both young and old. This is what Isaiah 57,15 meant when he wrote: “I dwell on high, in holiness; yet with the contrite and lowly in spirit.” The outstanding feature of this jewel is that it is good for one’s eyesight; this is the reason people have a habit of passing this jewel back and forth in front of their eyes. It was appropriate for Issachar as Torah also provides enlightenment. There is a popular saying that this jewel is useful in getting rid of all manner of pains and any swelling one experiences in any part of one’s body. The Torah too is a powerful remedy for all parts of the body. We have been told in Eyruvin 54 that if someone suffers from headaches the best remedy is to immerse oneself in the study of Torah. The name of Zevulun was inscribed on the gemstone known as יהלום, diamond. This gemstone is known as pirle, same as bedolach. It is clear, transparent. It is to remind us of “white” silver, an allusion to the material wealth of the tribe of Zevulun. We know from Yaakov’s blessing of Zevulun in Genesis 49,13 that he was a great trader sending his ships far afield in order to bring home wealth from foreign lands. It was appropriate therefore that the stone bearing his name was the diamond. The special property of the diamond for man is that it helps one to go to sleep, something Leah referred to when she (the mother of Zevulun) said after he was born: “this time my husband will make his permanent home with me” (Genesis 30,20). [I believe what the author meant was that possession of diamonds allows people to sleep easy as they feel emotionally and economically secure. Ed.] The name of the tribe of Dan was inscribed on a gemstone called לשם, known as opal, or ashtefassis. It shows a human face turned upside down, reminiscent of the time when the tribe of Dan attempted to reverse the norms of Judaism by appointing for themselves a non-Levite as religious leader (compare Judges 18,31). We find in Joshua 19,47 that a certain town previously called Leshem was renamed Dan in commemoration of the founding father of that tribe. This city became an integral part of the land of Israel. The name of the tribe of Naftali was inscribed on a jewel known as שבו, agate. It is commonly known as turquoise. [The various names which I have spelled in italics appear to be the equivalents of these gems’ names in Spanish or old French during the time of the author. Ed.] Onkelos also translates it as טרקיא. The special property ascribed to that gemstone was that it “pulls” man while riding in carriages or riding horses and enables him to become successful as a driver or rider. This occurs through man and beast developing mutual affinity for each other while man sits in the saddle. It was appropriate for Naftali to be associated with this gemstone as at the time he was born his step-mother Rachel had said that she had prevailed in a struggle with the attribute of Justice and her sister and as a result her handmaid had born this son for her. Rachel also had to use all her abilities (she thought) in order to have a son at least through her handmaid (compare Genesis 30,8). The gemstone bearing the name of Gad was the אחלמה, popularly known as crystal. This is why Onkelos translates the word as עין עגלא. A better known gemstone called lemon is similar to it but reddish in appearance. The reason this gemstone was used to symbolize Gad was that seeing the gemstone crystal is very common and everyone is familiar with it, the members of the tribe of Gad were also widely known as were the people who had been slain by this tribe in the wars of Israel against the Canaanites. This is the meaning of Deut. 33,20 וטרף זרעו קדקד , “tearing off arm, and even head.” The special property of this gemstone is that it reinforces the resolve of one’s heart when going to war and prevents one from becoming faint-hearted. The gemstone gives man strength. It is called אחלמה, as that word is connected to מלחמה, attributes needed to be successful in battle. The expression occurs in that sense in Isaiah 38,16: ותחלימני ותחיני, “You have restored me to health and have revived me.” The idea is that G’d made King Chiskiyah strong again. Another verse with a similar message is Job 39,4 where G’d speaks to Job about the health of the hinds, etc., saying יחלמו בניהם ירבו בבר, “their young are healthy (strong) able to grow up in the open fields.” The gemstone on which the name of the tribe of Asher was inscribed is called תרשיש, better known as cariolica, topaz, chrysolite. Its color is close to that of oil (olive oil). Others say that its color is azure-blue (compare R' David Kimchi). Onkelos translates it as כרום ימא, aquamarine. The reason is that the color of the sea resembles that of azure-blue. The name Tarshish appears also as a destination in the ship hired by the prophet Jonah, presumably because these gems could be found in that country. The special property of this topaz is to facilitate in the digestion of foods. It is even more important if one first pulverizes it and mixes the powder into one’s food. It will then make a mass similar to a mixture of flour and oil. The Torah extols Asher’s land portion within the land of Israel as being particularly full of oil, i.e. rich soil as we know from Yaakov’s blessing in Genesis 49,20. The gemstone bearing the name of the tribe of Joseph was called שהם, better known as onyx. The special property of this jewel is that its owners enjoy favor in the eyes of people. The letters in that stone also spell השם when read in a different order. This is an allusion to the verse in Genesis 39,2: “G’d was with Joseph and he became a successful man;” or, Genesis 39,24 “G’d made the warden of the prison like Joseph, etc.” Anyone who wears the jewel in the king’s palace will find that he becomes very successful and that his suggestions will be well received. The name of the gemstone on which Binyamin’s name was inscribed was ישפה, better known as jasper. It is a multi-colored gem consisting of red, black, green. Binyamin had many contradictory thoughts about the sale of Joseph by his brothers, all of which are reflected in the different colours of the jasper. The special property of that stone is that it stops the flow of blood. The reason this gemstone was assigned to the tribe of Binyamin had to do with the founder of that tribe not being able to decide if to tell his father that Joseph was most likely alive, or to keep silent as he could not foresee how Yaakov would react to such information. In the end he controlled himself, stopped himself, and did not reveal what he knew. The word ישפה may be understood as two words, i.e. יש פה, “he has a mouth,” or words to that effect. The name of that stone alludes to the fact hat Binyamin deserved credit for keeping silent about what he knew his brothers had done to his older brother Joseph. This completes the discussion about the twelve gemstones on the breastplate of the High Priest. All the details connected with the stones, the breastplate, the inscriptions, etc., are part and parcel of the detailed supervision G’d exercises over the fate of the Jewish people in all its aspects.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 22:27:2

Personally, I would like to add that according to tradition the “prime minister” in that parable is one of the senior ministers at G’d’s court. In order to make plain that the natural born Jews had not been the ones who had initiated the sin of the golden calf, He determined that henceforth the ox would be the primary animal to feature in sacrificial offerings. You will find that similarly the fruit of the עץ הדר, “the tree whose fruit Chavah had eaten in Gan Eden,” became the favourite fruit amongst the four species of plants with which we praise the Lord on the festival of Tabernacles. The fact that the Torah mentions the etrog before the palm frond, a much larger plant, is to indicate that whereas Chavah sinned because she was a victim of deception by the serpent, her husband Adam sinned both in thought and in deed when he ate of that fruit also. We find that history repeats itself in that Adam atoned for his sin by offering an ox as a sacrifice; similarly his descendants, especially highly placed ones, have to offer an ox as their sin-offering when such an offering is called for. This is the deeper meaning of the verse in Hoseah we quoted, that with the very item which their sin consisted of they subsequently pleased the Lord. According to Chulin 60 Adam offered a single-horned bull as his sin-offering. We find a verse which combines both the word שור and the word הדר, thereby alluding to the two examples of the instrument of the sin becoming the instrument of pleasing the Lord. The verse in question is in Deut. 33,17: בכור שורו הדר לו, which we may translate allegorically as: “just as we praise Him with the fruit of the tree הדר, so we atone for our sins by means of the ox, the symbol of original forgiveness.” In a verse preceding the verse from Hoseah we quoted, the prophet said (Hoseah 6,7) והמה כאדם עברו ברית, “they violated the covenant like just like Adam,” an allusion to the comparison of the sin of the golden calf by the Israelites and that of Adam in Gan Eden. On the one hand, the animal which had helped Adam atone for his sin had become the one atoning for the sins of the Israelites. On the other hand, looked at from a philosophical point of view, the Israelites thought that this animal had proven to be the salvation of mankind, i.e. Adam, once, hence it might again become the symbol of their future, seeing Moses had not come back. In fact, Adam had been the original cause of the sin the Israelites participated in. [— My own phraseology in trying to convey this line of reasoning. Ed.] The reason that the Torah permitted just three categories of ritually pure beasts as potential sacrifices for the altar is in deference to the three patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. The ox symbolises Avraham, of whom the Torah wrote that he ran to the cattle in order to serve a meal to the three angels who visited him as reported in Genesis 18,1-15. The sheep is in deference to Yitzchak, when it was offered as a burnt-offering in his stead in Genesis 22,14. The goat was selected in deference to Yaakov who took the two goats at the behest of his mother in order to secure the blessing from his father (Genesis 27,9) (compare Tanchuma Emor 12). These goats were described in the Torah as טובים, “good,” meaning they were to be good both for him personally as well as for his descendants, seeing that by means of two male goats the Jewish people, Yaakov’s descendants, would secure atonement for their sins on the Day of Atonement. When the Torah therefore wrote: “an ox, a sheep, or a goat which will be born, etc.”, it referred to known functions of these animals on behalf of the Jewish people. This is what Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Kohelet 3,15: “What has been already exists, and what is still to come has already been, and G’d always seeks out the pursued.” What Solomon meant was that if someone were to say to you: “if Adam had not sinned at the time when he ate from the tree of knowledge would he still be alive and well nowadays?” You may answer him that the prophet Elijah did not sin and he did indeed not die but is alive to this day. As to the words אשר להיות, “what is still to come,” if someone believes that the idea of G’d resurrecting the dead is something which occurs only in the future [i.e. we have no proof of something like that being possible, Ed.], tell him that it has already occurred, i.e. that both the prophet Elijah, the prophet Elisha, as well as the prophet Ezekiel are on record as having revived the dead (Tanchuma Emor 9). Finally, the words והאלוהים יבקש את הנרדף in the verse from Kohelet which we quoted, means that whereas the righteous pursue (imitate and try to emulate) the other righteous people who preceded them this is normal and appropriate. The wicked persecute both other wicked people as well as righteous people; this is their nature; however, G’d seeks out the persecuted (righteous ones to save them). If you look for proof, read history. Hevel had been persecuted by his brother Kayin; in response G’d turned to Hevel’s offering while rejecting the gift of Kayin (Genesis 4,4-5). Noach had been ridiculed and persecuted by the people of his generation. G’d responded to Noach positively as stated in Genesis 6,8: “Noach found favour in the eyes of G’d.” Shortly afterwards we are told that all the remainder of mankind was wiped out (Genesis 7,23). Avraham was persecuted by Nimrod; he was saved as we know from Nechemyah 9,7 where it is written: “You are the Lord G’d who have chosen Avraham and removed (rescued) him from the fire of the Chaldaens.” Yitzchak was persecuted by the Philistines; in the end Avimelech (King of the Philistines) acknowledged his rigtheousness, G’d’s power and asked to make a treaty with him (Genesis 26,28). Yaakov was persecuted by Esau; nonetheless we have been told in Psalms 135,4: “for G’d chose for Himself Yaakov, Israel, etc.” Joseph was persecuted by his brothers only to become a most successful individual, i.e. “the Lord was with Joseph and he became a successful man” (Genesis 39,2). Moses was persecuted by Pharaoh, but G’d thwarted Pharaoh’s efforts to kill him. The Jewish people were persecuted by the pagans; this is why G’d chose them as His people, as we know from Deut. 14,2: “and the Lord chose you to be His special people.” In our situation we find something parallel. The animals mentioned here are normally the innocent victims of predatory animals. The ox is hunted by the lion, the sheep by the wolf, the goat by the leopard. G’d chose the animals as suitable for sacrificial offerings because they were the persecuted ones, saying: “do not offer Me animals which are pursuers, predators, but certain categories of their victims, the persecuted.”

Second Temple

The text discusses the importance of having correct and unerring judgment in pursuing good ends, as exemplified by Joseph's success in the Bible. This success is attributed to God's gifts being all good.

On the Posterity of Cain and his Exile 23:3

[80] “For what,” says he, “could be better than that one’s ideas, purposes, conjectures, aims, in a word one’s plans, should go, as the saying is, without a limp, so as to reach their goal without stumbling, understanding being evidenced in all the particulars mentioned? Now, if a man brings a correct and unerring judgement to bear only on ends that are good, I for my part set this man down as happy. And in doing so I have the Law for my teacher, for the Law itself pronounced Joseph a successful man. It did not say “in all things” but in those in which God vouchsafed success (Gen. 39:2). and God’s gifts are all good.

Targum

Yoseif was successful and prosperous in the house of his Egyptian master with the help of the Word of Adonoy.

Onkelos Genesis 39:2

[The Word of] Adonoy was with Yoseif[’s support], and he was successful. He was [a servant] in the house of his master, the Egyptian.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:2

And the Word of the Lord was Joseph's Helper, and he became a prosperous man in the house of his Mizraite master.

וַיַּ֣רְא אֲדֹנָ֔יו כִּ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה אִתּ֑וֹ וְכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁר־ה֣וּא עֹשֶׂ֔ה יְהֹוָ֖ה מַצְלִ֥יחַ בְּיָדֽוֹ׃ 3 J And when his master saw that יהוה was with him and that יהוה lent success to everything he undertook,
Joseph's success in Potiphar's house was attributed to the Lord being with him, leading to divine assistance recognized by Potiphar, who appointed Joseph as his personal attendant. This success was both natural and providential, with God transforming seemingly unsuccessful endeavors into prosperity, ultimately resulting in Joseph being put in charge of Potiphar's house and treasures. Joseph's success is linked to his actions, emphasizing the importance of active participation in fulfilling commandments. His piety and fear of God protected him from temptation and ensured his future descendants would be able to offer sacrifices without harm, highlighting the principle of punishment fitting the crime. Joseph's humility and acknowledgment of God's role in his success are evident in his constant invocation of God's name and crediting of God for his achievements, leading to patience and prosperity. Both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan emphasize that Joseph's success was due to the Word of the Lord being with him, resulting in all his endeavors being successful.

Commentary

Joseph's success in Potiphar's house was attributed to the Lord being with him, as seen by Potiphar in his exceptional success and the presence of a cloud above Joseph. Potiphar initially suspected Joseph of using sorcery, but eventually recognized the divine assistance leading to Joseph being appointed as his personal attendant. The success Joseph experienced was both natural and providential, with God transforming even seemingly unsuccessful endeavors into success. This divine favor ultimately led to Joseph being put in charge of Potiphar's house and treasures.

Malbim on Genesis 39:3:1

And his master saw - He didn't pay attention to the successes that were natural, but he did pay attention to the successes that were providential: "he saw that Ad-nai was with him". And we have an indication that we should make a distinction between these two types of success. The natural success is brought to those who succeed through issues that are obviously successful in nature, such as one sells something that is searched for, and obviously succeeds, but this won't happen if he chooses to sell things that can't be sold well. But the providential success is actually the opposite, that if he can't have luck, and chooses things that are bad and cannot bring success, despite all this the things are changed to being good through providence against nature. And Yosef had those two different types of success, natural and providential. His master recognized "that Ad-nai was with him", through seeing "that all that he does" - that he succeeded even things that he did that were not naturally successful, because "Ad-nai lent him success" - [meaning] God transformed into success what was "in his hand" through Ad-nai and His providence.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:3:1

כי ה' אתו, “for G’d was with him.” Actually, the Torah should have written כי אלוקים אתו, “for G’d (in His capacity as the Force who established an orderly universe) was with him.” However, seeing that Joseph’s master was an Egyptian and did not know of a G’d in heaven known as Hashem, his master would have attributed the extraordinary success of Joseph to a superior form of sorcery and magic. After all, Egypt was the epitome of these magic arts, the Egyptians had written the textbook for them. Potiphar eventually became aware that Joseph’s success could not be due to such magic so that he came to realise a new dimension of the G’d in heaven, one that overrides the attribute Elohim. This is why the Torah described G’d’s assistance to Joseph in terms of the supernatural rather than in terms of the natural. According to Bereshit Rabbah 86,5 G’d even let Potiphar have a dream in which he confirmed His assistance. Some say that a pillar of cloud hovered over Joseph to show that he was under G’d’s direct guidance. Examples cited by the Midrash of Joseph’s extraordinary abilities are: when Potiphar demanded that he boil water, the water came to a boil immediately. When he commanded the water to be cooled so that it would be lukewarm, it would become lukewarm immediately. Had G’d not demonstrated His dimension as Hashem to Potiphar, he would have said: “big deal! do you Joseph want to teach us additional magic? It is like carrying coal to Newcastle.” For these reasons the Torah had to testify: וירא אדוניו כי ה' אתו, “his master realised that a special dimension of G’d was active on Joseph’s behalf.”

Ramban on Genesis 39:3:1

THAT THE ETERNAL WAS WITH HIM. The name of G-d was a familiar word in his mouth. This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to be correct. (For, according to Rashi, the text should have read: “that the name of the Eternal was familiar in his mouth”) Instead, And his lord saw that the Eternal was with him, means that he saw that his endeavors were always more successful than that of anyone else, so he knew that success came to him from G-d. In a similar sense is the verse, We have surely seen that the Eternal was with thee. (Above 26:28.) Thus Joseph found favor in his lord’s eyes, and he appointed him as his personal attendant and overseer of his house.

Rashi on Genesis 39:3:1

כי ה‘ אתו THAT THE LORD WAS WITH HIM — the name of God was a familiar word in his mouth (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 8).

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:3

After some time, his master saw that the Lord was with him, and all that he did, the Lord made his undertaking successful. Potifar took notice of Joseph’s success.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:3:1

כי ה' אתו, “for the Lord was with him.” One reason was that Joseph invoked the name of the Lord in his daily conversation. According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, his master observed how unusually successful everything Joseph undertook turned out to be. Our sages interpret the word וירא, “he saw,” to mean that Potiphar observed that prior to carrying out a task Joseph invariably whispered something. He concluded that Joseph was employing witchcraft, challenging him that he had brought witchcraft with him to Egypt, something which had been banned in Egypt for a long time already. He then noticed that the Divine presence rested above Joseph, having had a dream that featured the Divine Presence as reposing above the head of an individual. This Presence appeared in the shape of a pillar of cloud, honouring the presence of a righteous individual.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 91-93

“His master saw that the Lord was with him” [39:3]. Rashi writes. Joseph’s master saw that Joseph always mentioned the name of the Holy One. (Rashi, Genesis, 39:3.) Wherever he went, he mumbled like a magician. The master said to Joseph. Are there too few magicians in Egypt, and you also engage in magic? The Holy One showed a cloud that stood over Joseph. Wherever he went, the cloud went with him. Joseph’s master saw that the Holy One was with Joseph and his master placed him over all of his house and his treasures. The Holy One blessed the master’s house because of Joseph. He believed him completely and asked for no accounts from him, from the time that his master had seen the cloud going with Joseph. Bahya writes. The verse says, “in the house and outside” [39:5]. The blessing was on the field and in the house. This teaches us that Joseph was in Potiphar’s house a whole year and then he was in prison for twelve years. Joseph was separated from his father for thirteen years before he became a king in Egypt. Joseph should only have been in Potiphar’s house for eleven years, according to the dream of the eleven stars. They alluded to eleven years. That is to say, Joseph should have become king after eleven years. However, Joseph committed a sin. He relied on the chief cupbearer to Pharaoh, that he should remind Pharaoh to bring him out. He did not rely on the Holy One, who could help him. Therefore, Joseph had to remain in prison for another two years. (Bahya, Genesis, 39:5.)

Jewish Thought

Mashiach ben Yosef is characterized by successfulness when acting, as seen in the example of Yosef in Genesis. The commandments of the tabernacle and Eretz Israel require active participation for fulfillment. The success of Yosef is linked to his actions, and this idea is supported by gematria. The concept of free will and the importance of asking for signs from God for guidance is emphasized, as seen in the interactions between Moses, Aaron, and Pharaoh in the Bible. The principle of punishment fitting the crime is highlighted in the story of Pharaoh's obstinacy.

Akeidat Yitzchak 36:1:11

To return to the quotation of the Midrash, at the outset of our chapter: One cannot escape the feeling that the words "My counsel will prevail," suggest that there are at least other counsels than the one of which G-d says that it will prevail. The true meaning seems to be that it was G-d’s original plan to create man equipped with freedom of choice. The reason for this was that only in this manner would man attain the ultimate moral stature that he wished him to attain. What G-d is saying therefore, is that ultimately His plan will prevail, since it had not been His primary objective to foil the plans of the wicked, but to help man to achieve righteousness. "G-d was pleased because of His righteousness" (Isaiah 42,21). The idea then that G-d Himself would impede man in attaining his moral perfection by interfering with his opportunity to do the right thing would be intolerable. Rabbi Yehudah wants to make it clear that the request for a sign from G-d is not evidence of obstinacy or lack of freedom of choice, but is a method employed even by prophets and worthy people to assure themselves that they are doing the right thing. That is why Moses and Aaron were told at the outset that Pharaoh would ask for such signs before negotiations could enter the substantive stage. Isaiah 7,11-12 teaches that, on occasion, failure to ask for such a sign can even be accounted as sinful. The concept is that when such requests for signs from G-d are made at the beginning, G-d provides such signs; when repeated requests are made, however, that violates the commandment "Do not test the Lord your G-d." (Deut 6,16). Pharaoh should have listened the first time around, when Aaron's staff swallowed the staffs of all the magicians. Turning scoffer instead of repenting, he had only himself to blame if he misread future signs at one stage or another in his reflections. The very fact that each plague contained an element that a recalcitrant spirit could seize upon in order to draw faulty conclusions, is the midah keneged midah, punishment which fits the crime, principle in action. It is this aspect of G-d’s justice that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish has in mind when he said that as a result of Pharaoh's obstinacy, G-d gave him additional opportunities to be still more obstinate, so that it appeared as if G-d Himself had hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Kol HaTor 1:12

[b]. Act and be successful. One of the special characteristics of Mashiach ben Yosef is his successfulness when he acts, as it says with regard to Yosef (son of Jacob), [Gen. 39:3] “whatever he did, the Lord made prosper in his hand.” The following great idea of the Gaon became known: there are only two commandments which a person’s entire body has to enter in order to fulfill them--the commandment of the tabernacle and that of Eretz Israel. This is hinted at in the sentence, “And his tabernacle was in Shalem, and his dwelling-place in Zion, ” and the Gaon adds that the commandment regarding Tabernacles requires you to ‘do, ’ that is, to fulfill a positive commandment, not to take from what is done. Likewise with regard to Zion. As it states in the Midrash on the sentence: “a redeemer will come to Zion.” As long as Zion is not yet built, the redeemer will not come. As Our Sages of blessed memory said (Megillah 17b), “after Jerusalem is built, the son of David [Mashiach] will come.” According to the Midrash, the son of David will not come until Jerusalem is built.

Kol HaTor 2:106

(II Chron. 31:21) “He acted and he succeeded” -- This is one of the characteristics and special attributes of Yosef, that his success comes only by doing, as it says about Yosef: “everything that he did, the Lord made succeed in his hand” (Gen. 39:3.. The Gaon added that there is a hint to this in the fact that the verse: , equals 613 in gematria.

Midrash

Joseph's master saw that the Lord was with him, leading to his success in all his endeavors. Joseph would whisper prayers and blessings, and his master recognized his piety. The Holy One shared his glory with Joseph, rewarding him for his fear of God and righteous behavior. Joseph's commitment to God protected him from temptation and ensured his future descendants would be able to offer sacrifices without harm.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:3

“On the seventh day…” – that is what is written: “Lift your heads, gates…” (Psalms 24:7). You find that when Solomon built the Temple, he sought to bring the Ark into the chamber of the Holy of Holies. At that moment, the gates clung together. Solomon uttered twenty-four supplications, from the verse “For will God indeed dwell…” (II Chronicles 6:18) until “Now, rise, Lord God, to Your resting place, You, and the ark of Your might…” (II Chronicles 6:41), twenty-four verses, but he was not answered. He then said: “Lift your heads, gates; be raised, [everlasting portals, so the King of glory may enter]” (Psalms 24:7), but was not answered. He then said: “Lift your heads, gates; raise yourselves, [everlasting portals, so the King of glory may enter]” (Psalms 24:9), but he was not answered. When he said: “Lord God, do not turn away the face of Your anointed; remember the acts of kindness of David Your servant” (II Chronicles 6:42), he was immediately answered, and the gates lifted their heads, the Ark entered, the Divine Presence rested in the Temple, and fire descended from heaven, as it is written thereafter: “When Solomon had concluded praying, the fire descended from heaven, and it consumed the burnt offering and the peace offerings, and the glory of the Lord filled the Temple” (II Chronicles 7:1). Why was Solomon tormented? It is because he had been arrogant and said: “I have built [ You an abode…” (I Kings 8:13). What is “I have built”? Rabbi Yaakov son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel said: I built a built building. (Solomon took credit for building a building in which his role was very limited.) Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: Everyone assists the king, all the more so that everyone assists the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, even spirits, even demons, and even angels. Rabbi Berekhya said: “The Temple in its construction…” (I Kings 6:7) – it is not written, “that they were building,” but rather, “in its construction” – it was constructed on its own. “Was built of whole stones that were transported” (I Kings 6:7) – it teaches that the stone would transport itself, ascend, and be placed atop the course of stones. Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not wonder; is it not written: “One stone was brought and was placed over the mouth of the den” (Daniel 6:18). Are there stones in Babylon? (There are no mountains there from which to hew stones.) Rather, it teaches that it stood from the Land of Israel and came and settled over the mouth of the den. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Yosef: An angel descended at that moment and appeared in the image of a stone lion and settled on the mouth of the pit. That is what is written: “My God sent His angel, and he shut the lions’ mouths, and they did not harm me” (Daniel 6:23). If for the glory of flesh and blood one stone was brought, for the glory of the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He all the more so. That is why it is stated: “Lift your heads, gates” (Psalms 24:7). What is, “so the King of glory [hakavod] may enter” (Psalms 24:9)? Rabbi Simon said: Why is the Holy One blessed be He called the King of glory? He is the King who accords honor [kavod] to those who fear Him. Rabbi Simon said: It is written: “The people did not travel until Miriam’s readmission” (Numbers 12:15) – it teaches that the cloud lingered on her account. Rabbi Luleyani in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: It is written: “Moses would speak, and God would respond to him with a voice” (Exodus 19:19). It is not written here, “God would speak, and Moses would respond to him with a voice,” but rather, “Moses would speak, and God would respond to him with a voice.” It teaches that He would speak with him in Moses’ voice. Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Simon: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). What is written? “God was with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Aivu: I have derived only in good times, in times of trouble from where is it derived? “The warden of the prison did not oversee anything that was in his (Joseph’s) charge, for the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39:23). Another matter: “King of glory” (Psalms 24:9) – all the Tabernacle vessels were covered with taḥash hides on top of them. Regarding the Ark, it is written: “They shall spread an entirely sky-blue woolen cloth over it” (Numbers 4:6). Why to that extent? It is so the Ark would be distinctive. That is, “so the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9). Another matter: “King of glory” (Psalms 24:9) – Ḥizkiya said: In what way is the sky-blue dye different from all other dyes, that the Holy One blessed be He commanded that it should be in ritual fringes? It is because the sky-blue dye [tekhelet] is like grass, (While tekhelet is usually translated as “sky-blue,” tekhelet can also encompass the color green.) grass is like the sea, the sea is like the firmament, the firmament is like the rainbow, the rainbow is like the cloud, the cloud is like the Throne, and the Throne is like the Glory, as it is stated: “Like the appearance of the rainbow that is in the cloud…[thus…the likeness of the appearance of the Glory of God]” (Ezekiel 1:28). He allotted to those who fear Him sky-blue dye, which is a microcosm of His glory, as it is stated: “They shall place on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (Numbers 15:38). That is, “so the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9), as He accords glory to those who fear Him. Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – Rabbi Avin said: He allots of His glory to those who fear Him. A king of flesh and blood, one may not ride his horse, one may not sit on his throne, one may not use his scepter, one does not wear his garment. But the Holy One blessed be He is not so. Regarding the Holy One blessed be He it is written: “He soared on wings of wind” (Psalms 18:11), and it says: “In a storm and in a tempest is His way” (Nahum 1:3), and he gave it to Elijah, as it is stated: “Elijah went up in a tempest to the heavens” (II Kings 2:11). A king of flesh and blood, one may not sit on his throne, but regarding Solomon it is written: “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23). He gave His scepter to Moses, as it is stated: “Moses took the staff from before the Lord” (Numbers 20:9). The garment of the Holy One blessed be He is glory and grandeur, as it is stated: “You donned glory and grandeur” (Psalms 104:1), and he gave it to the messianic king, as it is stated: “You bestow glory and grandeur upon him” (Psalms 21:6). Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – as He accorded honor to Joseph the righteous because he feared God, as it is stated: “God I fear” (Genesis 42:18), as it was on his behalf that the Lord rested [His Divine Presence] upon his master, as it is stated: “His master saw that the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39:3). Rabbi Avin HaLevi ben Rabbi said: Joseph would bless the Holy One blessed be He for each and every act that he would perform. His master would see him whispering with his mouth and would say to him: What are you saying? He would respond to him and say: I am blessing the Holy One blessed be He. He said to him: I wish to see Him. Joseph said to him: The sun is one of several of His attendants, and you are unable to look at it; how will you be able to look at His glory? The Holy One blessed be He said to him: As you live, in your honor, I will reveal Myself to him, as it is stated: “His master saw that the Lord was with him.” Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – as He accorded honor to those who fear Him. Joseph the righteous feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “How could I perform this great evil, and sin against God” (Genesis 39:9)? He accorded honor to the Holy One blessed be He in that he did not touch her, because of his fear of Him. He said to him: As you live, I will repay your descendant, as I will grant him permission to present his offering on My holy day, and he will not be harmed. That is what is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim…”

Bereshit Rabbah 86:5

“His master saw that the Lord was with him, and everything that he did, the Lord made his undertaking successful” (Genesis 39:3). The Rabbis say: “His master saw that the Lord was with him” – but ultimately, he forgot, as it is written: “God has caused me to forget all my toil” (Genesis 41:51). (“The Lord was with him” in that Joseph would review his Torah studies, but ultimately, over time, he forgot them (Etz Yosef). ) Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Aḥa: He would whisper and enter and whisper and exit. (He was constantly whispering his studies, or praying (see Yefeh To’ar). ) [Potiphar] would say to him: ‘Pour me boiling water,’ and it would be boiling; lukewarm [water], and it would be lukewarm. (“The Lord was with him” and granted Joseph success beyond the natural order of the world. ) He said: ‘What, Joseph, are you bringing straw to Efrayim, earthenware pots to Kefar Ḥanina, fleeces to Damascus, sorcery to Egypt – sorcery in a place of sorcerers?’ Until when? Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Until he saw the Divine Presence standing over him. That is what is written: “His master saw that the Lord was with him.”

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Nasso 34:1

R. Abbin [Berabbi] the Levite said: As Joseph was offering his praise, his master saw him murmuring with his mouth. (Tanh., Numb. 2:30; Numb. R. 14:3.) He said to him: Joseph, what are you saying. Then he answered and said to him: I am offering praise to the Holy One. He said to him: I want to see your God. Joseph said to him: Consider Helios, one of his several attendants. (In an unvowelled Hebrew text “sun” (shemesh) and “attendant” (shammash) would have the same spelling, i.e., ShMSh.) If you cannot look at , how much the less his own glory. (See above. Exod. 8:6; below, Numb. 3:15.) The Holy One said to him: Because of you I am appearing to him. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 39:3): WHEN HIS MASTER SAW THAT THE LORD WAS WITH HIM…. R. Abbin Berabbi the Levite said: What is the meaning of {(Ps. 24:8 or 10): WHO IS THIS ?} [(Ps. 24:9:) AND THE KING OF GLORY SHALL COME IT]? The one who shares some of his glory with those who fear him, i.e., the Holy One. (Above, Exod. 2:7, and the other parallels listed there.) In the case of a king of flesh and blood, no one uses his scepter, but the Holy One gave his scepter to Moses, as stated (in Exod. 4:20): AND MOSES TOOK THE ROD OF GOD IN HIS HAND. Moreover, no one sits on his throne, [but the Holy One had Solomon sit on his throne], as written (in I Chron. 29:23): THEN SOLOMON SAT UPON THE THRONE OF THE LORD AS KING. No one rides on his horse, [but the Holy One had Elijah ride on his horse]. Now which horse belongs to the Holy One? Storm and whirlwind. Thus it is stated (in Nahum 1:33): THE LORD IS IN THE WHIRLWIND, AND THE STORM IS HIS ROAD. So it is written (in II Kings 2:11): AND ELIJAH WENT UP IN A WHIRLWIND INTO THE HEAVENS. Ergo: The Holy One shares his glory with those who fear him. He has also given his attire to the Messianic King, as stated (in Ps. 21:6 [5]): HONOR AND MAJESTY YOU BESTOW UPON HIM; for the attire of the Holy One is HONOR AND MAJESTY, [as stated] (in Ps. 104:1): YOU HAVE PUT ON [HONOR AND MAJESTY]. What is written about the Holy One (in Jer. 51:56)? [FOR THE LORD IS A GOD] OF RECOMPENSE; (Biblical translations commonly render “RECOMPENSE” (gemulot) as “THEIR DEEDS.”) HE SHALL REPAY IN FULL,] for he repays the good according to their good and the evil according to their evil . What is written about Joseph (in Gen. 49:22)? JOSEPH IS A FRUITFUL SON. (So literally. Biblical translations usually render “son” (ben) by a word like “bough” or “vine.”) The Holy One said to him: Joseph, there shall be peace upon the eye which closed and did not look at any of the Egyptian women. (Cf. Gen. R. 98(99):18.) Thus it is stated (ibid., cont.): DAUGHTERS (Again English versions generally read “boughs” or the like.) STEP UPON THE WALL (i.e., to gaze). R. Reuben said: what is the meaning of UPON THE WALL ('LY SHwr)? (Numb. R. 14:6.) The Holy One said: It is for me ('LY) to pay a reward (SKR) for that eye. Our Masters have taught (in Zev. 14:4, 5, 6, 7, 8) that they would eat in the sanctuary inside the hangings, but in Shiloh (which lay in Ephraimite territory) as far away as the eye could see. (See Zev. 118b.) Whatever Joseph did, the Holy One rewarded him. What is written (in Gen. 39:12)? AND HE LEFT HIS CLOAK {WITH HER} [IN HER HAND], FLED, AND WENT OUTSIDE]. The Holy One said ot him: [By your life,] when the children of Israel go out from Egypt, the sea is going to see your coffin and flee. (See Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Beshallah, 4; Gen. R. 84:5; M. Pss. 114:9.) It is so stated (in Ps. 114:3): THE SEA SAW AND FLED. What did it see? [It saw] that Joseph had kept all of the Ten Commandments. Simeon, the man of Kitron, says: It saw the bones of Joseph. (Gen. R. 87:8).) And in addition, when Joseph's coffin (aron) proceeded before the ark (aron), the peoples of the world saw it and said: What is the nature of this ark which is proceeding along with the ark of the Torah? Then Israel answered them and said: This confirms what is written in this . And what was in the ark? The Ten Commandments. Now Joseph fulfilled all of them before they were given from Sinai. The Holy One said to Joseph: Joseph, although I have rewarded you with a little reward in this world, the main fund remains for you in the world to come, when Israel is redeemed with an everlasting redemption. Through the merit of Jacob and through your merit, they will be redeemed, a stated (in Ps. 77:16 [15]): WITH YOUR MIGHTY ARM YOU REDEEMED YOUR PEOPLE, THE DESCENDANTS OF JACOB AND JOSEPH. SELAH.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 16:6

(Gen. 39:3:) WHEN HIS MASTER SAW THAT THE LORD WAS WITH HIM…. He saw that his works were different. And why all this? (Gen. 39:2:) THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH.

Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 30:1

(Numbers 7:54:) "On the eighth day, the prince of the Children of Manasseh." R. Abbin Berabbi the Levite said, “As Joseph was offering his praise, his master saw him murmuring with his mouth. (Numb. R. 14:3.) He said to him, ‘What are you saying.’ Then he answered and said to him, ‘I am offering praise to the Holy One, blessed be He.’ He said to him, ‘I want to see Him.’ Joseph said to him, ‘Consider the sun, [who is merely] one of His several attendants. (In an unvowelled Hebrew text “sun” (shemesh) and “attendant” (shammash) would have the same spelling, i.e., ShMSh.) [Since] you cannot look at [His attendant], how much the less [can you look at] His own glory.’ (See above. Exod. 8:6; below, Numb. 3:15.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘By your life, because of you I am appearing to him.’ Thus it is stated (in Gen. 39:3), ‘When his master saw that the Lord was with him.’” R. Chaninah said, “What is the meaning of (Ps. 24:10), ‘Who is this King of glory]?’ [It is] since He shares His glory with those who fear Him. (Above, Exod. 2:7, and the other parallels listed there.) In the case of a king of flesh and blood, no one [else] uses his scepter; but the Holy One, blessed be He, gave his scepter to Moses, as stated (in Exod. 4:20), ‘and Moses took the rod of God in his hand.’ In the case of a king of flesh and blood, no one [else] sits on his throne; but it is written about Solomon (in I Chron. 29:23), ‘Then Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord.’ In the case of a king of flesh and blood, no one [else] rides on his horse; but Elijah ride on the horse of the Holy One, blessed be He. Now which horse belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He? Storm and whirlwind. Thus it is stated (in Nahum 1:3), ‘the Lord is in the whirlwind, and the storm is His road.’ And He gave it to Elijah. So it is written (in II Kings 2:11), ‘and Elijah went up in a whirlwind into the heavens.’ In the case of a king of flesh and blood, no one [else] wears his attire; but the Holy One, blessed be He has put his attire on the messianic king. And what is the attire of the Holy One, blessed be He? Honor and majesty, as stated (in Ps. 104:1), ‘You have put on honor and majesty.’ And it is written (in Ps. 21:6), ‘honor and majesty do You bestow upon him.’” What is written about the Holy One, blessed be He (in Is. 59:18)? “According to their deeds, so shall He repay.” (Biblical translations commonly render “RECOMPENSE” (gemulot) as “THEIR DEEDS.”) What is the meaning of “[He] shall repay […] He shall repay” (twice)? That He repays the good according to their good [deeds] and the evil according to their evil [deeds]. What is written about Joseph (in Gen. 49:22)? “Joseph is a fruitful son.” (So literally. Biblical translations usually render “son” (ben) by a word like “bough” or “vine.”) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Joseph, there shall be peace upon the eye which you closed and did not look at any of the Egyptian women.” (Cf. Gen. R. 98(99):18.) Thus it is stated (ibid., cont.), “daughters (Again English versions generally read “boughs” or the like.) step upon the wall (i.e., to gaze).” R. Abbin said, “What is the meaning of ‘upon the wall ('ly shwr)’? (Numb. R. 14:6.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘It is for me ('ly) to pay a reward (skr) for that eye.’” Our masters have taught (in Zev. 14:4, 5, 6, 7, 8) that they would eat in the Temple within the curtains, but in Shiloh (which lay in Ephraimite territory) [they would eat outside the sanctuary as far away as the eye could see, (See Zev. 118b.) as] the Holy One, blessed be He, rewarded Joseph for what he did. What is written [about Joseph (in Gen. 39:12)? “And he left his cloak [in her hand].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “By your life, when the Children of Israel go out from Egypt in the future, the sea is going to see your coffin and flee.” (See Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Beshallah, 4; Gen. R. 84:5; M. Pss. 114:9.) It is so stated (in Ps. 114:3), “The sea saw and fled […].” What did it see? It saw that Joseph had kept all of the Ten Commandments. Simeon, the man of Kitron, says, “It saw the bones of Joseph.” (Gen. R. 87:8).) And in addition, Joseph's coffin (aron) proceeded before the ark (aron). And the peoples of the world saw it and said, “What is the nature of this ark which is proceeding before the ark of the Torah?” Then Israel said, “This is a coffin of a dead man that is proceeding before the ark of the Torah, since this [man] fulfilled everything that was written in this [Torah], before the Torah was given. And therefore he merited to proceed with it.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joseph, “Joseph, although I have rewarded you with a little reward in this world, the main fund remains for you in the world to come, when Israel is redeemed with an everlasting redemption. Through the merit of Jacob and through your merit, they will be redeemed, as stated (in Ps. 77:16), “With Your mighty arm You redeemed Your people, the Children of Jacob and Joseph. Selah.”

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 8:2

What is indicated by the words And the Lord made all that he did to prosper in his hands (Gen. 39:3)? While he was pouring spiced wine for his master, his master would ask: “What kind of wine are you giving me?” If he replied: “Spiced wine,” his master would say: “I prefer absinthe wine,” and it would change into absinthe wine. If his master demanded an ordinary wine, it would immediately become plain wine, and if he asked for boiled wine, it would turn into boiled wine. The same thing happened with water and with everything else that he did, as it is said: And the Lord made all that he did to prosper.

Quoting Commentary

Joseph's success was attributed to God's presence with him, leading to recognition from his master and prosperity in all his endeavors (Gen. 39:2-3). Joseph's humility and acknowledgment of God's role in his success, as seen in his constant invocation of God's name and crediting of God for his achievements, led to patience and ultimately, prosperity.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 7:48:2

A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Nasso 28 on the fact that the tribe of Joseph brought his sacrifice on the seventh day of the week, i.e. the Sabbath. G’d said to Joseph: “by your life, you have fulfilled the commandment of not committing adultery with the wife of Potiphar at a time when I had not yet legislated this commandment in the Torah. In recognition of your self-sacrifice for the concepts contained in that commandment, I will allow your son to override the concept of the Sabbath regulations not to offer private offerings on that day when he will offer the inaugural sacrifice on behalf of your tribe.” Not only this, but there will not be another tribe’s offering separating between the offering of Ephrayim and the offering of Menashe his brother tribe. On the name of the prince of Ephrayim, Elishama, the Midrash sees in this a reminder of Ephrayim’s father Joseph’s great character strength in that אלי שמע, (G’d speaking) “to Me he listened whereas he did not listen to his mistress, the wife of Potiphar.” The words בן עמיהוד are perceived as a reminder of עמי היה הודו, “his glory was with Me,” (and not with the Egyptian nation). The word גמליאל (name of the prince of Menashe) is understood as alluding to גמל א-ל חסדים עמי, “the Lord performed deeds of loving kindness with me.” The word פדהצור (name of Gamliel’s father) is understood as a hint of פדה צור the “Rock” (G’d) redeemed him from his troubles in jail.” Psalms 18,21 reflects such feelings of Joseph at the time when the psalmist writes [though he refers to his own rescue from Shaul by G’d. Ed.] “the Lord rewarded me according to my merit; He requited the cleanness of my hands.” It is normal for man to put his trust in the Lord as long as he is poor (and has nothing or no one else to put his trust in). When he becomes affluent he relies on his wealth to stand by him, no longer making the Lord the focus of his trust. Joseph, by contrast, placed his trust in the Lord both when he was in dire straits and when he had risen to the pinnacle of his career. When he was a slave and a prisoner in the house of Potiphar and subject to the enticements and threats of Potiphar’s wife, he said to her: “how can I possibly commit such a great wrong against G’d?” (Genesis 39,9). When he had been appointed king he continued to revere the Lord as we know from his own lips in Genesis 42,18: “I fear the Lord.” When he had been a mere slave he nevertheless recited a benediction over the food he ate (Bamidbar Rabbah 14,5). When his master saw him whisper with his lips, he asked him what he was doing. Joseph replied that he was giving thanks to the Lord for the food He provided for all of His creatures. His master demanded: “show me this G’d you are talking about.” Joseph replied: “the sun is just one of his servants; seeing that you cannot even look at the sun without becoming blinded, if you were to behold its master you would die.” Nonetheless, G’d revealed Himself on behalf of Joseph. This is the meaning of the verse in Genesis 39,3: “when his master saw that the Lord was with him (Joseph), etc.“ These sentiments are reflected by David in Psalms 60,9: “Gilead and Menashe would be mine; Ephrayim my chief stronghold;” concerning the words לי גלעד, “Gilead is mine,” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “in the event the heretics tell you that G’d is unable to resurrect the dead, there is Elijah the prophet who came from Gilead and who revived the dead. If he could do so, would G’d be unable to do it? If, on the other hand, the same heretics will tell you that G’d does not accept repentant sinners into the fold, King Menashe of Yehudah is proof that G’d does so as that king was a great heretic, and, after having been in captivity and praying to the Lord, becoming a penitent, G’d restored him to his throne in Jerusalem (Chronicles II 33,13). This is why the psalmist speaks of “Menashe is mine.” Concerning the words: “Ephrayim is my stronghold,” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish continued, if an heretic denies G’d’s ability to enable barren women to bear children, consider the case of Elkanah from Ephrayim, whose wife Channah had been unable to become pregnant. After she had appealed to the Lord in Shiloh, He remembered her and granted her children (SamueI 2,21). In the event some heretic will tell you that G'd cannot save someone out of the flames, look at the three men from Yehudah, Chananel, Mishael, and Azaryah, whom G'd rescued from a flaming kiln (Daniel 1,6). This is what David meant when he spoke of יהודה מחוקקי, “Yehudah my scepter," in that same verse. An alternative explanation of this verse in Psalms. The words לי גלעד, לי מנשה, are a reference to Elijah at Mount Carmel. Someone may challenge the fact that prophet Elijah offered sacrifices on a private Altar at a time when the Temple was standing in Jerusalem. He may point out that there is a Biblical prohibition to do so, based on Leviticus 17, 3-4: "any man from the House of Israel who will slaughter a bull, or a goat in the camp or who will slaughter it outside the camp and he has not brought it as an offering to Hashem before the Tabernacle of Hashem- it shall be considered bloodshed for such a man, (i.e. a capital crime).” Tell such a questioner or challenger that whatever the prophet Elijah did he did for the sake of the holy name of G’d and the enhancement of His image among the people; moreover he did it at the behest of G’d. Proof of all this is Kings I 18,36: “it was at the time of the meal-offering, the prophet Elijah came forward and said: “O Lord, G’d of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Israel! Let it be known today that You are G’d in Israel and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your bidding!” This is what the psalmist had in mind when he spoke of “Gilead is mine.” Elijah was a resident of Gilead. As to the words: "Menashe is mine” in the same verse; if someone challenges the conduct of Gideon (Judges 6,25-6) who also had sacrificed an offering on a private altar at a time when the Tabernacle in Shiloh was functional, the same answer applies. Rabbi Abba bar Kahanah said that on the day in question Gideon performed seven actions (normally prohibited). 1) He sacrificed a bull which had been used for idolatrous purposes; 2) he sacrificed a bull intended for idolatrous purposes; 3) he built a private altar; 4) he cut down wood for it from an ashera (a tree which had served as a centre for idolatry). 5) He offered a sacrifice at night; 6) he did all this although he was not a priest (he was from the tribe of Menashe); 7) the bull had belonged to the priests who served the Baal. All of these actions he undertook he had been instructed to do by divine decree. We know all this from Judges 6,25-26): “it was during that night that G’d said to him: ‘take the young bull belonging to your father and another bull seven years old; pull down the altar of Baal which belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred post which is beside it. Then build an altar to the Lord your G’d on the level ground on top of this stronghold. Take the other bull and offer it as a burnt-offering, using the wood of the sacred post that you have cut down. This is the meaning of: “Menashe belongs to me.” If some were to say that David violated a negative commandment of the Torah (when sleeping with Bat Sheva and marrying her) G’d responds to such a statement by saying that David’s action was designed to teach the sinners that repentance is accepted by G’d and the sinners can be rehabilitated. This is what David said in Psalms 51,15: “I will teach transgressors Your ways, that sinners may return to You.” If someone were to challenge the fact that Joshua violated the Sabbath when preparing to attack and capture Jericho (Joshua 6,2-4), answer such a scoffer that Joshua acted on G’d’s instructions as we know from the verse referred to: “The Lord said to Joshua, “See I will deliver Jericho and her king and her warriors into your hands. Let all the troops march around the city and complete one circuit of the city. ....Do this for six days, with seven priests carrying seven ram’s horns preceding the Ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the horns, etc., etc.” How do we know that the seventh day the Book of Joshua speaks of was the Sabbath? There is no sequence of seven days one of which is not the Sabbath. There was something else which Joshua did which he had not been instructed to do. When the walls had collapsed and the city had been captured, Joshua reasoned that seeing the Sabbath is totally sacred, the loot of a city captured on the Sabbath must also be considered sacred, no one using any of it for a private purpose. Hence we read in verse 19 of that chapter that Joshua issued instructions for all the gold, silver, copper objects, and iron to be consecrated to the Temple treasury. Rabbi Berechya the priest said: Joshua treated the city of Jericho according to the rules applied to an עיר הנדחת, (a Jewish city the majority of whose inhabitants had become guilty of practicing idolatry). We know that the contents of such a city are forbidden for use by any other Jew (Deut. 13,17) “you shall burn the town by fire including all its contents, totally.” Rabbi Yehudah Halevi said (Tanchuma Nasso 28):”the reason that the contents of the city of Jericho were consecrated to G’d was that it was the first city in the land of Israel which was captured. We always consecrate the “first” of everything to the Lord, both humans, animals, and crops, etc. In this instance Joshua extended this principle to apply it to inert matters such as gold, silver. G’d responded to this initiative of Joshua (in the future) by permitting the representative of the tribe of Ephrayim (Joshua’s tribe) to offer his individual offering on the Sabbath.

Studies in Spirituality; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Miketz; To Wait Without Despair 20

But effort alone is not enough. We need siyata diShemaya, “the help of Heaven.” We need the humility to acknowledge that we are dependent on forces not under our control. No one in Genesis invoked God more often than Joseph. As Rashi (on Gen. 39:3) says, “God’s name was constantly in his mouth.” He credited God for each of his successes. He recognised that without God he could not have done what he did. Out of that humility came patience.

Studies in Spirituality; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Miketz; To Wait Without Despair 6

God was with Joseph, and he became a successful man; he was in the house of his Egyptian master. His master saw that God was with him, and that God caused all that he did to prosper in his hands. (Gen. 39:2–3)

Targum

Both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:3 mention that Joseph's master saw that the Word of the Lord was with him, and that everything he did was successful because of the Lord's support.

Onkelos Genesis 39:3

His master saw that [the Word of] Adonoy was with him [supported him], and that whatever he did, Adonoy made it succeed through his hand.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:3

And his master saw that the Word of the Lord was his Helper, and that the Lord prospered in his hand all that he did;

וַיִּמְצָ֨א יוֹסֵ֥ף חֵ֛ן בְּעֵינָ֖יו וַיְשָׁ֣רֶת אֹת֑וֹ וַיַּפְקִדֵ֙הוּ֙ עַל־בֵּית֔וֹ וְכׇל־יֶשׁ־ל֖וֹ נָתַ֥ן בְּיָדֽוֹ׃ 4 J he took a liking to Joseph. He made him his personal attendant and put him in charge of his household, placing in his hands all that he owned.
Joseph served as Potifar's personal valet, managing all of Potifar's belongings and overseeing all aspects of the household with extreme regard for cleanliness. Potifar recognized Joseph's success as coming from God, promoting him due to favor in his eyes and his honesty. In various Midrashim, it is explained that finding favor is akin to befriending, being put in charge, and giving one's daughter in marriage. Additionally, Ramban discusses the consequences of defiling the Sanctuary, while Rashbam notes textual similarities in different biblical passages. In the Targum, Joseph found favor with Potiphar and was appointed as supervisor over his household.

Commentary

Joseph served as Potifar's personal valet, appointed to be in charge of the household, managing all of Potifar's belongings and overseeing all aspects of the household, including his bodily needs, with extreme regard for cleanliness. Potifar initially suspected Joseph of witchcraft until he saw the Divine Presence standing over him, recognizing Joseph's success as coming from the Supreme One. Potifar promoted Joseph due to his favor in his eyes and his honesty.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:4:1

וישרת אותו, “he became his personal valet.” He performed such tasks promptly and with extreme regard for cleanliness.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:4:2

ויפקידהו על ביתו, “he appointed him to be in charge of his household.” He was the supervisor of the entire household. We find such a position in Kings I 18,3 when Achav appointed such a supervisor.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:4:3

וכל אשר יש לו נתן בידו, “and he entrusted all his belongings to the care of Joseph.” He appointed him as manager of the household budget. We find something similar in Isaiah 22,15: “go in to see that steward, that Shevna, in charge of the palace.”

Radak on Genesis 39:4:1

וימצא.יוסף חן...וישרת אותו, because Joseph had found so much favour in his eyes he appointed him as his exclusive personal valet. At the same time he appointed him in charge so that without Joseph’s approval nothing could be done within this household.

Radak on Genesis 39:4:2

וכל יש לו, all that he owned.

Ramban on Genesis 39:4:1

AND ALL THAT HE HAD HE GAVE INTO HIS HAND. I.e., to be overseer and officer in charge of all that he had in the house and in the field. Our Rabbis have a Midrash on this verse. Thus they say: (Bereshith Rabbah 86:6.) “He would whisper (His father’s instructions. (Ibid., Commentaries.)) whenever he entered and whenever he left. If his master said to him, ‘Mix a hot drink,’ it was hot immediately in Joseph’s hands and if he said, ‘Mix it lukewarm,’ it was lukewarm. [Because he suspected Joseph of witchcraft, his master said to him,] ‘What is this, Joseph? Bringing witchcraft to Egypt is like importing straw to Ofraim!’ (“Straw to Ofraim” is the Midrashic equivalent of the present day expression, “coals to Newcastle.”) How long did his master suspect him of practicing witchcraft? It was until he saw the Divine Presence standing over him. This is the meaning of the words, And his lord saw that the Eternal was with him.” (Verse 3 here.) The point of this Midrash is that because his lord was an Egyptian who did not know the Eternal, the Sages in the Midrash said that when he saw Joseph’s great success he suspected that it was done by witchcraft, as was the case with his countrymen, until he saw in a vision which was shown to him in a dream, or, when awake, in the form of a cloud of glory or the like, that his success came from the Supreme One. This was done in honor of the righteous Joseph.

Rashi on Genesis 39:4:1

וכל יש לו AND ALL THAT HE HAD — This is an elliptical phrase — the word אשר is omitted after.

Sforno on Genesis 39:4:1

וישרת אותו, he attended to his master’s bodily needs.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:4

Joseph found favor in his eyes, and he served him as his personal attendant. Following that, Potifar promoted him and he appointed him overseer of his household, and everything that was his he placed in his charge, as Potifar saw Joseph’s successes as well as his honesty.

Midrash

In Shemot Rabbah 23:2, it is explained that the Israelites believed in God after witnessing the miracle at the Red Sea, leading to the Divine Spirit resting upon them and them singing a song. Bereshit Rabbah 86:6 discusses how Joseph found favor with Potiphar and was put in charge of his household, with the Divine Presence accompanying him. In Bereshit Rabbah 29:4, different rabbis provide analogies to explain the concept of finding favor, relating it to befriending, being put in charge, and giving one's daughter in marriage.

Bereshit Rabbah 29:4

Rabbi Huna, Rabbi Pinḥas, Rabbi Ḥanin, and Rabbi Hoshaya do not disagree. (With the previous explanations.) Rabbi Yoḥanan, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, and the Rabbis do disagree. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is analogous to one who was walking on the road and he met someone and attached himself to him. To what extent? To the extent that he entered into a friendly relationship with him. (So too, God befriended Noah, as it were.) So, “favor” is stated here, and it is stated elsewhere: “Joseph found favor in his eyes” (Genesis 39:4). (Joseph found favor in the eyes of Potiphar, in the sense that Potiphar befriended him.) Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This is analogous to one who was walking on the road and he met someone and attached himself to him. To what extent? To the extent that he put him in charge. So, “favor” is stated here, and it is stated elsewhere: “Esther found favor in the eyes [of all who saw her]” (Esther 2:15). (And this favor resulted in her becoming queen, a position of authority. So too, Noah was given mastery over all living things (Genesis 9:2).) The Rabbis say: This is analogous to one who was walking on the road and he met someone and attached himself to him. To what extent? To the extent that he gave him his daughter [in marriage]. So, “favor” is stated here, and it is stated elsewhere: “I will pour a spirit of grace and supplication upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Zechariah 12:10). (The verse is referring to a spirit of divine wisdom, which is often personified as one’s “daughter” (Maharzu). Noah, too, was granted this wisdom, as the Midrash goes on to explain.) To what extent? To the extent that he had the knowledge to ascertain which animal is fed in the second hour of the day and which is fed at the third hour of the night.

Bereshit Rabbah 86:6

“Joseph found favor in his eyes, and he served him. He appointed him overseer of his household, and everything that was his, he placed in his charge” (Genesis 39:4). “It was once he appointed him overseer of his household and over everything that was his, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; the blessing of the Lord was in all that he had, in the house and in the field” (Genesis 39:5). “Joseph found…. It was once…” – Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: Everywhere that the righteous go, the Divine Presence goes with them. He was there twelve years, six in the house and six in the field. (Many commentaries emend the text to read: He was there twelve months, six in the house and six in the field (see, e.g., Matnot Kehuna; Yefeh To’ar). ) “He left everything that he had in Joseph's charge and he did not know anything with him about his doings, except the bread that he would eat. Joseph was of fine form, and of fair appearance” (Genesis 39:6). “He left everything that he had in Joseph's charge…except the bread that he would eat” – a euphemism. (This was a euphemism for his wife, as Joseph later says to her: “He has not withheld anything from me but you, as you are his wife” (Genesis 39:9).) “Joseph was of fine form, and of fair appearance” – Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Cast a stick onto the ground and it will land on its source. Because it is written: “Rachel was of fine form [and fair appearance]” (Genesis 29:17); therefore, “Joseph was….”

Shemot Rabbah 23:2

Another matter, “then Moses…sang” – that is what is written: “They believed in His words, they sang His praise” (Psalms 106:12). Rabbi Abahu said: Although it is written that they already believed while they were in Egypt, as it is stated: “The people believed” (Exodus 4:31), they subsequently did not believe, as it is stated: “Our ancestors in Egypt did not comprehend Your wonders” (Psalms 106:7). When they came to the sea and saw the might of the Holy One blessed be He, how He administers justice to the wicked, as you say: “My hand grasps judgment” (Deuteronomy 32:41), and He sunk the Egyptians in the sea, immediately: “They believed in God” (Exodus 14:31). Due to that belief, the Divine Spirit rested upon them and they sang a song. That is what is written: “Then [az] Moses and the children of Israel sang.” Az means nothing other than faith, as it is stated: “It was from when [me’az] he appointed him in his house” (Genesis 39:5), and it is written: “Everything he had he placed in his hands” (Genesis 39:4). (When Potiphar trusted Joseph fully and placed him in charge of his entire household, the verse uses the word az in stating that Potiphar appointed Joseph in his house. ) That is: “They believed in His words, they sang His praise.”

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that defiling the Sanctuary results in excision, regardless of immersion in a ritual pool, as mentioned in Leviticus. The punishment applies to those who touch a corpse or are rendered impure by ohel. Rashbam notes the missing word "אשר" in Numbers 14:43:1, similar to Genesis 39:4. In Tribal Lands, Yosef is shown kindness and given favor by God, becoming an overseer and saving lives in Egypt.

Ramban on Numbers 19:13:1

HE HATH DEFILED THE SANCTUARY OF THE ETERNAL. Scripture mentioned this [punishment of] excision without explanation, (I.e., without first saying here that one who is impure may not enter the Sanctuary or Tabernacle.) saying, he hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Eternal, (Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice.) because He had already warned us against defiling the Sanctuary, just as He said, she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary. (Leviticus 12:4.) For since He mentioned [this prohibition] there in dealing with a lesser degree of impurity, namely, that of a woman after childbirth in the days of her purification, which is a natural event for her, it [is self-understood that it] applies equally to all impure persons. He has also mentioned the [requirement of] immersion [in a ritual pool for purposes of purification], saying, but if he wash them not [i.e., the garments which have become unclean], nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity, (Ibid., 17:16.) that is to say, he will bear his iniquity if he transgresses [the law and does] that which he is admonished not to do [i.e., if he eats holy food or enters the Sanctuary whilst he is still impure, or when he is wearing impure garments]. Therefore He stated here in respect of the impurity [conveyed] by a corpse that whosoever touches the dead (Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice.) and purifieth not himself [with the waters of purification], even though he washes his clothes and bathes himself in water, is [nonetheless] considered one who defiles the Tabernacle, just as if he had not immersed himself [in a ritual pool] at all. Thus it was only necessary to mention that the purification [by means of sprinkling the waters of purification] prevents him from becoming pure [if he did not sprinkle them upon himself, even if he washed his clothes and bathed himself in water], this being the meaning of the expression, his impurity is yet upon him, (Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice.) that is to say, even though he has immersed himself [in a ritual pool] like all other impure people, he still remains impure, because the water of sprinkling hath not been sprinkled upon him. (Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice.) It is possible that the verse is referring to the man [mentioned above, who had become defiled by the corpse], and the meaning thereof is as follows: “whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself — ‘he who’ hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Eternal shall be cut off from Israel.” There are similar cases where the letter shin or the word asher [defining the nature of a relationship such as: who, which, that, etc.] is missing, [as in the following verses]: l’chol yavo g’vurathecha (Psalms 71:18.) [which is to be understood as: l’chol — asher — yavo g’vurathecha — Thy might to every one ‘that’ is to come]; v’chol yesh lo (and all he had) he put into his hand (Genesis 39:4.) [which is to be understood as: v’chol — asher — yesh lo — and all ‘that’ he had he put into his hand]; eth haderech yeilchu bah (Exodus 18:20.) [which is understood as: eth haderech — asher — yeilchu bah — the way ‘in which’ they must walk]. There are many such verses. And the meaning of the expression ‘ki’ he hath defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal (Here in Verse 20.) is “‘when’ he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal,” [this usage of the word ki being similar to that found in the verse]: ‘ki’ a bird’s nest chance to be before thee [which means: “‘when’ a bird’s nest chance to be before thee”], (Deuteronomy 20:6.) and [it is like] its many companion-verses. Now Scripture mentions here [the punishment of] excision twice [once in Verse 13 in connection with defiling the Tabernacle, and again in Verse 20 in connection with the Sanctuary]. In the opinion of our Rabbis (Shebuoth 16b.) this is in order to declare him liable for defiling the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting, and also for the Sanctuary, i.e., the Permanent House [the Temple in Jerusalem]. (See Vol. II, p. 335, Note 598.) According to the plain meaning [of Scripture] it may be that eth mikdash Hashem [usually translated: the Sanctuary of the Eternal] refers to the holy offerings. For He had already declared that he that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto the Eternal, having his impurity upon him, (Leviticus 7:20.) is liable to excision; therefore He now declared furthermore that [in the case of impurity conveyed through a corpse] even if [the impure person] immerses himself [in a ritual pool] he is still liable [to that punishment], if he does not purify himself on the third and seventh day [with the waters of purification, before he eats of the holy offerings]. The meaning, then, of mikdash Hashem [literally: the “Sanctuary” of the Eternal] will be [as if it said]: kod’shei Hashem (the “holy things” of the Eternal), as in the expression eth mik’dsho mimenu (Above, 18:29.) [literally: “the Sanctuary thereof,” which really means: eth kodsho mimenu — “the hallowed part thereof”]. Thus the [punishment of] excision mentioned in [this] section refers to [entering] the Sanctuary [whilst impure, as stated above in Verse 13], and [eating] its hallowed offerings [in such a state, as mentioned in this verse here]. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that [implied] by the literal meaning [of Scripture], namely that the first [mention of] excision [in Verse 13] refers to one who [actually] touches the corpse, as He said, Whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, (Verse 13.) and the second [mention thereof, i.e., in Verse 20 here] applies to those who were rendered impure by ohel (Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies.) but did not [actually] touch the bone or the grave; for the meaning of [the expression] but the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself (Here in Verse 20.) is: “but the man that shall be unclean by any of these means [mentioned in Verses 14-16] and shall not purify himself, [that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly].” By way of the Truth [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], it is possible that the expression mikdash Hashem is alluding to the Sanctuary of the Sanctuary. (A reference to the Glory of G-d (Abusaula). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 272.)

Rashbam on Numbers 14:43:1

כי על כן שבתם, the line has the word אשר missing; we find a similar construction with the missing word אשר in Genesis 39 4 where the Torah writes וכל יש לו בידו instead of וכל אשר יש לו בידו.

Tribal Lands, Chapter 12; Yosef 12

And Joseph found ĥen in [Potiphar’s] sight, and he made him his personal attendant. He appointed him overseer over his house, placing in his hands all that he owned…(Genesis 39:4) But God was with Joseph, and showed him kindness, and gave him ĥen in the sight of the chief jailer. (39:21) And they [the Egyptians] said: “You have saved our lives! Let us find ĥen in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s bondmen.” (47:25)

Targum

Joseph found favor in Potiphar's eyes and served him personally. Potiphar appointed Joseph as supervisor over his household and placed everything he owned in Joseph's hands.

Onkelos Genesis 39:4

Yoseif found favor in his eyes, and he served him personally. He appointed him supervisor over his household, and all that he possessed he placed in his hand.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 39:4

And he appointed him superintendent.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:4

and Joseph found favour in his eyes, and he served him, and he appointed him superintendent over his house, and all that he had he delivered in his hands.

וַיְהִ֡י מֵאָז֩ הִפְקִ֨יד אֹת֜וֹ בְּבֵית֗וֹ וְעַל֙ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־ל֔וֹ וַיְבָ֧רֶךְ יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית הַמִּצְרִ֖י בִּגְלַ֣ל יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיְהִ֞י בִּרְכַּ֤ת יְהֹוָה֙ בְּכׇל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־ל֔וֹ בַּבַּ֖יִת וּבַשָּׂדֶֽה׃ 5 J And from the time that the Egyptian put him in charge of his household and of all that he owned, יהוה blessed his house for Joseph’s sake, so that the blessing of יהוה was upon everything that he owned, in the house and outside.
God blessed Potiphar's household due to Joseph's presence, similar to Oved Edom hosting the Holy Ark. Joseph's success was attributed to his Divine knowledge and fear of God, leading to favor with Potiphar. The blessing on Potiphar's belongings was due to Joseph's elevated status, ministering directly to him and being in charge of the household. The blessing received by Laban and the Egyptian contrasted with the lack of blessing in Ahab's house due to not fearing God. The righteous, such as Jacob and Joseph, brought blessings with them wherever they went, as seen in the examples of Israel, Jacob, and Joseph.

Commentary

God blessed the household of the Egyptian on account of Joseph, similar to Oved Edom's blessing for hosting the Holy Ark. Potiphar's money and objects increased, crops prospered, and he left everything under Joseph's care without requiring an account. Joseph spent one year in Potiphar's employ and twelve years in jail, with two extra years added for boasting about his dreams. Potiphar noticed Joseph's success and attributed it to him, similar to Laban's recognition of Jacob's prosperity. Joseph's success was attributed to his Divine knowledge and fear of God, leading to favor with Potiphar. God's presence in Joseph's actions allowed for success without resorting to deceitful practices. Potiphar elevated Joseph's status by having him minister directly to him, in charge of the household, and guardian of all possessions, leading to a blessing on all of Potiphar's belongings for Joseph's sake.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:5:1

When his master observed that the Almighty ‘was with him’, i.e. that he possessed both Divine knowledge and fear of God, and that He was, so to speak, ‘advising’ him in relation to his affairs; and on his witnessing such a great measure of Divine grace as would guarantee Joseph’s success in all his endeavors, Joseph found favor in his sight.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:5:2

It is, however, also legitimate to interpret the verse (39:3) ‘And his master saw that the Almighty was with him and that God caused all that he did to succeed’ as follows: sometimes merchants make healthy profits from their merchandise, but this is attributable solely to the deceitful (commercial) practices to which they resort: as Scripture indeed informs us elsewhere: (Hosea 12:8): ‘Canaan (i.e. the merchant) holds in his hands scales of deceit; he loves to defraud’); but Joseph did not act in this fashion, as God’s presence was permanently in his thoughts and before his eyes; hence he would never commit a wrong, nor would he ever resort to deceitful language – but nonetheless, the Almighty allowed all his dealings to prosper. It was due to this that his master elevated him to a higher status. Until now, he had been serving in his master’s home, but not inside his ‘inner sanctum’; he had not been attending upon his master in his inner chamber. But at this juncture, he (Potiphar) elevated his working status in three ways: first, he (Joseph) ministered directly to his master, by dressing and feeding him – this is what is meant by the phrase ‘and he ministered to him’; secondly, he appointed him in charge of his entire household, i.e. that he (Joseph) could henceforth command all the servants employed there to carry out such tasks as befitted them: thirdly, he handed over control of all his possessions to Joseph, by creating him guardian of his treasures and his riches.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:5:3

Now it was by virtue of Divine Providence that, from the very moment he had appointed Joseph over his household and all he possessed, ‘God blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake’ (39:5). And not only did He bless the items inside the house, which were under Joseph’s direct control, but the Divine blessing extended to all he owned, both in the house and in the fields, despite Joseph having no role to play in the fields at all.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 39:5:1

בכל אשר יש לו בבית ובשדה, “on everything that he owned, be it inside the house or out on the field.” He made all his efforts inside the house successful during the winter when people are more or less housebound, and in the summer when most of their activities take place outdoors. Actually, Joseph worked in the house of Potiphar for only one year, after which he was put in jail as a result of the accusation against him by Potiphar’s wife. (Seder Olam, chapter 2 Joseph spent a total of twelve years in jail. (B’reshit Rabbah 86,6)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:5:1

ויברך ה' את בית המצרי בגלל יוסף, “G’d blessed the household of the Egyptian on account of Joseph. Here the Torah draws a comparison with the house of Oved Edom HaGitti whose house was host to the Holy Ark and whom G’d blessed for the sake of the Holy Ark (Samuel II 6,11). The blessing extended both to money and other objects.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:5:2-3

בבית, “in the house.” Both his money and his various utensils increased. ובשדה, “and in the field.” Potiphar’s crops, etc., all prospered unnaturally. Up until this point Joseph, though in charge, was required to present the accounts to Potiphar. From that point on he did not even have to give an accounting of his activities. It says ויעזוב את כל אשר לו ביד יוסף, “he left everything he had in the hand (under the care) of Joseph. The Midrash Seder Olam understands the words בבית ובשדה, as meaning that during the six winter months Potiphar’s affairs prospered enormously indoors, whereas during the six summer months they prospered in the field. This tells you that the length of time Joseph spent in Potiphar’s employ was one year. Subsequently he spent twelve years in jail. He had been away from his father for thirteen years when he was called in to Pharaoh. Actually, he had been meant to spend eleven years in the service of Potiphar, corresponding to the number of eleven sheaves he had dreamt about in his first dream. Some say that these eleven years corresponded to the eleven stars in Joseph’s second dream. At any rate, he had two years added to that sentence on account of the two words והזכרתני, והוצאתני (40,14) which he said to the Chief of the butlers, asking him to intercede on his behalf. These two words were counted against Joseph just as the fact that he boasted about the dream he had dreamt.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:5:1

פקד (verwandt mit בגד): einen Gegenstand, mit seinen Beziehungen und einzelnen Verhältnissen bekleidet, sich vergegenwärtigen. Daher derjenige, dem ein Gegenstand in Obhut gegeben worden, der also dessen Verhältnisse überwachen und erhalten soll: פָקִיד, und jemandem Angelegenheiten zu überwachen und zu versorgen übergeben: יֵש — הפקיד verwandt mit קשה und גשש: das Harte, Feste, Tastbare, Reelle. — בגלל von גלל, verwandt mit גלל .כלל ,קלל: sich um seine Achse drehen, also den Schwerpunkt in sich haben, ohne Punkte der Reibung und des Hindernisses auf der Fläche, auf der man sich bewegt. Daher einerseits קל: was nirgends einen Anhaltspunkt hat, in seiner Fortbewegung nirgends aufgehalten wird, das Leichte, andererseits כלל: umfassen, alles Seinige in sich tragen. Alles vermittelnde Herbeiführen, Veranlassen, wird bildlich als eine drehende Kreisbewegung gedacht; es wird gleichsam das Verhältnis in seinem Mittelpunkte gefasst und ihm die beabsichtigte Wendung gegeben; so auch מאומה — .סבב: sowie מהומה von המם-הום, so dürfte מאומה von אמם-אום, der Wurzel von אֵם, Mutter, und אִם, wenn, stammen. Wenn nun dem אמם die Bedeutung: "Bedingung eines werdenden Seins" innewohnt, so wäre מאומה der Zustand, der etwas Werdendes bedingt. Es ist der Anfang eines Seins. Dies ist aber vollständig das, was wir durch etwas; bezeichnen: "mehr als nichts und doch noch nichts Vollendetes": Der Übergang von Nichtsein zu dem definierbaren Sein: מאומה, etwas. — תואר von תור, Reihe: das harmonische Ebenmaß der Glieder. — יפח ,יפה hauchen, יפע strahlen. Der Begriff des Schönen wird also im Hebräischen nicht objektiv, als Beschaffenheit des schönen Wesens, sondern als der Eindruck bezeichnet, den es auf den Beschauer macht; Schönheit wird als Hauch und Strahl begriffen, mit welchem das Schöne auf das Gemüt wirkt. Höchst bezeichnend erscheint nun die Bemerkung von Josefs Schönheit, die wir gleich am Beginn der Erzählung als das erste hätten erwarten sollen, womit sich der Unbekannte der Herrschaft empfahl, und die ja in der Tat der erste Empfehlungsbrief eines Unbekannten ist, ganz zuletzt. Es dürfte dies insbesondere für den weiteren Verlauf von Bedeutung sein. Es dürfte nämlich für einen Josef eine weit größere Versuchung sein, wenn ein nicht gewöhnliches Weib ihn zu verführen versucht. Es wird uns daher erzählt, daß nicht zunächst Josefs Schönheit, sondern die glänzenden Erfolge seines Geistes, die ihn vom niedrigen Sklaven fast zum Herrn seines Herrn erhoben, den gewinnenden Eindruck auf seine Herrin gemacht. Seine Schönheit gab diesem Eindruck nur die überwältigende Steigerung. אחר הדברים האלה heißt es daher im folgenden Verse. Alles Bisherige hatte dazu beigetragen.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:5

It was once he appointed him overseer of his household and over everything that was his; the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake. The blessing of the Lord was in all that he had, in the house and in the field. In addition to Joseph’s personal success, Potifar noticed that he too became prosperous. He sensed that this was due to Joseph’s presence, just as Laban had known to attribute his prosperity to Jacob a generation earlier (see also 30:27).

Jewish Thought

Yosef received the blessing of God in the house and in the field, as seen in Genesis 39:5. This blessing is connected to the six names of God, which in gematria equal 156, the same value as both "Yosef" and "Zion."

Kol HaTor 2:15

(Gen. 39:5) “the blessing of God ... in the house and in the field” -- This verse was said regarding Yosef. This blessing is included in the secret of the six names of God which, together, in gematria equal 156 (26x6). “Yosef” equals 156, and so does “Zion.”

Kabbalah

Before Israel was exiled, God revealed to Samael that Israel would be under their control, showing him and the seventy appointed ones their reward if they respected Israel in exile. This is illustrated in the blessing of the House of the Egyptian because of Joseph (Tikkunei Zohar 24a:7).

Tikkunei Zohar 24a:7

Because before Israel were exiled, the blessed Holy One revealed to him Samael, that Israel will be destined to be under their captive control, [Var. to go out from under their subservience] and He showed him, and the seventy appointed-ones under his hand, their reward – if they will respect Israel in exile. It is this that is written: (Gen. 39:5) And Y”Y blessed the House of the Egyptian, because of Joseph.

Midrash

Rabbi Abahu explains that the Israelites lost faith in Egypt, but when they saw the power of God at the Red Sea, they believed and sang a song. R. Yossi states that blessings followed the righteous wherever they went, citing examples of Israel, Jacob, and Joseph. Jacob was 63 when he received a blessing. Potiphar's house was blessed because of Joseph, who was castrated by God. The righteous bring good things with them, as seen in the examples of Jacob, Joseph, and the blessings that followed them.

Aggadat Bereshit 42:1

Chapter 42: Writings [1] "The earth is filled with the abundance of God's waters" (Psalms 65:10). "With the abundance of the good things that they have, they will enjoy them" (Ecclesiastes 5:18). "When the righteous are numerous in the world, good things come to the world, as it is said, 'When the righteous are many, the people rejoice'" (Proverbs 29:2). Similarly, Moses said, "So that it may go well with you and your children after you forever" (Deuteronomy 12:28), "When you do what is good and right in the sight of the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 12:28). And you find in every place that the righteous went, they brought good things with them. Jacob went to Laban's house, and good things went with him, as it is said, "And God blessed me on account of you" (Genesis 30:27), and it is said, "May the Lord bless you as you go" (Genesis 28:15). You find that Laban did not have sons until Jacob came, as it is said, "And he heard the words of Laban's sons" (Genesis 31:1). It is not written here, "Laban's daughters," but "Laban's sons." Therefore, "May the Lord bless you as you go" (Genesis 33:30). When Joseph went to Potiphar's house, good things went with him, as it is said, "And the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house because of Joseph" (Genesis 39:5). And when Jacob went to Egypt, he blessed Pharaoh, as it is said, "And Jacob blessed Pharaoh" (Genesis 47:7), so that the Nile rose to meet him. When his granaries were filled, a messenger came to Pharaoh and said to him, "The Nile has risen today to such and such a level," and immediately the famine ended. This is what is meant by "The earth is filled with the abundance of God's waters." (Psalms 65:10)

Bereshit Rabbah 73:8

“Laban said to him: If now I have found favor in your eyes, I have divined, and the Lord has blessed me on your account” (Genesis 30:27). “Laban said to him: If now I have found favor in your eyes, [I have divined]” – I attempted and examined, (“Divined” could not refer to divination, as that is abhorrent in the eyes of God and Jacob. The proper interpretation is that he examined the differences in his household between the pre-Jacob era and since Jacob arrived.) “and the Lord has blessed me on your account.” “He said: Stipulate your wages for me, and I will give them” (Genesis 30:28). “He said: Stipulate your wages for me” – calculate, quantify, and state . “He said to him: You know how I have served you, and how your livestock was with me” (Genesis 30:29). “For the little that you had before me has increased abundantly and the Lord has blessed you on my account and now, when will I, too, provide for my household?” (Genesis 30:30). “He said to him: You know…For the little [me’at] that you had…has increased abundantly” – Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Ḥizkiya: Me’at – seventy heads [of livestock]. Me’at is stated here and me’at is stated elsewhere: “[He went down to Egypt with] few in number [bimtei me’at]” (Deuteronomy 26:5). Just as there it is seventy people, (“All the people of the house of Jacob who came to Egypt were seventy” (Genesis 46:27).) so, too, here, it is seventy heads. “The Lord has blessed you on my account” – everywhere the righteous go, blessing is sent. Isaac descended to Gerar, blessing came on his account, as it is stated: “Isaac planted in that land and found in [that] year…and God blessed him.” (Genesis 26:12). Jacob descended to Laban and blessing came on his account, as it is stated: “The Lord has blessed you on my account.” Joseph descended to Potiphar, blessing came on his account, as it is stated: “The Lord blessed the household of the Egyptian” (Genesis 39:5). “Now, when will I, too, provide for my household?” – Reuben requires a house, Simeon requires a house.

Bereshit Rabbah 86:3

“[Potiphar...an Egyptian man,] purchased him [from the Ishmaelites]” – those who were acquired were acquiring. (The Ishmaelites descend from Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant, and the Egyptians descend from Ḥam, of whom it is stated: “A slave of slaves he shall be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25), and they were the ones purchasing and selling Joseph.) All slaves damage the household of their masters. But this one – “the Lord blessed the house of the Egyptian for Joseph’s sake” (Genesis 39:5). All slaves are suspected of robbery, but this one: “Joseph collected all the silver…[Joseph brought the silver to Pharoah’s house]” (Genesis 47:14). All slaves are suspected of licentiousness, but this one: “But he did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10). Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: All slaves, their master feeds teruma to their slaves, but this one fed his master teruma, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Elazar took a wife from the daughters of Joseph. (Joseph was married to Potiphar’s daughter, so Potiphar’s granddaughter married Elazar, the son of Aaron, and ate teruma.) Potiphar is “Potifera” (Genesis 41:45). Potiphar – because he would fatten [mefatem] calves for idol worship. Potifera – because he would defecate [pore’a atzmo] for idol worship. (Defacation in front of the idol of Baal Peor was a form of its worship (see Sanhedrin 60b). ) When the bull [par] (Joseph, who was likened to a bull; see Deuteronomy 33:17.) descended there, [Potiphar] became wealthy. (Translation follows Matnot Kehuna. Alternatively, he became an officer, or a eunuch. ) “The official of [seris] Pharaoh” – he was castrated [nistares]. This teaches that [Potiphar] purchased [Joseph] only for intercourse, but the Holy One blessed be He castrated him. This is analogous to a she-bear that was killing its master’s children. He said: ‘Break its teeth.’ So, it teaches that [Potiphar] purchased him only for intercourse, and the Holy One blessed be He castrated him. That is what is written: “For the Lord loves justice [and does not forsake] His pious ones [ḥasidav]” (Psalms 37:28). Ḥasido is written. (The word ḥasidav is written with only one vav, such that it can be read ḥasido, “His pious one,” in singular. It should be noted however that the Masoretic text of Psalms actually has the word ḥasidav with two vavs. The midrash here cites a different tradition. Alternatively, in Midrash Shmuel the version of the text cites I Samuel 2:9 rather than Psalms, and in that verse the word in fact appears as ḥasido, with one vav (Etz Yosef). ) Who is that? It is Joseph. “They are guarded forever, while the seed of the wicked is cut off” (Psalms 37:28) – this teaches that [Potiphar] purchased him only for intercourse, and the Holy One blessed be He castrated him. “Potiphar…an Egyptian man, purchased him [from [miyad] the Ishmaelites]” – a clever man. What was his cleverness? He said: In every place, a German sells a Cushite, (A white man sells a man of dark complexion (Matnot Kehuna). ) but here, a Cushite is selling a German? This is no slave. He said to them: ‘Bring me a guarantor,’ as the term “from [miyad]” is nothing other than a guarantor, just as it says: “I will guarantee him, [from me [miyadi] you can demand him]” (Genesis 43:9). That is why it says: “From [miyad] the Ishmaelites.” Rabbi Levi said: A slave purchased, the son of a maidservant sold, and a free man was a slave to both of them. (Potiphar, the Egyptian, was a descendant of Canaan, who was cursed by Noah to be a slave (see Genesis 9:25). The Ishmaelites were sons of Hagar, described as a maidservant to Sarah (see Genesis 16:2). Joseph was, by birth, a free man. )

Bereshit Rabbah 86:6

“Joseph found favor in his eyes, and he served him. He appointed him overseer of his household, and everything that was his, he placed in his charge” (Genesis 39:4). “It was once he appointed him overseer of his household and over everything that was his, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; the blessing of the Lord was in all that he had, in the house and in the field” (Genesis 39:5). “Joseph found…. It was once…” – Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: Everywhere that the righteous go, the Divine Presence goes with them. He was there twelve years, six in the house and six in the field. (Many commentaries emend the text to read: He was there twelve months, six in the house and six in the field (see, e.g., Matnot Kehuna; Yefeh To’ar). ) “He left everything that he had in Joseph's charge and he did not know anything with him about his doings, except the bread that he would eat. Joseph was of fine form, and of fair appearance” (Genesis 39:6). “He left everything that he had in Joseph's charge…except the bread that he would eat” – a euphemism. (This was a euphemism for his wife, as Joseph later says to her: “He has not withheld anything from me but you, as you are his wife” (Genesis 39:9).) “Joseph was of fine form, and of fair appearance” – Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Cast a stick onto the ground and it will land on its source. Because it is written: “Rachel was of fine form [and fair appearance]” (Genesis 29:17); therefore, “Joseph was….”

Seder Olam Rabbah 2:2

Our forefather Jacob was 63 when he was blessed. Ishmael died at that time as is written, "Esau saw that Isaac had blessed...Jacob listened to his father...Esau saw [the Canaanite women] were bad [in the eyes of Isaac]...Esau went to Ishmael..."(Genesis 28:9). There seems no need for the verse to state "sister of Nebaioth." What do we learn from the fact that it says "sister of Nebaioth"? We learn that Ishmael died and Nebaioth [Ishmael's firstborn therefore] married off his sister to Esau. Jacob our forefather hid [from Esau] 14 years in the land of Israel and served Eber. Eber died two years after Jacob went to Aram-Naharaim. [Jacob] left and went to Aram-Naharaim and he was found by the well when he was 77 years old and he was in Laban's house for 20 years: 7 before he married any matriarchs, 7 from when he married in the Matriarchs and 6 years after the 11 tribes and Dinah were born. It comes out that all the tribes were born in seven years besides Benjamin. Each and every one each 7 months. He left Aram-Naharaim and came to Succoth and stayed there 18 months as is written "And Jacob went to Succoth" (Genesis 33:17). He left Succoth and went to Bet El and made 6 new encampments close to the place.

Shemot Rabbah 23:2

Another matter, “then Moses…sang” – that is what is written: “They believed in His words, they sang His praise” (Psalms 106:12). Rabbi Abahu said: Although it is written that they already believed while they were in Egypt, as it is stated: “The people believed” (Exodus 4:31), they subsequently did not believe, as it is stated: “Our ancestors in Egypt did not comprehend Your wonders” (Psalms 106:7). When they came to the sea and saw the might of the Holy One blessed be He, how He administers justice to the wicked, as you say: “My hand grasps judgment” (Deuteronomy 32:41), and He sunk the Egyptians in the sea, immediately: “They believed in God” (Exodus 14:31). Due to that belief, the Divine Spirit rested upon them and they sang a song. That is what is written: “Then [az] Moses and the children of Israel sang.” Az means nothing other than faith, as it is stated: “It was from when [me’az] he appointed him in his house” (Genesis 39:5), and it is written: “Everything he had he placed in his hands” (Genesis 39:4). (When Potiphar trusted Joseph fully and placed him in charge of his entire household, the verse uses the word az in stating that Potiphar appointed Joseph in his house. ) That is: “They believed in His words, they sang His praise.”

Sifrei Devarim 38:8

And thus do you find, that wherever the righteous go, blessing comes in their wake. Israel went down to Gerar — blessing came to Gerar, viz. (Bereshith 26:12) "And Israel sowed in that land, etc." Jacob went down to Lavan — blessing came down in his wake, viz. (Ibid. 30:27) "I have found through divination that the L-rd has blessed me for your sake." Joseph went down to Potifera — blessing came in his wake, viz. (Ibid. 39:5) "and the L-rd blessed the house of the Egyptian for Joseph's sake." Jacob went down to Pharaoh — blessing came down for his sake, viz. (Ibid. 47:10) "And Jacob blessed Pharaoh." In what way did he bless him? In that years of famine were withheld from him. And after the death of Jacob they returned, as it is written (Ibid. 50:21) "And now, do not fear, I (Joseph) will feed you and your little ones," and (Ibid. 45;11) "And I will feed you there." Just as "feeding" there was in the (projected) years of famine, so, the "feeding" here (50:21) was in the years of famine, (the famine having returned with Jacob's death). These are the words of R. Yossi.

Quoting Commentary

Radak explains that in Genesis 12:3, the blessing given to Abraham extends to his allies such as Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre, as well as others not mentioned in the Torah. This blessing results in those who show sympathy and love towards Jews being rewarded by God, as seen in examples like Potiphar's household being blessed due to his positive treatment of Joseph, and even Jacob's enemy Lavan acknowledging his own prosperity as a result of being with Jacob.

Radak on Genesis 12:3:1

ואברכה מברכך, your allies and those who seek your welfare.” A reference to Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre, Avram’s allies, as well as others whom the Torah has not named. The blessing‘s effect is that people displaying sympathy and love for Jews will be recompensed by G’d. A prominent example of this is that the house of Potiphar was blessed as a result of Potiphar’s positive attitude to Joseph, his Hebrew slave. (Genesis 39,5) Even Yaakov’s arch enemy Lavan, admitted that his presence with him had resulted in G’d making him rich. (Genesis 30,27)

Talmud

Rabbi Yitzḥak compares the blessings received by Laban and the Egyptian to the lack of blessing in Ahab's house due to not fearing God (Sanhedrin 39b:11). The people of various regions worship different deities, such as the Nergal, Ashima, Nibḥan, and Tartaq, while the Sepharwites sacrificed their sons to Adrammelekh and Annamelekh (Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:2:3). Abaye states that a blessing rests upon a house when Torah scholars enter, citing examples of Laban and Jacob, and Joseph and the Egyptian (Berakhot 42a:8).

Berakhot 42a:8

Abaye said that on a similar note, we too will say: Immediately following the entrance of Torah scholars into a house, a blessing rests upon that house, as it is stated with regard to Laban and Jacob: “The Lord has blessed me because of you” (Genesis 30:27). If you wish, say instead, that the proof is from here, as it is stated: “And it was from when he placed him in charge of his house and over all that he owned, the Lord blessed the house of the Egyptian on account of Joseph” (Genesis 39:5).

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:2:3

(Here starts a Geniza text (G), one leaf also edited by J. N. Epstein (Chapter 2, Note 361). The parallel in the Babli is Sanhedrin 63b.) It is written (2K. 17:30.) : The people from Babylon made Sukkot Benot, the chicken and its young, and the people of Kuta made the Nergal, the foot of Jacob and the foot of Joseph (Some of the regions mentioned here and most of the deities are unidentified in cuneiform sources but Nergal is well identified as the god of the Underworld. Since the word does not correspond to any Semitic root, Nun is considered a prefix leaving a root רגל “foot” which in turn is taken of the source of גלל “because of” in analogy to עקב “heel, in consequence of”.) , I divined that the Eternal blessed me for your sake (Ge n. 30:12.) ; the Eternal blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake (Ge n. 39:5.) .The people of Ḥamma made the Ashima, a sheep, as you say, the Cohen shall atone for him by the asham ram (Le v. 19:22. G quotes 5:16 instead. In both cases there is acoustic similarity between asham and ashima.) . The Awim made the Nibḥan (Both sources and the Babli read נבחן “the barker” against the MT נִבְחָז which together with תרתק are read as Elamite by modem interpreters.) , a dog, and the Tartaq, a donkey. And the Sepharwites burned their sons in fire [to Adrammelekh and Annamelekh the gods of Sepharwaim] (Parentheses added from G; while the interpretations clearly refer to the deities mentioned in the addition, in talmudic style the explicit quote is not strictly necessary.) , peacock (Greek ταώς, ὁ. In Latin, taos, -i, m., is “a precious multi-colored stone”.) and pheasant (Latin phasianus, also phasiana, -ae, f. (Edict. Diocl.). According to myth, it is metamorphosed Itis, a son of Tereus. He was killed by his mother and served to his father, then changed into a pheasant.) .

Sanhedrin 39b:11

Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Ahab said to Obadiah: It is written with regard to Jacob: “And Laban said to him: If now I have found favor in your eyes, I have observed the signs, and the Lord has blessed me for your sake” (Genesis 30:27). It is written with regard to Joseph: “The Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake” (Genesis 39:5). The house of that man, i.e., my house, was not blessed. Perhaps you do not fear God? Immediately, a Divine Voice emerged and said: “Now Obadiah feared the Lord greatly,” but the house of Ahab is not fit for blessing like the houses of those masters.

Targum

Adonoy blessed the Egyptian's house and possessions when he made Yoseif supervisor, with the Lord's blessing evident in all aspects of his wealth and property.

Onkelos Genesis 39:5

From the time he appointed him supervisor over his household and over all that he possessed, Adonoy blessed the house of the Egyptian for Yoseif’s sake. The blessing of Adonoy was in all that he possessed, in the house and in the field.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:5

And it was from the time he appointed him superintendent over his house, and over all that he had, the Lord prospered the house of the Mizraite for the sake of the righteousness of Joseph, and the blessing of the Lord was on all that he had in the house and in the field.

Tosefta

Isaac's presence brought blessings to his seeds, Laban's house was blessed because of Jacob, Potiphar's house was blessed because of Joseph, Jacob's presence in Egypt ended the famine, and Israel flourished as long as Joseph and his brothers were alive.

Tosefta Sotah 10:3

As long as Isaac was alive, the seeds were blessed, as it is said (Gen. 26:12), "And Isaac sowed in that land [and reaped in that year a hundred measures; thus did God bless him]." Before Jacob descended to Aram of Two-Rivers (Gen. 24:10), the house of Laban the Aramean was not blessed, as it says (Gen. 30:30), "For you had few before me, and they have since burst out into a multitude, and God has blessed you at my [every] step." And it says (Gen. 30:27), "[Laban said] ... I have become wealthy, and God has blessed me on account of you." Before Joseph descended to Egypt, the house of Potiphar was not blessed. Once he descended, what does it say, but (Gen. 39:5), "And God blessed the house of the Egyptian because of Joseph." Before Jacob descended to Egypt [after Joseph sent for him], there was famine, as it says (Gen. 45:6), "For it is two years now that the famine has been in the midst of the land, etc." Once he descended, what does it say, but (Gen. 50:31), "And now, do not fear, for I will sustain you and your little children, etc." It says here "sustain," and it says there (Gen. 45:11) "sustain," just as "sustain" over there is in reference to the famine, so too "sustain" over here is in reference to the famine. As long as Joseph and the tribes (i.e., his brothers) were alive, Israel comported itself with grandeur and honor, as it is said (Ex. 1:7), "And the Children of Israel bore fruit and swarmed, etc." Once he died, what does it say, but (Ex. 1:6-9), "And Joseph died[, and all his brothers, and all that generation]," "And a new king arose [over Egypt]," "And he said to his people, [Here this people ... is greater and mightier [in number] than we]," "Come now, let us use our wits against it, etc."

וַיַּעֲזֹ֣ב כׇּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ֮ בְּיַד־יוֹסֵף֒ וְלֹא־יָדַ֤ע אִתּוֹ֙ מְא֔וּמָה כִּ֥י אִם־הַלֶּ֖חֶם אֲשֶׁר־ה֣וּא אוֹכֵ֑ל וַיְהִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף יְפֵה־תֹ֖אַר וִיפֵ֥ה מַרְאֶֽה׃ 6 J He left all that he had in Joseph’s hands and, with him there, he paid attention to nothing save the food that he ate. Now Joseph was well built and handsome.
In Chasidut, prayers build up the Shekhinah for union, symbolized by baking. Ramban explains that Potiphar left everything to Joseph except the bread due to cultural differences. The term "form" is not applicable to God in Hebrew. In Kabbalah, the union of Tiferet and Malkhut creates all souls. Rebecca was attracted to Isaac's greatness in Midrash. Joseph's vanity led to his downfall in Musar. Rashi suggests "bread" in Genesis 39:6 is a euphemism for marriage. Potiphar left everything to Joseph except the food he ate in Targum.

Chasidut

Prayers ascend and build up the Shekhinah, preparing for union, symbolized by baking and cooking. The beauty and splendor of the world is embodied by the tzaddik, specifically Yosef, who begets offspring through Rachel. The inheritance of Yaakov and the beauty of Yosef lead to the begetting of offspring and the fall of Damagers into pleasant places. Yosef's appearance reflects the beauty of Yaakov, which in turn reflects the beauty of Adam Kadma’a.

Likutei Moharan 2:8:9

We ascended, and we baked and cooked — All the prayers ascend and rise upward. And the more we pray, the more the Shekhinah is built up. She then prepares herself for union. This is we baked and cooked. Baking and cooking are preparations for eating, which is [a metaphor for] union, as is written (Genesis 39:6), “except for the food he himself ate.”

Likutei Moharan, Part II 67:10:1

10. This relates above: “Rachel weeps over her children”—the concept of a beautiful maiden who has no eyes (Zohar II, 95a). For “Rachel was beautiful in appearance and beautiful to look at” (Genesis 39:6). Therefore, the begetting of offspring by the tzaddik—who is the concept of Yosef, who was “beautiful in appearance and beautiful to look at,” the splendor and beauty of the world, as mentioned above—stems primarily from Rachel. But now, in exile, following the destruction, she is in the aspect of “Rachel weeps over her children” and so is “a beautiful maiden who has no eyes,” because weeping causes the light of the eyes to depart. Understand this well.

Likutei Moharan, Part II 67:2:1

2A. Now, this is the concept of concealment, the disappearance of the beauty and splendor of the entire world. For there is a tzaddik who is the beauty, splendor and grace of the entire world, as in “And Yosef was beautiful in appearance and beautiful to look at” (Genesis 39:6) ; the concept of “a most beautiful sight, joy of all the earth” (Psalms 48:3). This true tzaddik, who is the concept of Yosef, is the majesty and the beauty of the entire world.

Likutei Moharan, Part II 71:10:2

And this is “my inheritance is lovely indeed.” “Inheritance” alludes to Yaakov, as in “Yaakov, the parcel of His inheritance” (Deuteronomy 32:9), the concept of charity. “Lovely” alludes to Yosef, as in “Yosef was beautiful in appearance…” (Genesis 39:6). And “beautiful in appearance” corresponds to the depiction of David as beautiful in appearance; and our Sages, of blessed memory, expounded “a man of appearance” (1 Samuel 16:18)—who displays the faces of Halakhah (Sanhedrin 93b). This refers to the mentalities, the concept of Pleasantness—they are pleasant in [debating] Halakhah, as mentioned above. And through these two concepts, Yaakov and Yosef, as in “inheritance is lovely,” there is the begetting of offspring, so that the Damagers then fall into the “pleasant places,” as mentioned above.

The Gate of Unity 36:21

(This is also the meaning of the verse, (Genesis 39:6) “And Yosef was well built [and good looking].” That is, (Midrash Bereshit Rabba 84) “His appearance resembled the beauty of Yaakov” – which is the aspect of Tiferet of Zeir Anpin – “And the appearance of Yaakov resembled the beauty of Adam Kadma’a (The Primal Man),” (Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 48a) – which is the aspect of Arich Anpin and Adam Kadmon etc.) (See Pirush HaMilot, Ch. 75-76.)

Commentary

Ramban explains that Potiphar left everything in Joseph's hands except the bread he ate, which he did not permit him to touch due to Joseph being a Hebrew, as the Egyptians did not eat with Hebrews. Ibn Ezra agrees, adding that Potiphar knew Joseph was a Hebrew. The text also mentions Joseph's good looks, indicating why Potiphar's wife was attracted to him. Rashbam adds that Potiphar did not involve himself in household affairs, only focusing on his personal needs like eating. Sforno notes that Joseph's good looks were due to not having to perform demeaning physical labor, and Radak emphasizes that Joseph was not charged with overseeing household affairs due to being a Hebrew. Tur HaArokh mentions that Potiphar did not allow Joseph to touch the bread due to cultural differences between Hebrews and Egyptians. Chizkuni adds that Egyptians looked down on Hebrews' eating habits. Abarbanel highlights that Potiphar left everything in Joseph's charge except the bread he ate due to Joseph being a Hebrew.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:6:1

The narrative continues to relate that Potiphar went yet one step further, by leaving all his possessions in Joseph’s charge, by which is meant without any written record or inventory (of the items in question). This, then, is what is meant by the phrase ‘And he knew nothing of what was under Joseph’s control’ (39:6). For previously, the Torah relates: ‘And he appointed him over his household, and handed over all his possessions to him’ i.e. his treasures – yet his master was aware of what was in the house, and he (Joseph) would account to him on a daily basis. However, once he had observed his success and his uprightness of character – ‘he was not cognizant of anything in Joseph’s possession’ (39:6), insofar as he did not demand any reckoning from him, as is customary amongst administrational delegators. This, then, is the true import of the phrase ‘he abandoned control of all his possessions’.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:6:2

Now when the Torah tells us (that he left everything in Joseph’s hands) ‘except the bread that he ate’ (39:6), it means to say that he left his entire wealth and possessions in Joseph’s charge without requiring any account from him, besides the bread his master ate; this could not be under Joseph’s control, as he was of Hebrew origin, and (as we are later informed – [Ch. 43:32]: ‘the Egyptians are not permitted to eat bread together with the Hebrews’ – as Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra has noted ( in his Torah commentary). Accordingly, (as we have amply demonstrated), there is, after all, nothing repetitious or superfluous contained within these verses, and thus the second question initially posed by us has been satisfactorily resolved.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:6:3

After Scripture has praised Joseph by recording that ‘God was with him’ and that ‘he was successful’, thus causing him to find favor in his master’s sight, it continues to lavish yet more praise on him, by relating that he was ‘of fair countenance and handsome appearance’, on account of which he found favor in the eyes of his master’s wife!

Alshekh on Torah, Genesis 39:6:1-10

He refused and said. He began by asserting his absolute refusal and only afterwards gave explanations, knowing that if one begins by arguing with a seducer one may be defeated.

Chizkuni, Genesis 39:6:1

כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, “except for the food he used to eat.” We have learned already in Genesis 43,32, that the kind of food that Hebrews ate was considered as an abomination by the Egyptians; it is therefore understandable that Potiphar would not allow Joseph to prepare food in an Egyptian kitchen. In Isaiah 30,7 the prophet speaking in the name of the Lord, describes the Egyptians in derogatory terms. In their haughtiness, they looked down on all other nations, on Hebrews especially. [This is also clear from the way Mrs Potiphar refers to Joseph as a lowly subhuman category of being; (39,17). An alternate explanation: Potiphar entrusted everything to Joseph, the only thing he found fault with was his eating habits; we know the prejudice the Egyptians harboured against the Semites on account of that from Genesis 43,32. They could not bring themselves to eat at the same table as the Hebrews.

Chomat Anakh on Torah, Genesis 39:6:1

The bread, which is food, and Joseph was handsome of form and handsome of appearance." This assisted him in placing all that he possessed in the hands of Potiphar, for the needs of beauty are closer to being successful in them, like one who is as a wing flapping. Additionally, he is a sign of beauty of character because the eye and the face are like a solid indicator for the internal matter. "The bread, which is food," refers to the new Torah that he was engaged in, and in this, he was handsome of appearance according to the new revealed light. The great Rabbi Yedidya of Zarfat explained in his commentary, "For." This does not contradict what the sages said, that wisdom is necessary in an unattractive vessel, as this applies specifically to the aspect of learning. It was said, "If one merits Torah, he will certainly merit beauty of character." However, in the general sense, beauty indicates perfection of character. According to the interpretation of the Rabbi , who explained, "The bread, which is food," regarding Joseph's engagement in Torah, it is thus stated, "And Joseph was handsome of form, etc.," and this is a reasonable and correct interpretation.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 39:6:1

כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, (literally) “except for the food that he ate.” We find two more references in the Torah describing that the Egyptians and Hebrews had a mutual distaste for each other’s eating habits and menus. (Compare Genesis 43,32, and verse 9 in this chapter, where Potiphar’s wife is described as out of bounds to Joseph [similar to his bread. Joseph was not afraid to make this comparison. Ed.]

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 39:6:1

HE KNEW NOT AUGHT SAVE THE BREAD WHICH HE DID EAT. Some say that the bread which he did eat is a euphemism for a conjugal relationship. (Cf. Rashi.) However, this interpretation is far-fetched. Furthermore, Potiphar was a eunuch. (Cf. verse 1, Potiphar seris paroh. I.E. interprets seris paroh (an officer of Pharaoh) as Pharaoh’s eunuch. If he was a eunuch then the bread which he did eat obviously cannot refer to sexual intercourse.) I believe that what this verse says is that Potiphar put Joseph in charge of everything that he had except for his bread, which Joseph was not permitted even to touch because he was a Hebrew, as we see from the verse because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians (Gen. 43:32). Potiphar knew that Joseph was a Hebrew. Potiphar’s wife similarly said, See, he hath brought in a Hebrew unto us to mock us (v. 14). (Which proves that his master knew that Joseph was a Hebrew.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 39:6:2

AND JOSEPH WAS OF BEAUTIFUL FORM. Like his mother.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:6:1

ולא ידע אתו מאומה, “and he did not share any knowledge with him,” the only matters concerning which Joseph bothered to consult his master Potiphar was the menu to be served at meal-time, as the Torah said: “except for the bread he would eat.” The word לחם also included his wife; we know that wives are sometimes referred to as לחם, from Exodus 2,2 קראן לו ויאכל לחם, “call him so that he can take a wife.” We also find the word אכל, “ate,” in that sense in Proverbs 30,2 אכלה ומחתה פיה, “she ate and wiped her mouth.” The verse speaks about the harlot indulging in her trade and acting as if she had done no wrong. We encounter the same meaning of that word again in verse nine: “except for you inasmuch as you are his wife.”

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:6:2

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר ויפה מראה, “Joseph was of handsome form and handsome appearance.” The Torah revealed the reason Potiphar’s wife was so attracted to him. (Tanchuma)

Radak on Genesis 39:6:1

ולא ידע אתו מאומה, he did not involve himself in anything concerning the affairs of his household. Everything rested on Joseph’s shoulders. Everything that needed to be done in the household other than matters relating to the food served in the house. The reason why Joseph was not charged with this relatively minor task was the fact that he was from a different people. We know already from 43,32 that the family of Yaakov, loosely known as העברים, “the Hebrews,” (from the sticks, i.e. a culture beyond the Euphrates river) had such different eating habits that the Egyptians could not eat at the same table with them. Joseph had not changed his eating habits. Other commentators interpret the line כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, as a euphemism applying to Potiphar’s wife.

Radak on Genesis 39:6:2

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר, the reason why the Torah mentions that Joseph was handsome is only to help us understand why a highly placed person such as Mrs Potiphar would try to get involved with a foreign-born slave. Joseph was so handsome in appearance. We already explained the nuances of the word יפה תואר and יפה מראה respectively in connection with Rachel (29,17).

Ramban on Genesis 39:6:1

SAVE THE BREAD WHICH HE DID EAT. In the words of our Rabbis, this is a refined expression which refers to his wife. (Bereshith Rabbah 86:7.) Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said in interpretation of the verse that whatever Potiphar possessed was left in the hands of Joseph excepting the bread which he ate. This he did not even permit him to touch since he was a Hebrew. It was the customary behavior of the Egyptians towards the Hebrews that they not permit the Hebrews to touch their food, because that is abhorrent to the Egyptians. (Further, 43:32.) Possibly this is so. Perhaps the interpretation of the verse is that his lord did not know of Joseph taking anything from him save only the bread which Joseph ate, but no other pleasures as young people are wont to do. Nor did he gather wealth and property, just as it is said of David, And I have found no fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day. (I Samuel 29:3.) Now the verse, Having me, he knoweth not what is in the house, (Verse 8 here. Joseph speaking to Potiphar’s wife.) expresses another matter, namely, that he [Joseph’s lord] did not trouble himself to know about anything inside the house. But the present verse, Having him, he knew not aught, is an expression of negation; he knew that nothing in the house is [taken by Joseph except the bread which he eats]. (See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 219-220.)

Ramban on Genesis 39:6:2

AND JOSEPH WAS HANDSOME AND GOOD-LOOKING. The verse mentions this here in order to indicate that it was on account of his good looks that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him. And Rashi wrote that because he saw that he was ruler of the house, he began to eat and drink, and curl his hair, etc. (“The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joseph: ‘Your father is mourning for you, and you curl your hair. I will incite a bear against you.’” (Rashi.) That is, “I shall let temptation loose against you.”)

Rashbam on Genesis 39:6:1

ולא ידע אתו מאומה, in the house

Rashbam on Genesis 39:6:2

כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, he did not oversee any of the affairs of his household, not caring where everything originated until the food came on his table, when he proceeded to eat it. The word לחם is an inclusive term applying to any manner of food. It is used in the same sense in Daniel 5,1 עבד לחם רב, “he made a great banquet.” Also in Job 3,24 כי לפני לחמי אנחתי, “my groaning serves me as my food.”

Rashi on Genesis 39:6:1

AND HE KNEW NOT AUGHT HE HAD — he paid no attention to anything.

Rashi on Genesis 39:6:2

כי אם הלחם SAVE THE BREAD — this means his wife, but Scripture uses here a euphemism (Genesis Rabbah 86:6) (cf. Joseph’s own words in Genesis 39:9).

Rashi on Genesis 39:6:3

ויהי יוסף יפה תאר AND JOSEPH WAS OF BEAUTIFUL FORM — As soon as he saw that he was ruler (in the house) he began to eat and drink and curl his hair. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Your father is mourning and you curl your hair! I will let a bear loose against you” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 8). Immediately.

Sforno on Genesis 39:6:1

ויעזוב כל אשר לו, he left everything in Joseph’s hands without demanding an accounting from him.

Sforno on Genesis 39:6:2

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר ויפה מראה, after Potiphar had entrusted him with all these important tasks Joseph found time to make himself look handsome having no longer to perform demeaning physical labour assigned to most slaves. Psalms 81,7 extols the relief felt when one is freed from such burdensome tasks.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:6:1

A reference to his wife. You might ask: Perhaps it was actual bread? The answer is: Rashi deduced this from what Yoseif said (v. 9), “He has not withheld anything from me other than you,” implying that Potiphar placed everything except his wife in Yoseif’s hand. Thus, “bread” must refer to his wife.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:6:2

Once he perceived himself as a ruler. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it mentioned here? [Alternatively,] Rashi is answering the question: ויהי always refers to a new occurrence. But was not Yoseif well-built from birth, and assumedly good looking too? Rashi answers: “Once he perceived himself a ruler...” and this he did not do before. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:6:3

I will provoke the bear against you. Immediately: Rashi calls her a beast because it is written (37:33), “An evil beast has devoured him,” referring to Potiphar’s wife, as Rashi explained there. And he calls her a bear because a bear has no rest; it is always moving. So too was Potiphar’s wife — she had no rest because of her pursuit of Yoseif to have relations with him.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:6

Therefore, he left everything that he had in Joseph’s charge; and he did not know anything about his doings except the bread that he would eat. In other words, Potifar found it unnecessary for himself to be involved in the affairs of his household, as he trusted Joseph completely; he was therefore present only for his personal needs, such as eating. 27 The Torah adds a comment that will be important in the continuation of the narrative: Joseph, who was probably around eighteen or twenty years old at the time, was of fine form, and handsome. As previously discussed, he bore a resemblance to his mother, who was also described in such terms. 28

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:6:1

כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, “except for the food which he was in the habit of eating.” According to the plain meaning, Potiphar did not issue any instructions to Joseph concerning his duties, but he left it all to his good sense and sense of duty. He did, however, tell Joseph the kind of menu he wished to enjoy every day. Ibn Ezra explains why Potiphar did not charge Joseph with preparing food; the Egyptians had a different eating culture from that of the Hebrews, and they detested the manner in which Hebrews prepared their food. He did not even let Joseph touch the bread. [This editor has never understood this explanation as something pertaining to the family of Yaakov, who numbered very few, and whose cultural impact on Egypt was nil. It is more likely that all the people from beyond the Tigris and Euphrates, the Sumerians, had different food habits from those of the Egyptians, the competing major culture, and that Joseph as was obvious by his skin colour, (The Eyptians being black) was viewed as culturally basically different. The derogatory manner in which the wife of Potiphar refers to Joseph as a “Hebrew” slave, is further evidence that it was not his “Jewishness” but his being associated with the Sumerians, Accadians, Babylonians, etc., which evoked her disdain once she had been rejected as a lover. (39,14) Ed.] Nachmanides writes that the meaning of the words ולא ידע אתו מאומה כי אם הלחם, mean that Joseph was free to take whatever was in the household and use it on behalf of his master except the bread which his master ate. This was something reserved for the master of the house. All other items in the house that were designed to enhance the residents’ quality of life were Joseph’s to enjoy.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:6:2

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר, “Joseph became exceedingly handsome.” According to Rashi the fact that Joseph enjoyed so much authority caused him to attend to his personal appearance in an exaggerated manner. Nachmanides writes that the Torah had to provide us with a rationale why the wife of Potiphar would want to have an affair with a slave, one from Mesopotamia, of all places. The Torah therefore explains that Joseph’s physique proved of an overpowering attraction to her

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 94-97

“Nothing save the food that he ate” [39:6]. Rashi writes. The master had given everything into Joseph’s hands, but he did not give his wife into Joseph’s hands. (Rashi, Genesis, 39:6.) Ramban and Hizkuni write. The Egyptians did not allow a Hebrew to touch their bread. The verse tells us that the master gave everything into Joseph’s hands, but not his bread, “for the Egyptians could not dine with the Hebrews” [Genesis, 43:32], as the verse says in Miketz. The Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews. They considered the Hebrews impure. (Ramban, Genesis, 39:6; Hizkuni, Genesis, 39:6.) Toldot Yizhak writes. “The Lord sent success to everything he undertook” [39:3]. The verse means that whatever Joseph put his hands on, had great luck. There was a merchant who had great luck with whatever he laid his hands on. Joseph also had such great luck. Toldot Yizhak writes another explanation of, The Lord sent success to everything he undertook” [39:3]. This means, the custom was that the merchant must sometimes keep merchandise for a long time before he sells it, in the expectation that he would make a profit from it. Therefore, he had to hold on to the merchandise. However, Joseph had great success. He did not need to hold his merchandise; he was successful immediately. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 39:3.) Ramban writes. “Nothing save the food that he ate” [39:6]. That is to say, he did not find that Joseph should have taken anything, except for the bread that a person must eat. Also, Joseph did not enjoy the pleasures, even though he had the goods in his hands. He only ate the minimal amount of bread necessary. This is how faithful Joseph was with his master. (Ramban, Genesis, 39:6.)

Jewish Thought

The Hebrew equivalent of "form" is toär, referring to the figure and shape of a thing, as seen in various biblical verses. However, this term is not applicable to God.

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 1:4

I hold that the Hebrew equivalent of “form” in the ordinary acceptation of the word, viz., the figure and shape of a thing, is toär. Thus we find “[And Joseph was] beautiful in toär (‘form’), and beautiful in appearance” (Gen. 39:6): “What form (toär) is he of?” (1 Sam. 28:14): “As the form (toär) of the children of a king” (Judges 8:18). It is also applied to form produced by human labour, as “He marketh its form (toär) with a line,” “and he marketh its form (toär) with the compass” (Isa. 44:13). This term is not at all applicable to God.

Kabbalah

The word "b'reshit" can be rearranged as "t'r ybs" ("dry form"), referring to Tiferet creating on high, which signifies Malkhut. The union of Tiferet and Malkhut creates all souls, with heaven and earth (Tiferet and Malkhut) crying out for unification, leading to dryness and formlessness as explained further.

Ohr Ne'erav, PART I 1:30

Alternatively it is possible that [the word br’syt can be rearranged] as t’r ybs (“dry form”) as in [the verse] Joseph was well formed [t’r] and handsome (Gen. 39:6). Created [in the verse would thus] refer to Tiferet, which “created” on high. (From the union of Tiferet and Malkhut, all souls are created. Cf. Matt, Zohar, p. 217.) And, as Rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai explained many times, ‘Elohim signifies Malkhut. Therefore heaven and earth, (Tiferet and Malkhut.) experiencing this dryness, together cry out the unification [of the Shema] and there is no voice in response, as we will explain with God’s help. Thus [returning to the verse] and the earth, which refers to the river and the sea will be dry and parched, was formless and void, as we will explain.

Midrash

Rebecca saw Isaac praying, indicating his greatness, and inquired about him. She was so overwhelmed by his attractiveness that she covered herself with a veil. The servant related all the matters to Isaac, focusing on details that praised God. This interaction between Rebecca and Isaac is compared to Tamar's similar actions.

Aggadat Bereshit 40:1

Chapter 40: Torah [1] And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old (Genesis 27:1). Twenty generations passed until Abraham, in which old age is not mentioned except for him, as it says, "Now Abraham was old" (Genesis 24:1). And Isaac also stood [before God] and it came to pass, that when Isaac was old (Genesis 27:1). And Jacob also stood [before God], as it says, "And the eyes of Israel were dim with age" (Genesis 48:10). The verse (Psalms 102:17) says, "He will regard the prayer of the destitute, and not despise their prayer." The only way [to achieve this level of prayer] is through old age, as it says, "The beauty of young men is their strength, and the glory of old men is their gray hair" (Proverbs 20:29). Abraham merited his son through five things, as our Rabbis taught: the father merits a son through five things: through his [the father's] name, through his [the father's] good deeds, through his [the father's] wealth, through his [the father's] strength, and through his [the father's] wisdom. Similarly, Isaac [merited his son through five things], and similarly Jacob [merited his son through five things]. Similarly, Jacob merited Joseph [through these five things], who resembled him in appearance and in title, as it says, "And Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6). [He resembled him] in wisdom, as it says, "Behold, he is the master of dreams" (Genesis 37:19). He had beauty, appearance, and wisdom. And in Isaac's case, it is written, "Who is this man?" (Genesis 24:65). What is the meaning of "this man" in reference to Joseph? That he was handsome and had wisdom. Likewise, Isaac was also built with wisdom. And just as Joseph stood up to his brothers in strength, so did Isaac stand up in strength against all the men of Gerar. Just as Joseph was wealthy, so was Isaac wealthy, as it says, "And the man became great and went forward and became very great" (Genesis 26:13). The verse (Genesis 26:8) explains [the word] "wisdom" as meaning "the greatness of his children." From where do we learn that Isaac was handsome like Joseph? It is written about Joseph, "And Joseph was handsome in form and appearance," and when he went to his brothers, what did they say? "Behold, the master of dreams is coming!" (Genesis 37:19). And it is said about Isaac, "Who is this man?" (Genesis 24:65). What is the meaning of "this man" in reference to Joseph? That he was handsome and had wisdom. Likewise, Isaac was also built with strength, as it says, We know this from the fact that he dug many wells, as it says, "Isaac dug again the wells of water" (Genesis 26:18), and "Isaac's servants dug in the valley" (Genesis 26:19), and "they dug another well" (Genesis 26:21). He had strength in his hands. From where do we know that he was wealthy? It says, "The man became great, and he grew richer and richer until he was very wealthy" (Genesis 26:13). And from where do we know that he lived to a ripe old age of 180 years? It says, "And Isaac lived one hundred and eighty years" (Genesis 35:28). Abraham was the son of Terah, and Isaac was the son of Abraham. Why does the Torah mention this? Because God said to Isaac, "You have merited these five things, so I will add another five years to your life, like your father Abraham." That is why it says, "Look upon your servants" (Psalms 119:16). Anyone who has merit will receive these five things, and anyone who does not have merit will receive five calamities in return. And who was this? Joab, as it is said: "Let Joab and his descendants be perpetually guilty of their bloodshed. May they be afflicted with leprosy, jaundice, and starvation." (2 Samuel 3:29) Leprosy corresponds to strength; one who has leprosy has no strength. Jaundice corresponds to beauty; even if someone is young and jaundiced, there is no beauty in them. Starvation corresponds to wealth, as it says, "Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have mixed. Leave your simple ways and you will live" (Proverbs 9:5-6). One who is starving has no leisure to engage in Torah study. Falling by the sword corresponds to the five aspects of praise. These are five calamities corresponding to five aspects of praise. One who does not merit praise inherits these five kinds of calamities, like Joab. But one who does merit praise receives them like Isaac, as it is said, "And it came to pass, when Isaac was old" (Genesis 27:1), and David cries out, "May your children be like your ancestors" (Psalms 45:17). Therefore, it says, "And it came to pass, when Isaac was old."

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bereshit Rabbah 60:15

“Rebecca lifted her eyes, she saw Isaac, and she fell from upon the camel” (Genesis 24:64). “Rebecca lifted her eyes, she saw Isaac” – Rav Huna said: She saw that his hand was outstretched in prayer. She said: ‘He is certainly a great man,’ and that is why she inquired about him. (See the next verse.) “She fell [vatipol] from upon the camel” – she tilted herself downward, (It does not mean that she actually fell to the ground.) just as it says: “When he stumbles [yipol], he will not fall” (Psalms 37:24). (The verse shows that yipol does not necessarily mean to fall.) “She said to the servant: Who is that man who is walking in the field toward us? The servant said: He is my master. She took the veil, and covered herself” (Genesis 24:65). “She said to the servant: [Who is that [halazeh] man]” – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: She saw that he was attractive and was overwhelmed before him, just as it says: “Behold, here comes that [halazeh] dreamer” (Genesis 37:19). (Halazeh is used in reference to Joseph, who was very attractive (see Genesis 39:6). The same was true of Isaac.) The Rabbis said: [Halazeh means:] He and his accompanying angel; halazeh [as an abbreviation for] that different one [alon zeh]. (Rebecca saw that the individual accompanying Isaac was no ordinary man.) “The servant said: He is my master. [She took the veil, and covered herself]” – there are two people who covered themselves with a veil, and they both bore twins: Rebecca and Tamar. Rebecca – “she took the veil”; Tamar – “she covered herself with a veil, and she wrapped herself” (Genesis 38:14). “The servant related to Isaac all the matters that he had done” (Genesis 24:66). “The servant related to Isaac [all the matters]” – Rabbi Eliezer said: The general statements of the Torah (Such as here, where the Torah makes the general statement that Eliezer related “all the matters,” but does not specify what they were.) are more common than its detailed statements, as, if it had desired to write it [the details of what had transpired], it would have written two or three [more] columns. The Rabbis say: He revealed to him the matters that involved praise [for God], [such as] that the path was miraculously shortened for him.

Bereshit Rabbah 70:4

Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Yoḥanan, one said: The portion is out of order. The other said: It was stated in order. The one who said: The portion is out of order, as the Holy One blessed be He had already promised him, as it is stated: “Behold, I am with you” (Genesis 28:15), and he says: “If God will be with me”? The one who says: It was stated in order, how do I understand: “If God will be with me”? It is, rather, that this is what Jacob said: ‘If the conditions that He said, to be with me and to keep me, will be fulfilled, I will fulfill my vow.’ “And I return to my father’s house in peace, the Lord will be my God” (Genesis 28:21). Rabbi Abbahu and the Rabbis, Rabbi Abbahu said: “If God will be with me, and He will keep me on this way [derekh] that I go” (Genesis 28:20) – from evil speech, just as it says: “They drew [vayadrekhu] their tongues, their bows of falsehood” (Jeremiah 9:2). “And will give me bread to eat” (Genesis 28:20) – from illicit sexual relations, just as it says: “He did not know anything with him except the bread that he eats” (Genesis 39:6) – a euphemism. (A euphemism for Potiphar’s wife.) “And I return to my father’s house in peace” (Genesis 28:21) – from bloodshed. “The Lord will be my God” (Genesis 28:21) – from idol worship. The Rabbis interpret all the matters from it: “If God will be with me, and He will keep me on this way [derekh] that I go” – from idol worship, from illicit sexual relations, from bloodshed, from evil speech. Derekh is nothing other than idol worship, just as it says: “Those who take an oath by the sin of Samaria, and say: As your god lives, Dan, and: As the way [derekh] of Beersheba lives” (Amos 8:14). Derekh is nothing other than illicit sexual relations, as it is stated: “So is the way [derekh] of an adulterous woman…” (Proverbs 30:20). Derekh is nothing other than bloodshed, as it is stated: “My son, do not walk on a way with them; prevent your foot from their pathway […and they are quick to spill blood]” (Proverbs 1:15–16). Derekh is nothing other than evil speech, (This is derived from the verse cited above: “They drew [vayadrekhu] their tongues, their bows of falsehood” (Jeremiah 9:2).) as it is stated: “He heard the words of Laban’s sons, saying: Jacob has taken…” (Genesis 31:1). (Lavan’s sons slandered Jacob.)

Bereshit Rabbah 86:6

“Joseph found favor in his eyes, and he served him. He appointed him overseer of his household, and everything that was his, he placed in his charge” (Genesis 39:4). “It was once he appointed him overseer of his household and over everything that was his, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; the blessing of the Lord was in all that he had, in the house and in the field” (Genesis 39:5). “Joseph found…. It was once…” – Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: Everywhere that the righteous go, the Divine Presence goes with them. He was there twelve years, six in the house and six in the field. (Many commentaries emend the text to read: He was there twelve months, six in the house and six in the field (see, e.g., Matnot Kehuna; Yefeh To’ar). ) “He left everything that he had in Joseph's charge and he did not know anything with him about his doings, except the bread that he would eat. Joseph was of fine form, and of fair appearance” (Genesis 39:6). “He left everything that he had in Joseph's charge…except the bread that he would eat” – a euphemism. (This was a euphemism for his wife, as Joseph later says to her: “He has not withheld anything from me but you, as you are his wife” (Genesis 39:9).) “Joseph was of fine form, and of fair appearance” – Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Cast a stick onto the ground and it will land on its source. Because it is written: “Rachel was of fine form [and fair appearance]” (Genesis 29:17); therefore, “Joseph was….”

Bereshit Rabbah 87:3

“His master's wife cast her eyes.” “Therefore, men of heart, hear me” (Job 34:10) – what is the craft of the Holy One blessed be He? “For He pays a person for his action” (Job 34:11) – [as stated by] Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon. (See Bereshit Rabba 84:7, where these Sages state what slanderous reports Joseph brought to Jacob about his brothers. The midrash there asserts that the challenges later faced by Joseph, including his encounter with Potiphar’s wife, was punishment for his slandering his brothers.) “His master's wife cast her eyes” – what is written prior to this matter? “Joseph was of fine form and of fair appearance” (Genesis 39:6). This is analogous to a mighty man who was standing in the street grooming his eyes, curling his hair, and lifting his heels. He said: ‘This is appropriate for me, becoming for me, [as I am] fair and mighty.’ They said to him: ‘If you are mighty, if you are fair, there is a she-bear before you, arise and attack it.’ (Because Joseph was involved in beautifying himself, he was tested by his encounter with the wife of Potiphar, who is compared to the bear. Alternatively, Joseph was very confident in his spiritual abilities, and was therefore tested with this temptation (Nezer HaKodesh). )

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Toldot 7:1

Thus has R. Tanhuma interpreted (Gen. 27:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS, THAT WHEN ISAAC WAS OLD < AND HIS EYES WERE TOO WEAK TO SEE >. You find that there are twenty generations from Adam to Abraham, and there is no < mention of > old age written about < any of > them except Abraham, as stated (in Gen. 24:1): NOW ABRAHAM WAS OLD. (For parallel accounts, see above, 5:4.) Isaac arose, < and > it is also written (in Gen. 27:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS, THAT WHEN ISAAC WAS OLD. Jacob arose, < and > it is also written (in Gen. 48:10): NOW ISRAEL'S EYES WERE DIM WITH AGE. This text is related (to Ps. 90:16): LET YOUR WORK BE WORTHY FOR YOUR SERVANTS AND YOUR GLORY ON BEHALF OF THEIR CHILDREN. Now GLORY can only be old age and gray hair, as stated (in Prov. 20:29): THE BEAUTY OF THE YOUNG IS THEIR STRENGTH; BUT THE GLORY OF THE OLD IS GRAY HAIR. Ergo (in Ps. 90:16): AND YOUR GLORY ON BEHALF OF THEIR CHILDREN. < These words mean > that Abraham endowed Isaac with five things. Thus have our masters taught (in 'Eduy. 2:9): A FATHER ENDOWS HIS SON WITH FIVE THINGS: WITH BEAUTY, WITH STRENGTH, WITH WEALTH, WITH WISDOM, AND WITH < LENGTH OF > YEARS. How is it shown about BEAUTY? In that Isaac was as handsome as Joseph. It is written of Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS WELL BUILT. Also, when he went to his brothers, they said (in Gen. 37:19): HERE COMES THIS (hallazeh) DREAMER. It is also said of Isaac (in Gen. 24:65): WHO IS THIS (hallazeh) MAN < WALKING IN THE FIELD TO MEET US >? Thus Isaac was as handsome as Joseph. How is it shown that Isaac was mighty in STRENGTH? Look at how many wells he dug! Thus it is stated (in Gen. 26:18-22): THEN ISAAC REDUG < THE WELLS OF WATER >…. AND ISAAC'S SERVANTS DUG…. AND THEY DUG ANOTHER WELL…. THEN HE MOVED FROM THERE AND DUG < ANOTHER WELL >…. Look at the power which he had! Where is it shown about WEALTH? Where it is stated (in Gen. 26:13): AND THE MAN GREW < RICHER AND RICHER >…. It also says (in vs. 14): AND HE POSSESSED FLOCKS < AND HERDS >…. Where is it shown about WISDOM? Where he said to his father (in Gen. 22:7 at the time of his being bound): HERE ARE THE FIRE AND THE WOOD…. [How is it shown] about < LENGTH OF > YEARS? In that he was one hundred and eighty years old < when he died >, while Abraham was < only > one hundred and seventy-five. On account of these five things {through which he had attained merit}, five years more than his father's were added to him. It is therefore stated (in Ps. 90:16): LET YOUR WORK BE WORTHY FOR YOUR SERVANTS…. Anyone who has merit is meritorious in these five things, and anyone who does not have merit is not meritorious and receives five retributions that correspond to them. (See yQid. 1:7 (61a).) And who is this anyone? This is Joab, of whom it is stated (in II Sam. 3:29): MAY IT (Abner's blood) FALL UPON THE HEAD OF JOB AND HIS SON; (Masoretic Text: ALL HIS FATHER’S HOUSE.) [MAY THE HOUSE OF JOAB NEVER LACK ONE WITH A DISCHARGE, A LEPER, A MALE WHO HANDLES THE SPINDLE, ONE WHO FALLS BY THE SWORD, AND ONE LACKING BREAD]. ONE WITH A DISCHARGE corresponds to STRENGTH. In the case of one who has a discharge, there is no one weaker than he. A LEPER corresponds to BEAUTY. In the case of one who is a leper, even a young < leper >, there is no one more ugly than he. A MALE WHO HANDLES THE SPINDLE corresponds to WEALTH; for he [is one] {like a poor woman is one} who, if not spinning flax, has nothing of which to eat. ONE LACKING BREAD corresponds to WISDOM, as stated (in Prov. 9:5, where Wisdom says): COME AND EAT OF MY BREAD. And ONE WHO FALLS BY THE SWORD corresponds to < LENGTH OF > YEARS. The one who sins is afflicted by them, but the one who is meritorious receives, as did Isaac. David also gave praise (in Ps. 45:17 [16]): INSTEAD OF YOUR PARENTS THERE WILL BE YOUR CHILDREN.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 18:1

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT. This text is related (to Hos. 11:4): WITH HUMAN TIES I DREW THEM IN, WITH BANDS OF LOVE. (See Gen. R. 86:1.) Israel would have deservedly gone down to Egypt in chains and collaria, (The Latin word means “neck chains.”) just as they went down to Babylon, had not Joseph gone first. All that happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (See below, 11:11.) That which is written of Joseph is written of Zion. It is written of Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written of Zion (in Lam. 2:15): A PERFECTION OF BEAUTY. For this reason Jacob was afraid to go down to Egypt: Because it had been decreed over Abraham (in Gen. 15:13): KNOW FULL WELL THAT YOUR SEED SHALL BE ALIEN IN A LAND < NOT THEIRS WHERE THEY SHALL SERVE THEM AND BE OPPRESSED BY THEM >. So he dwelt in the land of Canaan. They came and said to him: Joseph was sold when he resembled a bull. It is so stated (of Joseph in Deut. 33:17): LIKE A FIRSTLING BULL HE HAS MAJESTY. And here he is ensconced in Egypt (Gen. 45:26)! When Jacob heard this, he said: See, I am going down to Egypt even though I am paying Abraham's bill (of indebtedness). Immediately (it says in Gen. 45:28): THEN ISRAEL SAID: ENOUGH, MY SON JOSEPH IS ALIVE. < I WILL GO AND SEE HIM BEFORE I DIE >. Immediately all the tribes went down with him. Who caused them to go down to Egypt? Joseph. (Hos. 11:4:) WITH HUMAN TIES I DREW THEM IN. This < HUMAN > is Joseph. (Gen. 39:1:) WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 11:4

Similarly, when Jethro’s daughters said to Him: “We thank you for saving us from the shepherds,” Moses replied: “It was the Egyptian whom I killed who actually was responsible for your rescue.” Therefore they said to their father: “It was an Egyptian,” in order to tell him that the man responsible for his coming to us was the Egyptian whom he had slain. And he said unto his daughters: “And where is he?” (ibid., v. 20). He said to them: “All that ye have told me concerning his drawing the water from the well and watering the flock is, indeed, a sign that he is a descendant of those who stood at the well, for the well recognized its master. Call him, that he may eat bread (ibid.), perhaps he will wed one of you,” as it is said: He knew not aught save the bread which he did eat (Gen. 39:6). And Scripture also says: Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant (Prov. 9:17), and For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread (ibid. 6:26).

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:2

Everything fortunate that occurred to Joseph likewise happened to Zion. It is written of Joseph: And Joseph was of beautiful form and fair to look upon (Gen. 39:6), and of Zion it is stated: Fair in situation, the joy of the whole earth (Ps. 48:3). Concerning Joseph it is written: He is not greater in this house than I (Gen. 39:9), and of Zion: The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former (Hag. 2:9). Joseph: The Lord was with him (Gen. 39:2), Zion: And My eyes and My heart shall be there (II Chron. 7:15). Joseph: And showed kindness unto him (Gen. 39:21), Zion: I remember for thee the affection of thy youth (Jer. 2:2). Joseph: And he shaved himself and changed his raiment (Gen. 41:14), Zion: And the Lord shall have washed away (Isa. 44:4). Joseph: Only in the throne will I be greater than thou (Gen. 41:40), Zion: At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord (Jer. 3:17). Joseph: And arrayed him in vestures of fine linen (Gen. 41:42), Zion: Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments (Isa. 52:1). Joseph: He sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:29), Zion: Behold, I send My messenger (Mal. 3:1).

Shemot Rabbah 1:32

“He settled in the land of Midyan, and sat alongside the well.” He learned the way of the patriarchs. Three were paired with their mates at the well; Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Regarding Isaac, it is written: “Isaac came from going to Be’er [laḥai ro’i]” (Genesis 24:62). (This is the well where God had once appeared to Hagar. This is the context in which Isaac met Rebecca, who was returning with Abraham’s servant, identified by the midrash as Eliezer. Isaac then married her; see Genesis 24:63-67. ) Moreover, Rebecca met Eliezer near the spring. Jacob, “he saw, and behold, there was a well in the field” (Genesis 29:2); (It was there that Jacob first met Rachel; see Genesis 29:10-11. ) Moses, “and he sat alongside the well.” “The priest of Midian had seven daughters; they came and they drew water and filled the troughs to give their father’s flock to drink” (Exodus 2:16). “The priest of Midian had seven daughters.” But doesn’t the Holy One blessed be He hate idol worship, and yet He provided Moses haven with an idol worshipper? Rather, our Rabbis said: Yitro was a priest for idol worship and he saw that it lacked substance, and he scorned it, and he thought about repenting before Moses arrived. He called the residents of his city and said: ‘Until now, I have served you. Now I am old; choose another priest.’ He arose and removed the service vessels of idol worship and gave them all to them. They arose and ostracized him so that no one should have ties with him, no one should perform labor for him, and no one should herd his flocks. He asked the shepherds to herd his flocks for him, but they did not agree; therefore, he sent his daughters out. “They came and they drew.” It teaches that they would arrive early due to fear of the shepherds. “The shepherds came and drove them away; Moses rose and rescued them and gave their flocks to drink” (Genesis 2:17). “The shepherds came and drove them away.” Is it possible that he was the priest of Midyan and the shepherds were driving away his daughters? Rather, it teaches you that they ostracized him and drove away his daughters like a divorced woman, like you say: “He drove out the man” (Genesis 3:24). (In this verse, God permanently banished man from the Garden of Eden. So too, the shepherds sought to permanently banish Yitro’s daughters. ) “Moses rose and rescued them.” This teaches that he sat in judgment regarding them. (This is derived from the fact that the verse says that he rose, indicating that beforehand he was sitting.) He said: Typically, men draw the water and women give the flocks to drink, while here, women draw and men give the flocks to drink. It does not say “he saved them [vayatzilan],” but rather, “he rescued them [vayoshian].” Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: They came to engage with them in a matter of forbidden sexual relations; here it is stated: “Moses rose and rescued them ,” and there it is stated: “The betrothed young woman screamed, and there was no one to rescue her” (Deuteronomy 22:27). Just as there, it is referring to forbidden sexual relations, here too it is referring to forbidden sexual relations. The Rabbis say: This teaches that they cast them into the water and Moses saved them. Vayoshian is nothing other than an expression of saving from water, as it is stated: “Rescue me God, as the water has reached my soul” (Psalms 69:2). “And gave their flocks to drink.” This teaches that Moses drew water for them and gave their flocks to drink, just as Jacob did for Rachel. “They came to their father Reuel. He said: Why were you quick to come today?” (Exodus 2:18). “They came to their father Reuel.” This is Yitro. Why is he named Reuel? It is because he became a companion to God. “He said: Why were you quick to come today?” From here you learn that on all days they would come last. “They said: An Egyptian man saved us from the shepherds and also drew water for us and gave the flock to drink” (Exodus 2:19). “They said: An Egyptian man saved us from the shepherds.” Was Moses an Egyptian? Rather, his garb was Egyptian, but he was a Hebrew. Alternatively, “an Egyptian man,” this is analogous to one who was bitten by a deadly snake and was running to put his legs in water. He placed them in the river and saw a certain child sinking in the water, and he extended his hand and saved him. The child said to him: ‘Were it not for you, I would have died.’ He said to him: ‘It is not I who saved you, but rather, the deadly snake that bit me and I fled from it; it saved you.’ Similarly, Yitro’s daughters said to Moses: ‘Well done that you saved us from the shepherds.’ Moses said to them: ‘That Egyptian whom I killed, he saved you.’ That is why they said to their father, “an Egyptian man saved us,” in other words: Who caused this one to come to us? It is the Egyptian man whom he killed. “Drew water [dalo dala],” he drew one drawing of water and gave water to all the flocks to drink, and the water was blessed for his sake. That is what is written: “and gave the flock to drink.” Our flock is not written, but rather “the flock,” as he gave even the flocks of the shepherds to drink. What then is “for us”? It means that he drew us out, too, as the shepherds cast us into the water and he took us out. “He said to his daughters: Where is he? Why did you leave the man? Call him so that he will eat bread” (Exodus 2:20). “He said to his daughters: Where is he?” He said to them: ‘The fact that you say that he drew water and gave water to all the flocks is an indicator that he is one of the descendants of Jacob who stood at the well and the water was blessed for his sake.’ “Why did you leave the man? [Call him so that he will eat bread],” – perhaps he will marry one of you. The eating of bread mentioned here refers to nothing other than a wife, similar to: “Except for the bread that he eats” (Genesis 39:6). (Joseph stated this in reference to Potifar’s wife.) Immediately, Tzipora ran after him like a bird [tzipor] and brought him. Why was she named Tzipora? It is because she purified the house like a bird. (The bird plays a central role in the purification process of a leprous house; see Leviticus 14:48-53 )

Musar

Joseph's preening of his hair led to his downfall as he was placed in prison, showing the consequences of vanity. Jacob and Joseph repaired damage caused by Adam, with their actions contributing to the restoration of the divine image. The beauty of Joseph and David is linked to their fathers, and their actions contribute to the ultimate rehabilitation of Adam in the Messianic age.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:23

(Bereshith 39:6): "And Joseph was beautiful in from and in appearance": As Rashi explains it, once he saw himself elevated, he began preening his hair, at which the Holy One Blessed be He said to him: "Your father is in mourning and you preen your hair! I will incite the 'bear' against you," whereupon (Ibid. 7): "And it was, after these things, that the wife of his master, etc." and Heaven contrived to have him placed in the prison house.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Toldot, Torah Ohr 58

We see from the above that both Jacob and Joseph repaired damage caused by the אדמוני, since both hated Esau. What our sages said about Adam giving 70 years of his life to David is also true. The whole point of granting life to David was to repair the damage done to G–d's universe by Adam, without which a Messianic age and all its benefits to mankind would not be needed. Adam's צלם אלוקים, divine image, needed to be restored first and foremost through the constructive lives of the patriarchs. We explained all this in our commentary on Parshat Chayey Sarah. The 70 years Adam donated to David were "illuminated," assumed a positive meaning through Jacob and Joseph having donated 70 years of their already meaningful lives. We have explained earlier that the "beauty" of Jacob was of the same quality as the beauty of Adam [before his sin, of course. Ed.]. Genesis 39,6 describes Joseph as: ויהי יוסף יפה תואר, he had handsome features for he evidently inherited these from his father, seeing Joseph is viewed as his father's replica. We have seen from Samuel I 16,12 that David's features are described in similar terms. Once the Messiah will arrive on earth, Adam will be rehabilitated completely, will be אד"ם, the first letters respectively of the incarnations in אדם דוד משיח.

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that the mention of "bread" in Genesis 39:6 may be a euphemism for marriage, as seen in Exodus 2:20. Yosef's beauty in Genesis 39:6 is highlighted as a trait shared with his mother Rachel, both possessing a beauty that drew others to them. This physical beauty is seen as a reflection of a deeper spiritual quality, as exemplified by Joseph. The description of Joseph's beauty in Genesis 39:6 is noted as a necessary detail to understand the story of Potiphar's wife's desire for him, contrasting with the lack of visual descriptions in other biblical narratives.

Essays in Ethics; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Miketz; Appearance and Reality 17

In the twentieth century, literary theorist Erich Auerbach contrasted the literary style of Homer with that of the Hebrew Bible. (Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957), 3–23.) In Homer’s prose we see the play of light on surfaces. The Odyssey and The Iliad are full of visual descriptions. By contrast, biblical narrative has very few such descriptions. We do not know how tall Abraham was, the colour of Isaac’s hair, or what Moses looked like. Visual details are minimal, and are present only when necessary to understand what follows. We are told for example that Joseph was good-looking (Gen. 39:6) only to explain why Potiphar’s wife conceived a desire for him.

Gevia Kesef 13:19

“Now Sarah and Abraham were old, and well stricken with age, and it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.” (56. V. 11.) These words are not part of the vision, but they are written by the writer of the vision to preface what follows, (57. Kimḥi likewise says that the verse explains why Sarah laughed.) so that this fact be understood by those who receive and constantly study the Torah. This is like “And Sarai was barren”; (58. Gen. 11:30.) “And Joseph was of beautiful form and fair to look on.” (59. Gen. 39:6.) This is to be compared to one who says something in order to inform his fellow.

Kitzur Ba'al HaTurim on Genesis 6:21:1

"and to them..." there are 3 connected verses in Tanakh in this case, and did Yosef "and to them" (II Kings. 3:22 כדם) "as red as blood"(Judges 6:5). And they and their camels have no number. As like did Yosef ate by himself and the Egyptians by themselves [Gen 39:6 except for the bread that he ate: Since the Egyptians did not eat with foreigners (see, for instance, Gen. 43:32).], it was like Noah and his sons and the animals and the beasts, each given alone to each given his food, (Gen. 24:33, 34) and it was she to them and their camels who put a branch in the shelter and food for the camels, as well as for every body in company.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 28:21:1

ושבתי בשלום אל בית אבי, “and I shall return in peace to my father’s house, etc.” We notice that every detail which formed part of Yaakov’s vow and whatever he mentioned was fulfilled for him. When he asked G’d ושמרני בדרך, “and He will watch over me on the journey,” G’d most certainly watched over him and protected him. As to his request for לחם, bread or food, this was a reference to the women whom he married. The term לחם to describe someone’s wife is used by Joseph (Genesis 39,6) when he told the wife of his master Potiphar that the only thing in his household Potiphar had withheld from him was הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, “the bread which he eats.” Another instance where לחם, bread, is used to describe someone’s wife, is found in Exodus 2,2 where Yitro tells his daughters to invite Moses so that “he may eat bread.” He did not mean to invite him merely to eat bread but to let him marry one of his seven unmarried daughters. As to Yaakov’s request for clothes to wear, this was part of his wealth when he had large flocks of sheep which provided him with wool. His request to return to his father’s home safely and in good health was answered when we read in 33,18 ויבא יעקב שלם, “Yaakov arrived home safely.” As to Yaakov fulfilling his part of the bargain and making אלוקים his G’d [ to make the attribute of Justice the yardstick by which G’d would measure him; Ed.] this is referred to in the Torah in 33,20 where we read: ויקרא לו קל אלוקי ישראל, “Yaakov called G’d the G’d of Israel.”

Rashi on Daniel 8:16:5

this one Heb. לְהַלָּז, an expression of esteem, as he called him חֲמוּדוֹת, one of desirable qualities. Wherever it says הַלָז it refers to a person of form, and from here they learned in the Aggadah: Isaac resembled his father in form and in likeness, for he is called הָאִישּׁ הַלָז in the section commencing, “Now it came to pass when Isaac was old.” (Gen. 39:6): “...and Joseph was fair in form and fair in appearance.” This is the beauty enumerated among the five things that a father merits for his son.

Rashi on Exodus 2:20:2

ויאכל לחם THAT HE MAY EAT BREAD — perhaps he will marry one of you — just as you say, (Genesis 39:6) “except the bread which he did eat” (cf. Rashi on this verse, where the word “bread” is explained as a euphemism) (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 11).

Redeeming Relevance; Exodus, CHAPTER 6 Clothing Aharon 50

Like his older brother Yehudah, once separated from the rest of his family, Yosef shows serious growth. But as is normally the case with human beings, he does so gradually. The first stage of growth is in Potiphar’s house. There, Yosef is still not able to stop himself from taking on a persona dictated by his outer appearance. The Torah tells us that he was of beautiful form and looks (Bereshit 39:6), (Bereshit 39:6.) a description usually reserved for women. The rabbis did not miss this allusion and tell us that Yosef groomed himself to an unusual degree in the house of Potiphar (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 8). (Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Vayeshev.) While this behavior may well have been politically or even religiously motivated, it likely made him appear more feminine than the other men around him. And so, in striking contrast to the story of Yehudah and Tamar, it is Potiphar’s wife who adopts the traditionally masculine role of sexual aggressor (and a tireless one at that), while Yosef finds himself in the customarily feminine position of victim. It is not likely that so unusual a situation was only prompted by the lusting of Potiphar’s wife. Rather, it stands to reason that it was also brought about by Yosef as well. Among other things, once Yosef took on a more feminine appearance, he may have also felt forced to take on a more feminine role, prompting his female adversary to assume a more assertive stance.

Tribal Lands, Chapter 12; Yosef 7

We are told of one essential trait in regard to Rachel: “and Rachel was beautiful in form and beautiful in appearance” (Genesis 29:17). This trait was shared by Joseph, who was “beautiful in form and beautiful in appearance” (Genesis 39:6). Rachel and Joseph were defined by this great beauty. More than a physical attribute, this beauty seemed the embodiment of passion, longing, instinct, response. It demanded utter engagement, complete sincerity. Jacob, the Midianites, (Sefer Ha-Yashar, Genesis 68a–68b.) Potiphar, Potiphar’s wife, fellow prisoners, Pharaoh himself: all were drawn to the charismatic Joseph, who “found favor” without even trying. A beauty so intense that it was other-worldy, holy, giving a glimpse of a world beyond. “And Pharaoh said to his servants, ‘Can we find another man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?’” (Genesis 41:37).

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 98

“Joseph was handsome” [39:6]. The verse tells us that Joseph was very handsome and through this it happened that his master’s wife would want to sleep with him. The Midrash says that Joseph saw that his master treated him well. He adorned himself and ate and drank well. The Holy One said to him: you have forgotten your father, who is sitting in anguish. I will incite your master’s wife and she will desire that you should sleep with her, and will bring you into prison. (Rashi, Genesis, 39:6.)

Targum

Potiphar entrusted everything to Joseph except for the food he ate, and only took notice of his wife. Joseph was described as well-built and good looking.

Onkelos Genesis 39:6

He left everything he possessed in the hand of Yoseif. He did not concern himself with anything about him, except for the bread he ate. Yoseif was well-built and good looking.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:6

And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand, and took no knowledge of anything of his, except his wife with whom he lay. And Joseph was of goodly form and beautiful aspect.

וַיְהִ֗י אַחַר֙ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה וַתִּשָּׂ֧א אֵֽשֶׁת־אֲדֹנָ֛יו אֶת־עֵינֶ֖יהָ אֶל־יוֹסֵ֑ף וַתֹּ֖אמֶר שִׁכְבָ֥ה עִמִּֽי׃ 7 J After a time, his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said, “Lie with me.”
Joseph's righteousness and fear of God are demonstrated through his refusal of Mrs. Potiphar's advances, leading to his rise to prominence despite setbacks. The importance of trusting in God's plan is highlighted, along with the consequences of Reuben, Shimon, and Levi's actions, and the praise given to Judah and Issachar. Joseph's resistance to temptation and subsequent imprisonment are seen as a test of his righteousness. The significance of Joseph's beauty and the consequences of his preening are discussed, while the Second Temple period emphasizes the importance of resisting bodily pleasures. The Talmud draws parallels between Joseph's temptation and those of Lot and Samson, highlighting the theme of temptation involving the eyes. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan recount Mrs. Potiphar's attempts to seduce Joseph in Genesis 39:7.

Commentary

Joseph's refusal of Mrs. Potiphar's advances, despite his elevated status and her persistence, demonstrates his righteousness and fear of God. This incident, along with his setbacks and subsequent rise to prominence, exemplifies how setbacks can work in one's favor and highlights the importance of trusting in God's plan. Mrs. Potiphar's actions were influenced by Joseph's high status and good looks, leading her to desire him and make advances towards him.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:7:1

It is due to the fact that a man’s high status, plus the fact that everyone pays him attention, frequently induce women to love him, that Scripture states at this point (39:7): ‘So it happened after these events’ i.e. once he had been appointed supreme controller of his master’s house, coupled with his natural good looks, that his mistress started to think about him.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:7:2

When the verse tells us that ‘his master’s wife raised her eyes towards Joseph’, it intends to convey the idea that she was, so to speak, pleading with him (to surrender to her) because of her love for him. When it states that she ‘raised her eyes towards him’, this expression must be understood in the same sense as the phrase we find (in Psalm 123:1): ‘Unto Thee, O Lord, have I raised my eyes!’ She thus addressed him: ‘Lie with me!’, as though to say, ‘now that you are already in control of the entire household, rule over me as well!’

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:7:1-2

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, “it was after these events, etc.” The Torah told us of the virtuous nature of Joseph who in spite of experiencing one promotion after another within a short space of town rejected the advances made by his master’s wife, advances which must have appeared very flattering to him. Unlike others in a similar position, Joseph did not exploit the trust of his employer by deceiving him. According to Tanchuma Vayeshev 8 as soon as Joseph had been promoted to his present high position he began to indulge in food and drink and in paying excessive attention to his outward appearance, carefully coiffing his hair, etc. He went as far as saying “thank the Lord who has made me forget my father’s house.” Upon hearing this, G’d said: “your father is in mourning for you and you live it up! Your mistress will try and seduce you and cause you distress.”

Radak on Genesis 39:7:1

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, after Joseph had been in the house of his Egyptian master for some time and had occupied the highest position in that household, feeling very secure, the invitation of a romantic relationship with Mrs. Potiphar brought tension into his life again. He had, of course, no way of knowing at the time that these developments had as its purpose that he would in due course rise to far higher prominence and that he would become the direct instrument of bringing his family to Egypt where they would reside in comfort and found a nation. Also the sin of the Chief butler and Chief baker respectively, as well as their being held in the same jail as Joseph and his becoming their valet, were all part of G’d’s design to further His plans without interfering with anyone’s free choice. We have to learn from this whole story that when a person suffers a setback in life, one that appears to him undeserved, he must remember how all these setbacks worked in Joseph’s favour at the time although he was not yet aware of it. We must therefore trust that G’d has our best interests at heart at all times, even though we cannot always appreciate this at the time when we are being tested. The incidents were narrated at this point to demonstrate Joseph’s righteousness when on his own without family support, after having in effect been cast out from his family.

Rashi on Genesis 39:7:1

ותשא אשת אדניו HIS LORD’S WIFE LIFTED UP HER EYES etc. — wherever אחר is used and not אחרי it means immediately after (Genesis Rabbah 44:5).

Sforno on Genesis 39:7:1

ותשא אשת אדוניו, on account of his good looks described before.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:7

It was after these matters, after Joseph was promoted above Potifar’s other servants and presumably began to dress in more impressive clothing, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; she desired him. And she said: Lie with me. Despite his elevated status, Joseph was still a slave. She therefore spoke directly and in unequivocal terms.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 99-100

“She said, lie with me” [39:7]. His master’s wife said to Joseph, lie with me. “He refused. He said to his master’s wife” [39:8]. Ramban asks a question here. Why does the verse have to say, “to his master’s wife”? It should say briefly, “He refused. He said, my master does not know” [39:8]. The explanation is that the verse says that even though it was his master’s wife and he had to fear her, and should rightly have slept with her, yet Joseph did not fear his master’s wife. He feared the Holy One more and did not want to sleep with her. That is why the verse says, “He said to his master’s wife, my master” [39:8]. My master is normally with you, so how should I sleep with you? Bahya writes. A Midrash. The image of his father appeared to Joseph and it said to him: your brothers will be inscribed on the garment of the high priest when the high priest will bring sacrifices in the Temple. If you will sleep with the licentious woman, you will not be inscribed on the garment of the high priest. Therefore, Joseph did not sleep with her. (Bahya, Genesis, 39:8.)

Jewish Thought

Jacob called his sons to discuss the future of their souls after death and the Messianic times on earth. Reuben lost his birthright due to his irreversible sin, while Shimon and Levi's actions were condemned for their impetuous planning and violence. Judah was praised for his heroic deeds and assured of hereditary royalty. Issachar found rest through Torah study, while Joseph's rise to greatness was attributed to divine intervention. The brothers feared Joseph's revenge, but he reassured them and took care of their needs. Joseph's death and burial in Egypt marked the loss of Jewish independence and the fulfillment of Jacob's blessing.

Akeidat Yitzchak 33:1:9

(1) When calling in his sons concerning the events in the distant future, Jacob had in mind what happens to the souls after death. The second call concerned happenings during Messianic times, on this earth. Concerning Reuben, the statement yeter se-eyt refers to additional responsibilities which Reuben should have shouldered being a firstborn, instead of assuming an additional portion of negative virtues. Since the nature of his error was such that it could not be undone, like water which, if it has once hit the ground, cannot be retrieved, Reuben's sin of entering his father's bedroom constituted an irreversible desecration. This deprived him of the birthright, which was transferred to Joseph. Possibly, the hastiness and lack of mature judgment criticized here in Reuben's character may account for the equally hasty decision of the tribe of Reuben later in claiming their part of the ancestral inheritance in the territory formerly belonging to Sichon. It was the tribe of Reuben who was the first to experience exile and dispersion in later years. (2) Shimon and Levi are bracketed together because of the similarity of their actions. Their error was the opposite of that of Reuben. Reuben had acted hastily, without mature judgment. Shimon and Levi's action against Shechem was reprehensible precisely because it was preceded by careful planning. Aristo in Ethics 7, Section 9, already discusses the relative merit of impetuosity versus the person who is in perfect control of his actions who, though carrying out carefully planned deeds, has given no thought to the possibility that he may be wrong. At Shechem, Shimon and Levi sinned because they had planned. When it came to the violence done to Joseph, they could not even claim that their action had been thoroughly thought out. Concerning the first action, Jacob condemns an anger of the aph variety, something that would not evaporate until they had taken collective revenge. In the case of their treatment of Joseph, their action was the result of ratzon, free will, impetuous behavior. When both of these characteristics are found side by side, they spell too much danger for society. Jacob did not want to be associated with this. Therefore, the two have to be separated to reduce their potential for causing harm. Although anger is a negative virtue, it can on occasion be most helpful, since it awakens people to their duty who would otherwise have remained inactive, on the sidelines. Having Levi scattered throughout Israel would ensure that when the occasion would demand it, there would be people that would galvanize the rest of the population into taking action. When Isaiah (63,5) says, "My arm brought me salvation, and my fury upheld me," he refers to exactly such instances of the usefulness of fury. Similarly, the Talmud in Ketuvot 103 reports how Rabbi Yehudah taught his son Rabbi Gamliel how to conduct himself in the office of the President. He told him, "Conduct your office among the exalted and strike fear into the students." (3) Yehudah is the first of the sons whose heroic deeds did not manifest themselves in turning against his own flesh and blood when angered; rather, "Your hand was against the neck of your enemy." Therefore, it is fitting that his brothers pay homage to him. "A young lion;" subsequently he is described as a fully grown lion (both in verse 9). This suggests that Yehudah's personality development proceeded according to accepted norms. He develops from strength to strength, unlike other crowned heads, many of whom experience their greatest moment of glory at the moment they are crowned and ascend the throne. Miteref beni aleeta, you overcame, surmounted the confused thinking of my other sons. Even though you were young in years, you showed mature judgment at the moment it was called for ("What profit is there in killing our brother" 37,26). Jacob proceeds to assure Yehudah that royalty will be hereditary in his descendants throughout the ages. However, just as the lion may crouch ready to pounce, but lacks the power, so the royal descendants of Yehudah will similarly be found lacking in strength on occasion. Such weakness will reflect Yehudah's lack of religious observance during such periods. The Talmud (in Sanhedrin 5) tells us that the term "king" is not used here for Yehudah to convey the idea that in the long years of exile when there will be no Jewish king, leadership functions will still devolve upon the descendants of Yehudah; "The sceptre will not depart," "the lawgiver," refer to such men as the Exilarch, i.e. the leader of the Jews in the Babylonian exile who were members of the tribe of Yehudah, often in a direct line from David. Once the era of Shilo commences, the condition of Yehudah being merely kore-a, crouching, will be over, and the whole world will pay homage to him. The reference then is to Yehudah's restricted leadership role in the interval, not the cessation of such status. The reason that Zevulun in this blessing is mentioned ahead of Issachar is that since the former provides the funding for the latter's sacred vocation, that of devoting himself to Torah, the former is the prime mover, and deserves to be recognized first. Issachar who is like a beast of burden weighed down under its load, represents the qualities without which Torah study devoid of ulterior motives cannot be undertaken successfully. A donkey accepts ever greater burdens without protest, is undemanding in manner, and modest in upkeep. (4) The reason that both sons of Zilpah are mentioned in between the sons of Bilhah, is to prove that Zilpah really was supposed to have become pregnant before Bilhah. Only Laban's trickery had prevented this at the time he tricked Jacob into marrying the wrong girl. (5) Issachar realized the kind of menuchah, rest, that is "good." The reference is to the serenity attainable only through the diligent study of Torah, which ensures that one will reap the ultimate "good" at the end of one's endeavours. (6) After having mentioned the sons of Leah in the order of their birth, Jacob addresses himself to the oldest son of the maids. Samson, descendant of Dan would achieve the position of leader amongst his people, and become the first one to begin and shake off the yoke of the Philistines. Samson's activities were not accompanied by the glory and pomp of a royal Court, but like a snake, a loner, were simply acts of revenge perpetrated as acts of terror from ambush. This is just like the action of a snake which always seems unconcerned about its own fate. Samson died at the site of his greatest triumph, just as a snake presumably gets killed when the horse and rider it has bitten fatally kills the snake near the site of their own death. Since a victory in which the pursuer dies himself is hardly a true victory, the victor not surviving to enjoy the fruits of his deed, Jacob adds the words, "In Your help I trust," expressing the hope that the defender of his people will be spared by Divine intervention. "Gad will form units of troops," even though Gad will be the first of the tribes to be led into captivity (Kings II 10,33), he will eventually re-emerge at the time of redemption. Asher is blessed by being promised material blessings that are rarely found side by side, namely both grain and fruit. Perhaps during the reign of Solomon, he was called upon to supply the royal palace. "He will supply the delicacies for the king." The comparison of Naftali to "a hind let loose," i.e. fleet-footedness, may hint at the climatic conditions in his territory giving rise to earlier harvests than elsewhere in Israel. Possibly, Naftali had silver-tongued men, bearers of good tidings who would lead Israel in thanksgiving to the Lord. (7) Because Joseph was like a beautiful fruit, flourishing by a fountain, attracting admiration from all sides, he also attracted jealousy and envy. As a result, he was quarrelled with and persecuted. He himself, however, kept his ammunition in check instead of fighting back. Thus, he proved himself stronger than his adversaries. His hands were strengthened by the same G-d who had proven His might when aiding Jacob. Therefore, he possessed the merit to become the provider (ro-eh) for his family, his clan. "May you receive your reward from the G-d of your father, may it be stored with the G-d Shadday, and may you receive the bountiful blessings from the heavens above and the depths that lie below, which are typified by the blessings of the breasts and the womb. The blessings of your father (Jacob) are greater than those of my parents (Isaac) in that I may select one of my sons for a special blessing, though all of them deserve blessings.” Each one of the sons of Jacob had a morally justifiable claim to givaut olam, high positions in the world; Joseph, however, had proven outstanding. Therefore, "on his skull more than on that of his brothers," the special blessing. Since the tribe of Levi had not yet been given its special designation replacing the firstborn, and the number of tribes was not to exceed twelve, the blessings for Menashe and Ephrayim are here incorporated in the blessings pronounced on their father Joseph. At the time when Moses blessed the nation, singling out Levi for its share of recognition, Ephrayim and Menashe are once again not mentioned separately, to avoid exceeding the number twelve. Moses therefore only alludes to them by stating that bechor shoro, the firstborn, his ox, are the tens of thousands of Ephrayim and the thousands of Menashe. The importance of Benjamin is alluded to by the fact that he rates the opening of a new paragraph (the paragraph could easily have ended at verse twenty-nine). Just as the word "Yehudah" is usually found at the beginning of a "page," so both of the brothers in whose territory the holy temple was to stand later, share the distinctive treatment in the manner in which their blessings are recorded in the Torah. Since the Priests and Levites will constantly be found in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to expect the members of those tribes to pursue the wisdom obtainable by keeping company with the priests, like wolves that rob in the morning and share the booty at night. Benjaminites will share in the knowledge obtained through close association with the tribe of Levi, and will teach others. Since in this manner they will both learn and teach, they are privy to the essence of all blessings. After all, success in any endeavor is based on study and dissemination of knowledge. The verse "the tribes of Israel are twelve," means that "although Joseph was divided into two tribes, the total still does not exceed twelve tribes, rather Levi is to be regarded as in a class by himself." This is what is meant by the words (verse 28), "Which their father said to them" (perhaps for this reason the scattering of Levi's cities was of quite a different nature than the dispersal of Shimon who had contiguous tribal territory, though it was an enclave within Yehudah). Since seventeen years had elapsed since Jacob and his family had left Canaan, Jacob was concerned lest any claim against the burial place of Abraham should have been registered during the family's absence from the country. Therefore, Jacob repeated all the details of his justified claim to the lands in question. Should any claim originate with the Canaanites, the fact that Ephron had sold to Abraham was essential; should the descendants of Ishmael claim the cave as theirs, the fact that Isaac had been buried there would prove that they had no valid claim thereto. To forestall any claim of Esau to be buried there, the fact that Leah had already been buried there, would attest to its ownership by the family of Jacob. Should the argument be used that the sale by an individual such as Ephron was invalid, since he was merely an individual and it was not in the national interest to sell off land to outsiders, the fact that the beney chet, a national group had approved the sale to Abraham, would invalidate any such claim in the future. (4) We have explained when Abraham died, that geviyah is the failure of one's faculties to function (clinical death), whereas meetah is the destruction and decay of the body's whole structure. Assiphah refers to the return of the soul to its hidden origin. Meetah is not mentioned in connection with Jacob. The reason our Rabbis may not have quoted this passage when they made the statement that "Jacob did not die," is so as not to allow the misconception that the elaborate measures taken to embalm Jacob's body were what is meant by the absence of the term meetah. The impression could easily have been formed that preventing decay of the body is equivalent to preventing meetah, i.e. death. Joseph appears to have had his own royal embalmers, and instead of the standard thirty-day procedure, Jacob was given the royal treatment, i.e. seventy days. This made the removal of the intestines and brain unnecessary (possibly). It appears that during the mourning Joseph observed for his father for seventy days, he did not permit himself to communicate with anyone at the royal court, and spoke to Pharaoh only through intermediaries (50,4). (5) It seems that as soon as Jacob had passed on, his sons were ready to return to the land of Canaan with their families and livestock, but were prevented by the Egyptians who were already planning to eventually enslave Jacob's entire offspring (Midrash Rabbah Tzav). We are told therefore, that the reason the Parshah dealing with Jacob's "death" is closed, i.e. is not separated from the preceding Parshah by a paragraph or line, is to indicate that true independence was lost as soon as Jacob closed his eyes for the last time. The Jews already felt that their freedom of movement had become subject to restrictions, and that is why even a Joseph on his deathbed had to invoke the time when G-d would lead the Jews out of Egypt as the time when his own remains should be transferred to the holy land (50,24). (6) The words va-ya-al immo in 50,9 may refer to the Shechinah leaving Egypt, having accompanied Jacob on his journey to Egypt seventeen years earlier (compare "I will go up with you," 46,4). The Canaanites saw a bad omen in all of this; they emphasized to their deities that this was an Egyptian affair, no business of theirs, and that any harmful fallout should befall Egypt. From then on, the brothers carried Jacob on their shoulders, just as their father had instructed. (7) The brothers had convinced themselves by and by that Joseph's rise to greatness was due entirely to their own action against him, and that because of that he owed them good treatment (as compensation). Their reasoning ran thus: "If only Joseph would hate us and pay us back for the kind of harm (may it happen so to all Jewish children) we have done him." They hoped to receive good in return for evil as a matter of right, not as a gesture of generosity. (8) When speaking in the name of Jacob then, they referred to their treatment of Joseph as evil (50,17), but they referred to themselves as "servants of the G-d of your father," who had acted presumably in consonance with G-d’s will, hence such eminently successful outcome of their actions. (9) Joseph realized that all this convoluted reasoning was the result of his brothers' fear, and he wept at their fear and discomfort. However, Joseph, answering his brothers along the line of their own argument, said, "I am not in place of G-d, so you need no forgiveness from me since your intention was indeed wicked. However, it was G-d who arranged for the outcome to be good not just for me alone but for everyone concerned. Despite your moral guilt however, do not worry, I will look after your needs.” (10) Joseph's raising Ephrayim's grandchildren on his knees is reported to show that Jacob's blessing concerning such grandchildren had been fulfilled. Since Joseph died at a younger age than his brothers, his reassuring remarks on his deathbed concerning the Providence of the Lord are of prime importance. Since his embalming was different from the method employed for his father, his physical death is mentioned. Since his remains were going to be interred in Egypt immediately, the treatment described would be quite adequate.

Midrash

After Joseph was sold into slavery, he was taken to Egypt and became a servant in the house of Potiphar. Potiphar's wife tried to seduce Joseph, but he resisted her advances. She falsely accused him of trying to assault her, leading to Joseph being thrown into prison. This incident was a test of Joseph's righteousness, as he remained faithful to God despite the trials he faced.

Aggadat Bereshit 25:2

[2] Another interpretation: And Abraham traveled from there. "I have not sat with false people and I will not go with the deceitful" (Psalms 26:4). The false people are the people of Sodom and their associates, and the deceitful are Lot and his daughters. As it is written above, "Do not look behind you" (Genesis 19:17). Just as you should not look at prostitutes, as it says, "For a harlot is a deep pit" (Proverbs 23:27). Lot said to them, "What shall I do?" They said to him, "Go to Abraham," as it says, "The mountain, flee!" (Genesis 19:17). This refers to Abraham who was called a mountain, as it says, "Hear, O mountains" (Micah 6:2). He said to them, "Abraham is a completely righteous man and I cannot go to him," as it says, "And I cannot" (Genesis 19:19). Why? Because as long as Sodom and Gomorrah existed, I sat among them and appeared righteous among them, and the Holy One, blessed be He, would observe my actions and theirs, and I would appear righteous in their eyes. But now, if I go to Abraham, he is a completely righteous man, and if the Holy One, blessed be He, observes my actions and theirs, if I am found to be wicked in His eyes, He will destroy me. Therefore, "I cannot" (Genesis 19:19). Instead, "Behold, this town" (Genesis 19:20). He did all these things so that he could go to the cave to engage in immorality, as it says, "And Lot went up...and the elder daughter said" (Genesis 19:30). And from the beginning, when he was with Abraham, he desired to engage in immorality, as when Abraham said to him, "Let there be no quarrel between you and me" (Genesis 13:8). "Separate yourself" (Genesis 13:9). Immediately, "And Lot lifted up his eyes" (Genesis 13:10). The word "lifted up" only refers to desire for immorality, as it says, "And the wife of his master lifted up her eyes" (Genesis 39:7). "And he saw all the plain" (Genesis 13:10), for the sake of a harlot one can travel a distance of a kilometer (Proverbs 6:26). "For [they were afraid] that the drink would fail" (Genesis 13:10). "And they made their father drink wine that night" (Genesis 19:33) - At first, Lot had a desire for immorality, which is why Abraham said, "Please separate from me," etc., and Lot thought he sinned and no one knew. Rabbi Berechiah said, "The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Lot: 'What, do you think you have sinned and no one knows? Your descendants will be called "Moab" and "Ammon," as it says, 'So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father' " (Genesis 19:36), and similarly, Solomon said to desire, "Depart from me, you who are a deceiver" (Proverbs 1:10). When Abraham saw this, he said, "What am I seeking from these people?" Immediately he left there. Therefore it is said, "And with the crafty, you will not come" (Psalms 26:4). And the Holy One, blessed be He, judged them according to their deeds: Lot's daughters were deserving of being burned in fire, but the Holy One, blessed be He, judges only according to thoughts, which they thought and said, "Our father is old and there is no man on earth to come to us" (Genesis 19:31). It can be compared to a priest who had a field, sowed it with a tenant farmer, and the field did not produce. When the owner of the field asked for his share, the tenant farmer said, "There was no seed for us to sow." The priest asked him, "Did you see that there was no seed to sow?" He replied, "Yes, I saw it, so I took the tithes and sowed them, and the field produced a crop." The priest said to him, "What did you do?" He replied, "Since I saw there was no seed, I did this." But the priest said to him, "You should not have put it in the storehouse." Similarly, Lot's daughters saw that there was no man in those places, and furthermore, they thought that there was no creature in the world, as they said, "The world is turned over just as Sodom was overturned," as it says, "There is no man on earth," etc. "Come, let us make our father drink wine" etc. They sowed their seed like tithes. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, You deserved to be burned, but since you intended to build the world, you will not be admitted to the treasury. "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the congregation of the Lord" (Deuteronomy 23:4). (This raises a question: This is written regarding a matter that did not precede you [i.e., the generation that left Egypt], so why should it apply to you?) Immediately, Abraham said, "I will not come to terms with hidden people; I have nothing to do with those about whom it is written, 'No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter.'" (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 76b:15) and he left.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:6

“On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:54). “On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” – that is what is written: “I keep the king’s directive, [and in regard to the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). If the king will say to you that his fear shall be upon you and you shall observe his decrees, observe his decrees. Likewise, it says: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) – that his fear shall be upon you. And it says: “Any man who will disobey your directive, [and does not heed your words in everything that you command him, will be put to death]” (Joshua 1:18). “I” that is written here is nothing other than fear of the monarchy, just as Pharaoh said to Joseph. That is what is written: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, and without you no man shall lift his hand…” (Genesis 41:44). What is “I am Pharaoh”? This is what Pharaoh said to Joseph: Even though I said to you: “You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:40) – that I made you king over everyone – be careful to treat me with respect and make me king over you. That is why he said: “I am Pharaoh” – in other words, that the fear of my kingship shall be upon you. Similarly, “God spoke to Moses, and He said to him: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:2) – why was it necessary to say here: “I am the Lord”? Rather, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: Even though I set you as a god for Pharaoh, as the verse states: “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1) be careful that my Godliness will be upon you, as I made you a god only over Pharaoh alone. That is, “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is “I” who requires you to “keep the king’s directive” – that his fear shall be upon you. Make certain that you do not flout his commands. Is it, perhaps, even if he tells you to violate the words of the Omnipresent? The verse states: “And in regard to the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – the verse comes to inform you that “and in regard to the word of an oath of God” will be paramount over the command of flesh and blood, as you should nullify the will of flesh and blood before the will of God and fulfill all the commandments that are in the Torah, as you entered into an oath in their regard to fulfill them, just as it says: “To pass you into the covenant of the Lord your God and into His oath…” (Deuteronomy 29:11), and it says: “[Cursed be] who will not uphold the matters of this Torah to perform them; and the entire people shall say: Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:26). Similarly, “each of you shall fear his mother and his father…” (Leviticus 19:3) – is it, perhaps, even if his father said to him: Slaughter for me and cook for me on Shabbat, that he should listen to him? The verse states: “And you shall observe My Shabbatot” (Leviticus 19:3) – all of you are obligated in My honor. Here too, “and the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as above the word of the king observe the word of an oath to God. “Do not be frightened; leave his presence [mipanav]; [do not remain in a bad situation, as he will do what he wills]” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). If [a king of] flesh and blood will become angry at you in order to cause you to violate the statutes of the Torah, do not be frightened by his anger and follow his counsel, just as it says: “Who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalms 1:1). Panav is nothing other than his anger, just as it says: “And the expression on his face [anpohi] was distorted” (Daniel 3:19). That is, “leave his presence”; “do not remain in a bad situation [bedavar]” – do not remain in his path to follow it, just as it says: “And did not remain in the path of sinners” (Psalms 1:1). What is “bedavar” (Ecclesiastes 8:3)? It is that you should not fear that evil matter, that he will say to you that he will burn you, kill you, or subject you to harsh suffering if you do not fulfill his decree, and he will threaten you that there is no God in the world who will be able to rescue you from his hand. That is what is written thereafter: “As he will do what he wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). Just as Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya: “At that time you will be cast into the burning fiery furnace; who is the god who will save you from my hands?” (Daniel 3:15). “Since authority is by the king’s word, [who will say to him: What are you doing?]” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). If you devote yourself to the mitzvot to fulfill the decree of the Holy One blessed be He and to nullify the decrees of flesh and blood, what is your reward? When the Holy One blessed be He issues a decree to bring calamity to the world – as he is the King of the world and Ruler of everything, to do everything that He desires and no one can impede him: “He is of one mind, and who can respond to Him? His soul desires, and He does” (Job 23:13) – you will stand and ask for mercy regarding the decree to abrogate it. The Holy One blessed be He will show forbearance to you, and He will nullify it because you nullified the decree of flesh and blood in order to fulfill His decree. That is why it is stated: “Since authority is by the king’s word” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, when He says to bring something to the world to inform of his authority in the world, just as it says: “God caused that they would experience fear before Him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). Know, who can impede His decree and say to Him: ‘Why are You doing so’? It is one who observes mitzvot. That is why it is stated: “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” Who can say to Him: ‘Why are You doing this to Your creations? Descend to them with the attribute of mercy’? That is one who observes His mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva [will know no evil matter]” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5)? It is measure for measure; he did not remain in a bad situation, therefore, “he will know no evil matter.” “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – as there is a wise man who considers the consequences and reckons the loss from a mitzva against its reward and the loss from a transgression against its reward. He considers in his heart: If I transgress His mitzvot, and I have an opportunity to do what I want and there is no one who can impede me, tomorrow, the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him (Referring to himself.) because he violated His Torah. Likewise it says: “The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool [walks in darkness]” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). And it says: “The heart of the wise inclines to his right, [and the heart of a fool inclines to his left]” (Ecclesiastes 10:2). “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” – one whose heart is wise knows that if he transgresses the mitzvot, that the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him, and he refrains from the transgression. That is what is written thereafter: “For there is a time and a judgment for every matter…” (Ecclesiastes 8:6) – regarding every situation where a person performs his will and nullifies the will of the Omnipresent, it should be known to him that he is destined to be judged. Even though retribution is not exacted from him immediately, let him not think that the Holy One blessed be He would overlook his iniquity for him, but rather, He is slow to anger and collects what is due to Him. When does He exact retribution from him? It is when the hin is filled. Likewise it says: “With the filling of his quota, he will be troubled; [the hand of all travail will come upon him]” (Job 20:22). That is why it is stated: “As the evil of man overwhelms him” (Ecclesiastes 8:6); just as He did with the generation of the Flood, as He gave them an extension but ultimately exacted retribution from them, just as it says: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…” (Genesis 6:5). What is written thereafter? “The Lord said: I will obliterate man…” (Genesis 6:7). “For he does not know what will be, [for whenever it will be, who will have told him]?” (Ecclesiastes 8:7). The verse comes to teach you that anyone who does not repent from a transgression that he committed and does not fear the Day of Judgment, when it will arrive they will not show him forbearance. Were he to come and say that he be given an extension so he could repent, they will not listen to him. That is, for whenever punishment “will be, who will have told him” so he would repent and be accepted. It is to say to you that prior to the sentence they listen to him; after the sentence they do not listen to him. That is why it is stated: “For whenever it will be, who will have told him?” “There is no man who rules the spirit [to retain the spirit, and there is no rule on the day of death, and there is no sending a proxy in war, and wickedness will not rescue its owner]” (Ecclesiastes 8:8) – because we found that the Holy One blessed be He decreed four court-imposed death penalties for performers of transgressions. That is why four matters are written here, corresponding to them, where the living lack the ability to be rescued from them after their sentence. These are: “There is no man who rules the spirit [ruaḥ] to retain the spirit” – this is death by strangulation and the like, as a person dies from it only due to breath [ruaḥ], as he has no place from which to breathe. That is, “there is no man who rules the spirit” to exhale it when the day comes that the breath will be constricted in his body. “And there is no rule on the day of death” – this is death by stoning and the like, just as it says: “You shall stone him with stones, and he will die” (Deuteronomy 13:11). “There is no sending a proxy in war” – this is death by decapitation by sword and the like, just as it says: “Go out and wage war with Amalek” (Exodus 17:9), and it is written: “Joshua weakened [Amalek and its people by sword]” (Exodus 17:13). “And wickedness will not rescue its owner” – this is death by burning and the like, just as it says: “All the criminals and all the doers of wickedness will be straw; the day that is coming will burn them…” (Malachi 3:19). These are the four court-imposed death penalties mentioned in this verse. Even though the Sanhedrin ceased and the four court-imposed death penalties were abrogated, the sentence of the four court-imposed death penalties were not abrogated, as the Holy One blessed be He judges the living to die of them with harsh punishments corresponding to them. One who incurs liability to be strangled either drowns in the river, dies of diphtheria, or is delivered into the hands of idol worshippers who strangle him. One who incurs liability to be stoned either falls off the roof, or a beast tramples him, or idol worshippers stone him. One who incurs liability to be beheaded, robbers come upon him and behead him. One who incurs liability to be burned either falls into the fire or a snake bites him. You learned that a person cannot escape the judgment of the Holy One blessed be He that He will not punish him measure for measure. That is why it is stated: “There is no man who rules the spirit….” (Ecclesiastes 8:8). Another matter: “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is speaking of Joseph the righteous, who observed the “I” that Pharaoh had said to him, just as it says: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, [and without you no man shall lift his hand]” (Genesis 41:44), as he never flouted his command. “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as even though he entered into that prominence, he did not throw the yoke of Heaven from upon him and he feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “[I fear] God” (Genesis 42:18). That is why “God” is stated. (According to the Etz Yosef, the midrash is explaining that this is an allusion to the verse, “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2).) He was very cautious regarding the oath, as he did not take an oath “as the Lord lives,” but rather, “as Pharaoh lives, that you will not depart from here” (Genesis 42:15). That is, “an oath.” What is “the word of [divrat]”? It is because he separated himself from lasciviousness, just as it says: “He shall not see a lascivious matter [davar] in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it says: The young woman, because [al devar] she did not cry out in the city…” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Likewise it says: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). What is written there? “He refused, and he said to his master’s wife: Behold, my master…” (Genesis 39:8). That is why it is stated: “The word of [divrat],” just as it says: “It was, as she spoke [kedabra] to Joseph day after day, and he did not heed her…” (Genesis 39:10). “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence” – when he entered the house to perform his labor, and the house was vacant and there was no person who could see him, just as it is written: “It was, on a certain day he went into the house to perform his labor, and there was no one [of the people of the household there in the house]” (Genesis 39:11), she came and seized his garment so that he would lie with her. Nevertheless, he was not frightened by her actions, and he went outside, just as it says: “He left his garment in her hand, fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). That is why it is stated: “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence.” He was not frightened by the house being vacant, but rather he fled and left, even though she said to him that if he would not lie with her, she would say to her husband that he sought to rape her, and her husband will kill him, and there would be no one to impede him, because he is his slave. Nevertheless, he did not allow her to fulfill her desire because of that evil matter that she threatened to do to him. That is why it says: “Do not remain in a bad situation, as God will do what He wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). From where do you derive that she threatened him in that manner? It is from the end of the matter. When she saw that her actions were to no avail, look at what she did: “She called to the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying.… It was, when he heard.… She placed his garment [beside her, until his master’s arrival home]. She spoke to him…[saying: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to me to mock me]. It was, as I raised my voice [and cried out, that he left his garment with me, and fled outside]” (Genesis 39:14–18). “Since authority is by the king’s word…” (Ecclesiastes 8:4) – what reward did the Holy One blessed be He give him for this? He placed him in a position of authority in the land of Egypt. That is what is written: “Since [authority is] by the king’s word…,” just as it says: “Pharaoh spoke to Joseph: In my dream, behold, I am…” (Genesis 41:17). “Authority” – just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4), just as it says: “Go to Joseph; what he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). Why to that extent? It is because he observed the mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter”? It is this evil matter that the butler said, just as it says: “There with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief executioner…” (Genesis 41:12). He said three matters here in Joseph’s regard: “Lad” – that he was a fool, just as it says: “Folly is bound in the heart of a lad” (Proverbs 22:15); “Hebrew” – an enemy; “slave” – that he is not worthy of kingship. Nevertheless, Joseph knew no evil matter. In other words, the matter did not affect him, as he ruled. “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this was Joseph, who was called wise, just as it says: “There is no one as wise and understanding as you” (Genesis 41:39). He knew that he would be held accountable had he touched Potifar’s wife; that is why he withdrew from her. That is what is written: “He did not heed her [to lie with her, to be with her]” (Genesis 39:10); “to lie with her” in this world; “to be with her” in the World to Come. Another matter: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this is the Holy One blessed be He, in whose regard it is written: “Wise of heart and mighty of power” (Job 9:4). He brought about a time to reward Joseph on the basis of measure for measure. How so? He ruled over his inclination and did not touch her; therefore, he became a ruler, just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). He did not heed her, just as it says: “He did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10); therefore, the Holy One blessed be He crowned him as king over Egypt in its entirety, and everyone heeded his words, just as it says: “What he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). His mouth [piv] did not kiss [nashak] in transgression; therefore, “at your directive [pikha] my entire people will be sustained [yishak]” (Genesis 41:40). He said: “There is no one greater in this house than I…” (Genesis 39:9) in order to rebuff her; therefore, “you will be in charge of my house” (Genesis 41:40). He did not seize her, but she seized him with her hands, just as it says: “She seized him by his garment…” (Genesis 39:12); therefore, “Pharaoh removed his signet ring from upon his hand, and he placed it upon Joseph’s hand” (Genesis 41:42). He left his garment in her hand; therefore, “he dressed him in linen garments” (Genesis 41:42). He did not bend his neck toward her; therefore, “he placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42). He did not mount [rakhav] her; therefore, “he had him ride [vayarkev] in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43). She called the people of her household in this regard, just as it says: “She called the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14); therefore, “they called before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43). He was relegated to the prison for this, just as it says: “He relegated him [vayitenehu] to the prison” (Genesis 39:20); therefore, “he appointed him [venaton oto] over the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:43). He did not direct his glance toward her, and not toward the Egyptian women when he ruled, just as it says: “Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful bough alongside a spring [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22), as he averted his eye [she’ilem eino] from Potifar’s wife and from the Egyptian women. “Branches [banot] (Banot can also mean women.) ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22). Therefore, alei shur. Rabbi Reuven said: What is alei shur? The Holy One blessed be He said: It is incumbent upon me to pay a reward for that eye. How so? The Rabbis taught that in the Temple they would eat offerings of lesser sanctity within the wall, within the wall of Jerusalem. But in Shilo, which was in the portion of Joseph, they would eat it within eyeshot. (Within eyeshot of the Tabernacle (Rambam, Mishna Zevaḥim 14:6).) That is alei shur, just as it says: “The eye of one who sees me will not behold me [teshureni]” (Job 7:8). Rabbi Azarya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Joseph: You observed the mitzva of: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), which is the seventh of the Commandments, and you did not commit adultery with Potifar’s wife. And you observed the mitzva of: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), which is the eighth of the Commandments, as you did not steal Potifar’s property and you did not “steal” his wife, just as it says: “The eye of the adulterer observes the night, saying: No eye will behold [teshureni] me…” (Job 24:15). The time will come when I will repay you for them. Tomorrow, when the princes come to bring [offerings] for the dedication of the altar, the princes of your two sons, one will present his offering on the seventh day, and the second on the eighth day. And no other tribe will interpose between your two sons, just as you did not interpose (Namely, you did not differentiate between them. You observed both of them. As a reward, Benjamin did not interpose between Ephraim and Manasseh.) between “you shall not commit adultery” and “you shall not steal,” as it is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim.… On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh…” (Numbers 7:48–54) That is why it is written: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:7

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:55). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]…” – do not read it as kaarat, but rather as akart, corresponding to Jacob, who extracted [akar] the birthright (The birthright refers to the extra portion of the inheritance that the eldest son received.) from Reuben and gave it to Joseph: “I have given you one portion more than your brothers…” (Genesis 48:22). “Silver” – just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20), just as he (Silver alludes to the statement made by Jacob, who was righteous.) said: “Ephraim and Manasseh will be for me like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – when Jacob descended to Egypt on account of Joseph, he was one hundred and thirty years old, as it is stated: “Jacob said to Pharaoh: The days of the years of my residence are one hundred and thirty years” (Genesis 47:9). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – corresponding to Joseph, who was cast [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “Silver” – after: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20) – what he said to his father (Silver alludes to the statement made by Joseph, who was righteous.) : “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn; place your right hand upon his head” (Genesis 48:18). “Seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” – as it was through him that seventy people descended to Egypt. “Both of them full…” – Jacob and Joseph, both of them were full-fledged righteous men and both produced tribes. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:56). “One gold ladle of ten shekels…” – corresponding to the ten districts of Manasseh, as it is stated: “Ten districts fell to Manasseh” (Joshua 17:5). “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:57). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:58). “One young bull, one ram [one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering]; one goat…” – these (This is a reference to the three burnt offerings.) are three corresponding to the three generations that Joseph saw from Manasseh that received a portion in the land, (This is a reference to the fact that there were three major families named after the three generations following Manasseh, in addition to the family which was named after Manasseh himself. Therefore, the phrase “the sons of Makhir” refers to Makhir himself, Gilad, and Iezer.) as it is stated: “The children of Makhir son of Manasseh, too, were born at Joseph’s knees” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise, it says: “The sons of Manasseh: For Makhir, the family of the Makhirites, and Makhir begot Gilad.… These are the sons of Gilad: Of Iezer…” (Numbers 26:29–30). Makhir, Gilad, and Iezer – these are three generations that were patrilineal houses that were attributed to Joseph, as Manasseh is attributed to Jacob, just as it says: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before my coming to you to Egypt, they are mine” (Genesis 48:5). The fourth, this was Ya’ir son of Manasseh, who received a portion in the land, just as it says: “Ya’ir son of Manasseh went and captured their villages [ḥavot], and he called them Ḥavot Ya’ir” (Numbers 32:41). The three species of burnt offerings corresponded to the sons of Makhir son of Manasseh. (This is referring to what was mentioned above, and is mentioned again since the midrash now also explains what the sin offering signifies.) The goat sin offering corresponded to Ya’ir, who did not bequeath his portion to his sons, because he did not have sons. That is why he called them (The villages.) by his name, because he did not have any remnant, and the sons of his brother Makhir inherited his portion. “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:59). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the tribe of Manasseh, which split into two and received two portions in the land, half of it on the east bank of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan. “Five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year” – these are three species, corresponding to three things that Joseph did on behalf of Manasseh, whom he sought to elevate over his brother Ephraim. The first: “Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim in his right hand to the left of Israel, and Manasseh in his left hand to the right of Israel” (Genesis 48:13). The second: “He supported his father’s hand, to remove it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh” (Genesis 48:17). The third: “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn…” (Genesis 48:18). Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five women from the tribe of Manasseh who took a portion in the land. These were Tzelofḥad’s five daughters, just as it says: “Tzelofḥad’s daughters speak justly; give them a holding for inheritance…” (Numbers 27:7). They were five, as it is stated: “These are the names of his daughters: Maḥla, Noa, Ḥogla, Milka, and Tirtza” (Numbers 27:1). Likewise, Jacob mentioned them in the blessing of Joseph, as it is stated: “Branches [banot] ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22); these are Tzelofḥad’s daughters [banot], who received a portion in the land. Alternatively, why were they five each? It corresponds to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “May they proliferate like fish in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16), and fish were created on the fifth day. “This was the offering of Gamliel…” – since the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented the offering in this order, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Gamliel…”

Bereshit Rabbah 41:7

“Lot raised his eyes and saw the entire plain of the Jordan, that it was all watered, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Tzoar” (Genesis 13:10). “Lot raised his eyes and saw the entire plain of the Jordan” – Rabbi Naḥman bar Ḥanin said: Anyone who has a voracious appetite for sexual immorality will ultimately be fed from his own flesh and blood. (He will end up committing incest. See Genesis 19:32.) Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: This entire verse is comprised of expressions of sexual immorality. [“Lot raised his eyes”] – just as it says: “His master's wife raised her eyes [toward Joseph and she said: Lie with me]” (Genesis 39:7). “And saw the entire plain [kikar] of the Jordan, that it was all watered” – just as it says: “For due to a licentious woman, one is brought to a loaf [kikar] of bread” (Proverbs 6:26). “That it was all watered [mashke]” – just as it says: “He shall give the woman to drink [hishka] the bitter water that causes a curse” (Numbers 5:24). “Before the Lord destroyed [shaḥet]” – just as it says: “It was when he consorted with his brother's wife, he would spill [veshiḥet] on to the ground” (Genesis 38:9). “Like the garden of the Lord” – for trees; “like the land of Egypt” – for seeds. “Lot chose for himself all the plain of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed from the east, and each parted from his brother” (Genesis 13:11). “Abram lived in the land of Canaan, and Lot lived in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent as far as Sodom” (Genesis 13:12). “And the men of Sodom were extremely wicked and sinful to the Lord” (Genesis 13:13). “Lot chose for himself” – Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra said: Like a person selecting his mother’s marriage contract. (When a man marries several women, each of the women brings property into the marriage as part of the marriage contract. When the husband dies after the wives, each of the sons inherits the property that his mother had introduced into the marriage. Lot chose Sodom as if it were his ordained legacy.) “Lot journeyed from the east [mikedem]” – he moved himself away from the One who preceded [kadmono] the world. He said: ‘I desire neither Abram nor his God.’ “Each parted from his brother. Abram lived [in the land of Canaan]” – Rabbi Meir says: You do not have among the cities any as evil as Sodom, as when a person is wicked, they refer to him as a person ofSodom. (And yet Lot chose that place to live in.) You do not have any among the peoples as tough as the Emorites, as when a person is tough, they refer to him as an Emorite. Rabbi Yosei said: You do not have among the cities any as beautiful as Sodom, as Lot circulated among all the cities of the plain and did not find a place as fine as Sodom, and these [the people of Sodom] were the most distinguished among them (According to Rabbi Yosei, the people of Sodom were better than those of the other cities in the area, and that is why Lot chose it to live in. Yet, despite their relative eminence, the Torah testifies that they “were extremely wicked.”) – “and the men of Sodom were extremely wicked and sinful to the Lord” (Genesis 13:13). “Wicked” – towards one another; “sinful” – through sexual immorality; “to the Lord” – through idolatry; “extremely” – through bloodshed.

Bereshit Rabbah 42:3

Another interpretation, “it was in the days of Amrafel” – Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great and Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The following exposition was brought with us in our hands when we came up from the Diaspora: (When the exiles of Israel returned to the land of Israel with Ezra from Babylon.) Wherever it is stated: “It was [vayhi] in the days,” it indicates trouble. (Vayhi is seen as a combination of the words vay and hi, both expressions of woe and misfortune.) “It was in the days of Amrafel” – what was the trouble there? “They waged war” (Genesis 14:2). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: There are five such instances. (For the other four instances, see: Isaiah 7:1; Jeremiah 1:3; Ruth 1:1; Esther 1:1.) This is analogous to a friend of a king who lived in a certain province, and for his sake the king took an interest in that province. Once some barbarians came to attack him, and they said: ‘Woe unto us, as the king will not show favor to the province as was his wont if they kill his friend.’ That is what is written: “They turned back, and came to Ein Mishpat, which is Kadesh” (Genesis 14:7) – Rabbi Aḥa said: They came only to fight against the eyeball [ein] of the world; (Abraham is called the eyeball of the world, because it was only for his sake that God took an interest in and looked out for the benefit of the people of the world.) they sought to blind the eye [ayin] that overcame the attribute of justice [mishpat] in the world. “Which is [hi] Kadesh” – Rav Aḥa said: Hu is written. It is he [hu] who sanctified [kiddesh] the name of the Holy One blessed be He in the fiery furnace. When the barbarians came to attack him, everyone began crying out: ‘Woe [vay].’ That is what is written: “It was [vayhi] in the days of Amrafel.” “It was in the days of Aḥaz” (Isaiah 7:1) – what was the trouble there? “Aram from the east and the Philistines from the west” (Isaiah 9:11). (Israel was under attack from all sides.) This is analogous to a king’s son, whose caretaker resolved to kill him. He said: ‘If I kill him, I will be liable to execution by the king. Instead, I will take away his wet nurse from him, and he will die on his own.’ So, too, Aḥaz said: ‘If there are no kids, there will be no goats, and if there are no goats there will be no flock, and if there is no flock there will be no shepherd, and if there is no shepherd, there will be no world.’ (That is, the world will not be able to function in its conventional manner.) That is what Aḥaz thought to himself: ‘If there are no children [in school], there will be no students, if there are no students there will be no scholars, if there are no scholars there will be no elders, if there are no elders there will be no prophets, if there are no prophets the Holy One blessed be He will not rest His Divine Presence upon them [Israel]. (Consequently, he closed all the schools.) That is what is written: “Bind the testimony, seal the Torah in my disciples” (Isaiah 8:16). Rabbi Ḥonya bar Rabbi Elazar said: Why was he named Aḥaz? It is because he locked up [aḥaz] the synagogues and study halls. Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: Isaiah said: ‘“I will hope for the Lord, who conceals His face from the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 8:17). There was no moment that was as grim as that time, in whose regard it is stated: “I will conceal My face on that day” (Deuteronomy 31:18). But at that very time, I [Isaiah] hoped for Him, as it is written [immediately afterwards]: “For it will not be forgotten from the mouths of their descendants” (Deuteronomy 31:21). (When God said that He would hide His face from Israel, He continued, that nevertheless the Torah would never be forgotten by them.) Of what use was it to him [Ahaz]? (Despite his best efforts, the Torah continued to be taught, as the Midrash goes on to explain.) [Of no use, as Isaiah declared:] “Behold, I, and the children whom the Lord gave me, are to become signs and wonders in Israel”’ (Isaiah 8:18). Were they (The young men Isaiah was referring to.) his children? Were they not actually his students? However, we learn from here that they [his students] were as beloved to him as sons. When he [Aḥaz] locked up the synagogues and study halls, people began crying out: ‘Woe [vay]’ – “it was [vayhi] in the days of Aḥaz.” “It was in the days of Yehoyakim” (Jeremiah 1:3) – what was the trouble there? [It was as Jeremiah prophesied:] “I saw the land, and behold, it is emptiness and disorder” (Jeremiah 4:23). This is analogous to a king who sent a proclamation throughout the province. What did the residents of one province do to it? They took it, ripped it, and burned it in fire. Thus it is stated: “It happened that as Yehudi would read three or four sections…” (Jeremiah 36:23) (It was the Book of Lamentations that was being read.) – this means three or four verses. When he reached the fifth verse, “Its besiegers have become dominant” (Lamentations 1:5) – “He cut it up with a scribe’s razor and cast it into the fire that was in the fireplace, until the entire scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the fireplace” (Jeremiah 36:23). When everyone saw this, they began crying out: ‘Woe [vay]’ – “it was [vayhi] in the days of Yehoyakim.” “It was in the days that the judges judged” (Ruth 1:1) (A more literal translation would be, “in the days of the judging of the judges.”) – what was the trouble there? “There was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1). This is analogous to a province that owed a tax to the king. The prince sent a tax collector to collect it. What did the residents of the province do to him? They took him and beat him. They then said: ‘Woe to us when the king becomes aware of these events; what he sought to do to us, (Subdue us.) we did to him.’ So, too, in the days of the judging of the judges – when a person of Israel would engage in idol worship, and the judge sought to implement against him the attribute of strict justice, (And decree for him corporal punishment.) he would come and flog the judge. He said: ‘What he sought to do to me, I did to him.’ (“The judging of the judges” is interpreted to mean that the people committed acts of judgment and punishment against their judges.) They said: ‘Woe [vay] to the generation that judges its judges.’ That is what is written: “It was [vayhi] in the days when the judges judged, there was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1). “It was in the days of Aḥashverosh” (Esther 1:1) – what was the trouble there? [Haman’s decree:] “to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate [all the Jews]” (Esther 3:13). This is analogous to a king who had a certain vineyard, and three enemies rose up against it. The first began picking unripe grapes, the second began cutting off the clusters, and the third began uprooting the vines. So too, Pharaoh [said]: “Every son who is born you shall cast into the Nile…” (Exodus 1:22). Nebuchadnezzar [exiled] “the ḥarash and the masger, (These are two classes of Torah scholars (Gittin 88a).) one thousand” (Jeremiah 29:2) – Rabbi Berekhya said: One thousand ḥarash and one thousand masger; the Rabbis said: They were one thousand altogether. Haman sought to uproot the entire vineyard, as it is stated: “To destroy, to kill, and to eliminate all the Jews…” (Esther 3:13). When everyone saw that it was so, they began crying out: ‘Woe [vay].’ That is what is written: “It was [vayhi] in the days of Aḥashverosh.” Rabbi Shimon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Everywhere that vayhi is stated it refers either to trouble or to joy; if the context is one of trouble, it is unparalleled trouble, if it is one of joy, it is unparalleled joy. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman came and made a distinction: Everywhere that vayhi is stated, (Even when it is not connected with “in the days of.”) it alludes to trouble, and vehaya [alludes to] joy. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “And there was [vayhi] light”? (Genesis 1:3). He said to them: That was nevertheless not complete joy, as the world was not privileged to use that light. Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Simon said: By the light that was created on the first day, a person could see from one end of the world to the other. When the Holy One blessed be He foresaw the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion, He hid it away for the righteous in the future. That is what is written: “But the path of the righteous is like a dawning light, growing brighter until the day is established” (Proverbs 4:18). They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, one day”? (Genesis 1:5). He said to them: That was nevertheless not complete joy, as everything that was created on the first day is destined to wear away, as it is stated: “For the heavens will vanish like smoke and the earth will wear away like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6). They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, a second day” (Genesis 1:8), “…a third day” (Genesis 1:13), “a fourth day” (Genesis 1:19), “a fifth day” (Genesis 1:23), “a sixth day”? (Genesis 1:31). He said to them: That was nevertheless not complete [joy], as everything that was created during the six days of Creation requires some act [to perfect it], e.g., mustard requires sweetening, wheat requires grinding, and lupines require sweetening. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joseph”? (Genesis 39:2). He said to them: That was nevertheless not complete joy, as that bear (Potifar’s wife.) then accosted him. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] on the eighth day, Moses summoned”? (Leviticus 9:1). He said to them: That was nevertheless not complete joy, as Nadav and Avihu died [that day]. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] on the day that Moses completed assembling the Tabernacle”? (Numbers 7:1). He said to them: That was nevertheless not [complete] joy, as it was hidden away with the building of the Temple. (Moses’ Tabernacle was stored away forever when the permanent Temple was built.) They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joshua”? (Joshua 6:27). He said to them: That was nevertheless not [complete] joy, as it became necessary for him to rend his garments. (Joshua 7:6.) They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “It was [vayhi] when the king (David.) resided in his house, and the Lord had given him respite…”? (II Samuel 7:1). He said to them: It was nevertheless not complete joy, as Natan then came and said to him: “However, you will not build the House…for My name” (I Kings 8:19). They said to him: We have said our [arguments], now you say yours. He said to them, (To prove his contention that vehaya always alludes to a joyous event.) is it not written: “It will be [vehaya] on that day that spring water will emerge…” (Zechariah 14:8). It will be [vehaya] on that day, each man will keep a calf of the herd…” (Isaiah 7:21). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, the mountains will drip with nectar” (Joel 4:18). “It will be on that day that the Lord will continue…[to acquire the remnant of His people]” (Isaiah 11:11). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, a great shofar will be sounded…” (Isaiah 27:13). They raised an objection to him: “And it was [vehaya] when Jerusalem was captured” (Jeremiah 38:28). He said to them: That was nevertheless joyous, as on that day, Israel gained atonement for its sins, as Rav and Shmuel say: Israel gained great atonement for their iniquities on the day that the Temple was destroyed, as it is stated: “Your sin is completed, daughter of Zion, He will not continue to exile you again” (Lamentations 4:22).

Bereshit Rabbah 55:2

“The Lord tests the righteous, but He hates the wicked and the lover of injustice” (Psalms 11:5) – Rabbi Yonatan said: A linen producer, when his flax is inferior, he does not beat it extensively because it would break, but when his flax is of high quality, he beats it exceedingly, because it continually improves [through this process]. So, the Holy One blessed be He does not test the wicked. Why? Because they would be unable to withstand it, as it is written: “But the wicked are like the stormy sea” (Isaiah 57:20). (When the wicked suffer they lash out against God.) Whom does He test? It is the righteous, as it is stated: “The Lord tests the righteous,” [such as in this incident:] “It was after these matters that his master's wife [cast her eyes upon Joseph]” (Genesis 39:7). “It was after these matters” – Rabbi Yonatan said: A potter, when he wants to evaluate [the products of] his kiln, he does not test the fragile vessels. Why? It is because he would not be able to knock on one of them even once without breaking it. What does he test? The sturdy vessels, as even if he knocks on one of them several times, he will not break it. So, the Holy One blessed be He does not test the wicked, but rather, the righteous, as it is stated: “The Lord tests the righteous.” Rabbi Elazar said: This is analogous to a homeowner who had two cows, one strong and one feeble. Upon which one does he place the yoke? Is it not upon the one that is strong? So, the Holy One blessed be He tests only the righteous, as it is stated: “The Lord tests the righteous.”

Bereshit Rabbah 84:7

“Joseph, seventeen years old…” – and you say he was a lad? (The term lad, used here in connection with Joseph, generally indicates someone younger than seventeen.) It is because he would perform the actions of a lad – he would groom his eyes, lift his heels, and curl his hair. “Was herding…Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” – what did he say? Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon: Rabbi Meir says: Your sons are suspected of eating the limb of a living animal. Rabbi Shimon says: They are directing their glances at the girls of the land. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are demeaning the sons of the maidservants and calling them slaves. Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said: He was punished for all three of them. “Balance and scales of justice are the Lord’s” (Proverbs 16:11) – the Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You said: Your sons are suspected of eating the limb of a living animal; as you live, even at their time of corruption, they will slaughter and only then will they eat’ – “and slaughtered a goat” (Genesis 37:31). (After the sale of Joseph, they slaughtered a goat and dipped Joseph’s tunic in its blood. The verse emphasizes that they first slaughtered the goat. ) ‘You said: They are demeaning the sons of the maidservants and calling them slaves’ – “Joseph was sold as a slave” (Psalms 105:17). ‘You said: They are directing their glances at the girls of the land; as you live, I will incite the bear against you’ – “His master’s wife cast her eyes [upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me]” (Genesis 39:7).

Bereshit Rabbah 87:1

“It was after these matters that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). “It was after these matters.” “I saw among the naïve [bapetayim]” (Proverbs 7:7) – these are the tribes. Rabbi Levi said: In Arabia, they call children patya. “Discerned among the youths a lad” (Proverbs 7:7) – this is Joseph. He was “devoid of understanding” (Proverbs 7:7), as he would speak slander about his brothers. Is there anyone more devoid of understanding? From that, their descent to Egypt developed. “And behold, there is a woman to meet him” (Proverbs 7:10) – this is Potiphar’s wife, who confronted Joseph. “Dressed like a harlot” (Proverbs 7:10) – for Joseph. “And wily of heart” (Proverbs 7:10) – for Egypt. (Her public persona was modest.) “She is turbulent and rebellious” (Proverbs 7:11) – muttering and confused. (Due to her lust.) “Her feet do not abide in her house” (Proverbs 7:11) – but rather, “sometimes in the street, [sometimes in the squares, she lurks at every corner]” (Proverbs 7:12) – she would ask and say: ‘Have you seen Joseph?’ “She seized him and kissed him” (Proverbs 7:13) – “she seized him by his garment” (Genesis 39:12). “She was brazen and said to him” (Proverbs 7:13) – “lie with me” (Genesis 39:12).

Bereshit Rabbah 87:2

“It was after these matters.” It is written: “Indeed, the rod of wickedness will not rest [lo yanuaḥ]…” (Psalms 125:3) – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana and Rabbi Yitzḥak, Rabbi Abba said: He gets no satisfaction [neyaḥa] in the company of the righteous, but only in the company of the wicked. (The wicked do not get satisfaction from being with the righteous (Yefeh To’ar). Alternatively, the evil inclination does not get satisfaction from being with the righteous (Etz Yosef). ) Why? “Because the righteous will not [set their hands to wrongdoing]” (Psalms 125:3). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: He has no rest [hanaḥa] in the company of the wicked, but only in the company of the righteous. (It is not good for the wicked to be with other wicked people, as they will only increase his wickedness. If he is in the company of the righteous, he will learn from their righteous ways (Yefeh To’ar). ) Why? “Because the righteous will not [set their hands to wrongdoing].” Alternatively, “The rod of wickedness will not rest” – this is Potiphar’s wife; “upon the lot of the righteous” (Psalms 125:3) – this is Joseph.

Bereshit Rabbah 87:3

“His master's wife cast her eyes.” “Therefore, men of heart, hear me” (Job 34:10) – what is the craft of the Holy One blessed be He? “For He pays a person for his action” (Job 34:11) – [as stated by] Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon. (See Bereshit Rabba 84:7, where these Sages state what slanderous reports Joseph brought to Jacob about his brothers. The midrash there asserts that the challenges later faced by Joseph, including his encounter with Potiphar’s wife, was punishment for his slandering his brothers.) “His master's wife cast her eyes” – what is written prior to this matter? “Joseph was of fine form and of fair appearance” (Genesis 39:6). This is analogous to a mighty man who was standing in the street grooming his eyes, curling his hair, and lifting his heels. He said: ‘This is appropriate for me, becoming for me, [as I am] fair and mighty.’ They said to him: ‘If you are mighty, if you are fair, there is a she-bear before you, arise and attack it.’ (Because Joseph was involved in beautifying himself, he was tested by his encounter with the wife of Potiphar, who is compared to the bear. Alternatively, Joseph was very confident in his spiritual abilities, and was therefore tested with this temptation (Nezer HaKodesh). )

Bereshit Rabbah 87:4

“It was after these matters…” – there was a contemplation of matters there. Who contemplated? Joseph contemplated. He said: ‘When I was in Father’s house, Father would see which fine portion was there, and he would give it to me. My brothers would look at me enviously. Now that I am here, I am grateful to You that I have relief.’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Carefree one, as you live, I will incite the she-bear against you.’ Another matter, he said: ‘Father was subjected to ordeals, my grandfather was subjected to ordeals, will I not encounter ordeals?’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘As you live, I will subject you to ordeals greater than theirs.’ Rabbi Menaḥama said in the name of Rabbi Beivai: This was the standard practice of the idolaters: When one of them would acquire slaves, he would go to the astrologer, who would say to him: ‘Behold it is good, a good portent.’ This term, “cast [vatisa],” is nothing other than a term of astrologers, just as it says: “Lest you lift [tisa] your eyes to the heavens [and see the sun and moon and the stars, all the host of the heavens, and you are led astray…]” (Deuteronomy 4:19). “She said: Lie with me” – Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: The wicked are accursed. Elsewhere, “spread your garment over your maidservant” (A more modest approach.) (Ruth 3:9), but this one, like an animal: “she said: Lie with me.”

Bereshit Rabbah 88:1

“It was after these matters; the butler of the king of Egypt and the baker sinned against their master, against the king of Egypt” (Genesis 40:1). “It was after these matters…sinned.” “Deliver me from all my transgressions; do not disgrace me among the scoundrels” (Psalms 39:9) – Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman, Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: The nations of the world were not fit to have anguished and despised individuals in their midst. (Since they are rewarded for their good deeds in this world and punished in the next world, it would have been fitting for them to not have individuals who suffer in this world (Yefeh To’ar). ) Why, then, do they have anguished and despised individuals in their midst? It is so they will not taunt Israel and say to them: ‘You are a nation of anguished and despised people.’ This is in accordance with [the verse]: “Do not disgrace me among the scoundrels.” Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: The nations of the world were not fit to have those who develop scabs in their midst. Why, then, do they have those who develop scabs in their midst? It is so they will not taunt Israel and say to them: ‘Are you not a nation of lepers?’ This is in accordance with [the verse]: “Do not disgrace me among the scoundrels.” Another matter, “deliver me from all my transgressions…” – this is Joseph. Because it is written in his regard: “She called to the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14) – she placed him in the mouths of all of them, (The wife of Potiphar caused everyone to talk about how improper it was that Joseph had received so much from his master and had reciprocated by attempting to seduce his wife.) the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘It is preferable that they turn against one another and not turn against this righteous one.’ That is what is written: “It was after these matters…sinned….” (Genesis 40:1). (God arranged for people to be distracted by the next sensation, the incarceration of the butler and baker. )

Bereshit Rabbah 88:2

The Rabbis say: The butler – a fly was found in his goblet; (A fly was found in the goblet he served to Pharoah. ) the baker – a pebble was found in his loaf. That is what is written: “The butler of the king of Egypt and the baker sinned against their master” – in the service of their master. Rabbi Evyatar said: They sought to consort with the king’s daughter. Here it is stated: “Sinned” and elsewhere it is stated: “[How can I do this wicked thing] and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). (This verse was stated by Joseph as part of his refusal to commit adultery with Potiphar’s wife. )

Bereshit Rabbah 88:3

Rabbi Yuda bar Simon and Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is written: “Come behold the works of the Lord…” (Psalms 46:9) – the Holy One blessed be He caused masters to become angry at their servants to grant prominence to the righteous: “Pharaoh became angry at his servants” (Genesis 41:10) – to grant prominence to Joseph. [And He caused] servants [to become angry] at their masters in order to grant prominence to the righteous: “Bigtan and Teresh became angry” (Esther 2:21) – to grant prominence to Mordekhai. Rabbi Yudan was speaking about these actions of Bigtan and Teresh. Rav said: They placed a short dagger in their shoes. Rabbi Ḥanin said: They prepared an apparatus to strangle him. Shmuel said: They placed serpent’s venom in his cup. “The matter was investigated, and was discovered” (Esther 2:23). The Rabbis say: They placed a fly in his goblet; (This was a poisonous fly (Etz Yosef; cf. Rabbi David Luria). ) immediately, “the matter was investigated, and was discovered.”

Bereshit Rabbah 88:4

“He placed them in custody in the household of the chief executioner, in the prison, the place where Joseph was incarcerated” (Genesis 40:3). “The chief executioner assigned Joseph to them, and he served them, and they were in custody one year” (Genesis 40:4). “They dreamed a dream, both of them, each man his dream during one night, each man in accordance with the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were incarcerated in the prison” (Genesis 40:5). “He placed them in custody…the chief executioner assigned…they dreamed a dream, both of them…” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba said: The dream, and the interpretation of his counterpart’s dream. “Joseph came to them in the morning, and saw them, and, behold, they were distressed” (Genesis 40:6). “They said to him: We dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter for it. Joseph said to them: Are interpretations not for God? Please, relate it to me” (Genesis 40:8). “Joseph came to them…they said…we dreamed a dream…are interpretations not for God?” He attributed the greatness to its Owner.

Esther Rabbah, Petichta 10

Rabbi Berekhya began: “Who acted and accomplished it? He who proclaimed the generations from the beginning; I, the Lord was first and with the last, I am He” (Isaiah 41:4). From the beginning of the creation of the world, the Holy One, blessed be He, instituted for each and every person what is appropriate for him: Adam, head of the created; Cain, head of the killers; Abel, head of the killed; Noah, head of the survivors; Abraham, head of the circumcised; Isaac, head of the bound; Jacob, head of the wholehearted; Judah, head of the tribes; Joseph, head of the pious; Aaron, head of the priests; Moses, head of the prophets; Joshua, head of the conquerors; Otniel, head of the allocators; (He completed the allocation of the tribal portions that Joshua did not allocate in his lifetime.) Samuel, of the anointers; Saul, of the anointed; David, of the musicians; Solomon, head of the builders; Nebuchadnezzar, head of the destroyers; Aḥashverosh, head of the sellers; Haman, head of the buyers; when everyone saw that it was so, they began screaming: ‘Woe [vai];’ “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥashverosh” (Esther 1:1).

Esther Rabbah, Petichta 11

Rabbi Tanḥuma, Rabbi Berekhya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great interpreted in the name of Rabbi Elazar: This midrash came up with us from the Exile. Everyplace that vayhi is stated, it means nothing but trouble. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman interpreted in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: This midrash came into our possession. Everyplace that vayhi bimei is stated, it means nothing but trouble. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: They are five: “It was during the days of [vayhi bimei] Amrafel king of Shinar, Ariokh, king of Elasar, Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal, king of Goyim” (Genesis 14:1). What was the trouble there? “They waged war with Bera, king of Sodom…” (Genesis 14:2). [This is analogous] to the beloved of a king who resided in a province and, for his sake, the king attended to that province. When barbarians came and afflicted him [the beloved of the king], they [the other residents of the province] said: ‘Woe unto us that the king is not attending to the province the way that he once did.’ So too, Abraham our patriarch, the beloved of the Holy One, blessed be He, “all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you” (Genesis 12:4). For his sake, the Holy One blessed be He attended to His entire world. That is what is written: “They returned and came to Ein Mishpat, which is Kadesh” (Genesis 14:7). They sought to afflict only the eye of the world [Abraham]. They sought to blind the eye that acts upon the attribute of justice in the world. ( This probably means that Abraham is responsible for the suppression of the attribute of justice, the result of which is that God rules the world through the attribute of mercy.) “Which is [hi] Kadesh” – Rabbi Aḥa said: Hu [i.e. he rather than she] is written. He [Abraham] sanctified [kiddesh] the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and he went into the fiery furnace. When everyone saw that all the kings came to afflict him, they began screaming: ‘Woe [vai];’ “it was [vayhi] during the reign of Amrafel.” “It was during the days [vayhi bimei] when the judges judged; there was a famine in the land and a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to stay in the field of Moab, he, his wife, and his two sons” (Ruth 1:1). What was the trouble there? “There was a famine in the land.” [This is comparable] to a province that owed a tax to the king, and the king sent a tax collector to collect it. What did the residents of the province do? They suspended him [on a pole] and struck him and extracted it [the money] from him. They said: Woe unto us when the king becomes aware of these matters; we did to the emissary of the king what he sought to do to us. So too, when one of the people of Israel would perform inappropriate actions, they would take him to the judge, and what the judge sought to do to the defendant, the defendant would do to the judge. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: You humiliate your judges; by your lives, I will bring upon you a matter that you are unable to endure. What is that? It is famine, as it is stated: “It was during the days when the judges judged, there was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1). “It was during the days of [vayhi bimei] Aḥaz son of Yotam, son of Uziyahu, king of Judah; Retzin, king of Aram and Pekaḥ, son of Remalyahu, king of Israel, went to war against Jerusalem, but he was unable to make war against it” (Isaiah 7:1). What was the trouble there? It was as it is written: “Aram from the east and the Philistines from the west” (Isaiah 9:11). [This is comparable] to a king who handed his son over to a tutor, and his tutor hated him. He said: If I kill him, I will be condemned to death by the king; instead, I will withhold his nurse from him, and he will die on his own. So too, Aḥaz said: If there are no kids, there are no goats, and if there are no goats there is no flock, and if there is no flock there is no shepherd, and if there is no shepherd, the world cannot exist. So Aḥaz thought and said: If there are no children, there are no adults, and if there are no adults there are no students, if there are no students there are no scholars, if there are no scholars there are no elders, if there are no elders there is no Torah, if there is no Torah there are no synagogues and study halls, if there are no synagogues and study halls, the Holy One, blessed be He, will not rest His Divine Presence in the world. What did he do? He arose and locked all the synagogues and study halls, so that no one would engage in Torah study. That is what is written: “Bind the testimony, seal the Torah in my disciples” (Isaiah 8:16). Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Why was he named Aḥaz? It is because he seized [aḥaz] the synagogues and study halls. Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Aḥa derived it from this verse, as it is written: “I will wait for the Lord, who conceals His face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope for Him” (Isaiah 8:17). There was no time that was as grim for Israel as that time, as it is stated: “I will conceal My face on that day because of all the evil that they did…” (Deuteronomy 31:18). But from that moment I hoped for Him, (A reference to the verse quoted above “I will wait for the Lord, who conceals His face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope for Him” (Isaiah 8:17).) as it is written: “As it will not be forgotten from the mouths of their descendants” (Deuteronomy 31:21). What did you [Aḥaz] accomplish? “Behold, I [Isaiah] and the children whom the Lord gave me are to become signs and wonders in Israel” (Isaiah 8:18). Were they his children? Surely, they were nothing but his students! Rather, from here [we learn] that a person’s student is called his son. Once everyone saw that he seized the synagogues and study halls, they began screaming: Woe [vai]: “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥaz.” “It was during the days of [vayhi bimei] Yehoyakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the exile of Jerusalem in the fifth month” (Jeremiah 1:3). What was the trouble there? “I saw the land, and behold, it is emptiness and disorder; the heavens, and their light is not” (Jeremiah 4:23). [This is comparable] to a king who sent letters from province to province and in each and every province that his letters reached, they would embrace and kiss them, standing on their feet, baring their heads and reading them with reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling. When they reached the king’s province, they read them, ripped them, and burned them. That is what is written: “It was, as Yehudi would read three columns or four,” (Jeremiah 36:23) – three or four verses. When they reached the fifth verse: “Its besiegers are ascendant” (Lamentations 1:5), immediately: “He would cut it with a scribe’s razor and cast it into the fire that was in the fireplace” (Jeremiah 36:23). Once everyone saw that it was so, they began screaming: ‘Woe [vai];’ “it was [vayhi] during the days of Yehoyakim.” “It was during the days of [vayhi bimei] Aḥashverosh; that Aḥashverosh who reigned from India to Kush, one hundred and twenty-seven provinces” (Esther 1:1). What was the trouble there? It was “to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” (Esther 3:13). [This is comparable] to a king who entered a vineyard and encountered three enemies: The first began picking unripe grapes, the second began trimming the clusters, and the third began uprooting vines. So too, wicked Pharaoh began picking unripe grapes; that is what is written: “Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying: Every son who is born you shall cast into the Nile…” (Exodus 1:22). Nebuchadnezzar, may his bones be crushed, began trimming the clusters; that is what is written: “He exiled Yehoyakhin…and the artisans and the smiths, one thousand” (II Kings 24:14). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Yehuda said: One thousand artisans and one thousand smiths; the Rabbis said: One thousand artisans and smiths. Rabbi Yuda son of Rabbi Simon said: These are the Torah scholars. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitzḥak said: These are the notables. Haman the wicked, may he be crushed and wiped out, began uprooting the vines; that is what is written: “To destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” (Esther 3:13). He sought to undermine the foundation of Israel, he wanted to devastate the whole house [of Israel]. Once everyone saw that it was so, they began screaming: ‘Woe [vai];’ “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥashverosh.” Shimon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yonatan said: Everywhere that vayhi is stated it refers to trouble or to joy; if it is to trouble, it is unparalleled trouble, if it is to joy, it is unparalleled joy. Rabban Shmuel bar Naḥman came and suggested a different distinction: Everywhere that it says vayhi (it was), it refers to trouble, everywhere that it says vehaya (it will be), joy. They objected: Is it not written: “God said: Let there be light, and there was [vayhi] light”? He said to them: Even that is not joy, as the world did not merit to use that light. Rabbi Yuda son of Rabbi Simon said: By the light that was created on the first day, a person could look out and see from one end of the world to the other end. When the Holy One, blessed be He, perceived that the generation of Enosh, the generation of the flood, and the generation of the dispersion (after the Tower of Babel) were destined to sin before Him, He arose and concealed it from them. That is what is written: “From the wicked was withheld their light” (Job 38:15). Where did He conceal it? In the Garden of Eden; that is what is written: “Light is sown for the righteous and joy for the upright” (Psalms 97:11). They objected: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as everything that was created on the first day is destined to wither; that is what is written: “As the heavens will be eroded like smoke and the earth will be tattered like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6). They objected: It is written: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, a second day,” “…a third day,” through the sixth day. He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as everything that was created during the six days of Creation requires action, as they were not completely made, e.g. wheat requires grinding, and mustard and lupines require sweetening. They objected: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as that resulted in that bear (Potifar’s wife.) confronting him. They objected: “It was [vayhi] on the eighth day, Moses summoned Aaron and his sons” (Leviticus 9:1). He said to them: That, too, is not good, as on that day, Nadav and Avihu died and all of Israel lamented them, as it is stated: “Your brethren, the entire house of Israel, will lament the burning” (Leviticus 10:6). They objected: “It was [vayhi] on the day that Moses completed assembling the Tabernacle” (Numbers 7:1). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it was put away when the eternal Temple was built. They objected: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joshua” (Joshua 6:27). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as on that day Ya’ir, who was equivalent to the majority of Sanhedrin, was killed; that is what is written: “The men of Ai smote them, about thirty-six men” (Joshua 7:5). Thirty-six men is not written, but rather “like thirty-six;” ( The verse says: “The men of the Ai killed about thirty-six [ki-shloshim ve-shisha] men…” The prepositional ‘ki-’ can designate approximation, “about thirty-six” or comparison, “like thirty-six.”) that is Ya’ir, who was equivalent to the majority of Sanhedrin [of 70 or 71 members]. What is written there? “Joshua rent his garments” (Joshua 7:6). They objected: “David was [vayhi] successful in all his ways” (I Samuel 18:14). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it resulted in what is written: Saul felt enmity to David” (I Samuel 18:9). They objected: “It was [vayhi] when David dwelled in his house” (I Chronicles 17:1). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as on that day, Natan the prophet came and said to him: “It will not be you who builds Me the House” (I Chronicles 17:4). They said to him: We said ours, now you say yours. He said to them, it is written: “It will be [vehaya] on that day, the mountains will drip with nectar and the hills will flow with milk” (Joel 4:18). “It will be [vehaya] on that day that spring water will emerge from Jerusalem” (Zechariah 14:8). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, each man shall keep a calf of the herd and two sheep alive, and from the abundance of milk produced, he will eat butter, for everyone who remains in the midst of the land will eat butter and honey” (Isaiah 7:21-22). “The remnant of Jacob will be [vehaya] among the nations, in the midst of many peoples like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he passes, tramples and mauls, and there is no deliverer” (Micah 5:7). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, that a great shofar will be sounded, and the lost in the land of Assyria and the outcasts in the land of Egypt will come and bow down to the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 27:13). “He will be [vehaya] like a tree planted near streams of water which yields fruit in season; its leaves shall not wither, and whatever he does will prosper” (Psalms 1:3). They objected to him: “And it was [vehaya] when Jerusalem was captured” (Jeremiah 38:28). He said to them: Even that is not trouble but joy, as on that day, Menaḥem (The Messiah.) was born and Israel made penance for its sins, as Rav and Shmuel say: Israel made great penance at the moment that the Temple was destroyed. That is what is written: “Your sin is completed, daughter of Zion” (Lamentations 4:22).

Esther Rabbah, Petichta 9

Rabbi Yuda son of Rabbi Simon began: “From a hypocritical person’s rule; from snares of the people” (Job 34:30). Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When the king is a hypocrite and rules the people, “from snares [mimokeshei] of the people,” it is due to the stubbornness [kashyuteihen] and the liabilities of the people who do not perform the will of the Creator of the world. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is preferable for people to grow themselves wings and fly in the air rather than for them to be turned over and subjugated to a hypocritical king. Alternatively, “from a hypocritical person’s rule,” that is Aḥashverosh, who was hypocritical, who killed his wife because of his friend, and a different time killed his friend because of his wife. Abba Oriyan of Sidon said five things in the name of Rabban Gamliel: When lying judges increase, lying witnesses increase. When informants increase, the property of the people is plundered. When brazenness increases, glory, majesty, and honor are taken from the people. When the actions of beloved children anger their Father in Heaven, He sets over them a hypocritical king who exacts retribution from them. (Abba Oriyan is said to list five things he heard from Rabban Gamliel, and this list contains only four. In Yalkut Shimoni, Esther, 1,044, the following is inserted here: “When the younger says to the elder: I am greater than you, the lives of people are truncated.”) And who is this? It is Aḥashverosh. When everyone saw that it was so, they began screaming; ‘Woe [vai];’ “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥashverosh” (Esther 1:1).

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 14; The Meaning of a Chronological Problem; Connecting Yosef and Yehuda 128

“And she said, ‘Lie with me.’ (Genesis 39:7)

Learning to Read Midrash, Chapter 6; Mashal as Dialectic; Questioning God About the Akeda 20

(12) ‘And it was after these things, the wife of his master lifted up her eyes…’ (Genesis 39:7).

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Nasso 32:1

[(Numb. 7:48:) ON THE SEVENTH DAY IT WAS THE PRINCE OF THE CHILDREN OF EPHRAIM. R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi:] This text is related (to Eccl. 8:4–5): FOR A KING's WORD IS SUPREME…. WHOEVER OBSERVES A COMMANDMENT SHALL NOT KNOW ANYTHING EVIL. And so it says (in II Sam. 23:3–4): THE GOD OF ISRAEL HAS SPOKEN; THE ROCK OF ISRAEL HAS SAID TO ME: ONE WHO RULES OVER A PERSON, WHO RULES RIGHTEOUSLY {IN} THE FEAR OF GOD, Who is this? This is the one who rules over his drive. (See above, Gen. 5:6.) And who was this? this was Joseph, the father of {Manasseh} [Ephraim], the father of the father of Joshua ben Nun. What is written about him (in Gen. 39:7–8)? AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER THESE THINGS THAT HIS MASTER'S WIFE CAST HER EYES UPON JOSEPH…. BUT HE REFUSED…. The Holy One said to him: You did not heed her. By your life I am making you king over Egypt. Then they all shall obey you, as stated (in Gen. 41:55): THEN PHARAOH SAID {UNTO} [TO] ALL EGYPT: GO UNTO JOSEPH. It also says (in vs. 40): YOU SHALL BE OVER MY HOUSE, and the children of my palace (Lat.: praetorium; Gk.: praitorion.) shall do nothing without your consent. So it says (in Gen. 42:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS THE GOVERNOR OVER THE LAND. Because he governed his drive, he became governor over the land. (Gen. 39:2:) AND HE WAS A SUCCESSFUL MAN. It was only necessary to say "righteous man." Why did write SUCCESSFUL MAN? The Holy One said to : You achieved what the first Adam did not achieve. (I.e., unlike Adam, Joseph resisted temptation and overcame his evil drive.) SUCCESSFUL (rt.: TsLH) simply means achievement. Thus it is stated (in II Sam. 19:18): AND THEY CROSSED (rt.: TsLH) THE JORDAN AHEAD OF THE KING. (The context is the successful return of King David to Jerusalem after his forces had achieved the defeat of Absalom. Cf. also Gen. R. 86:4.) The Holy One said to him: No sacrifice by an individual overrides the Sabbath; yet By your life, the sacrifice by your son (Ephraim) will override the Sabbath, because of the good work (mitswah) that you did (in resisting temptation). Ergo (in Numb. 7:48): ON THE SEVENTH DAY IT WAS THE PRINCE OF THE CHILDREN OF EPHRAIM, ELISHAMA BEN AMMIHUD. R. Azariah said: The Holy One said to him, to Joseph, you have kept commandment (mitswah) (from Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17:) YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. So you have fulfilled the Torah before I gave it. No tribe shall come between your two sons. Instead (according to Numb. 7:48) Ephraim on the seventh day; and (according to Numb. 7:54) Manasseh, on the eighth day.

Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 28:1

(Numb. 7:48:) “On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim.” This text is related (to Ps. 60:9), “Gilead is Mine and Manasseh is Mine; Ephraim also is My chief stronghold; Judah is My scepter.” Resh Laqish said, “If the idolaters should say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not enliven the dead, say to them, ‘See here, Elijah bears witness that I enlivened the dead through his hand.’ (Cf. Numb. R. 14:1.) Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), ‘Gilead is mine,’ as Elijah was of the inhabitants of Gilead. (Ibid., cont.:) ‘And Manasseh is Mine.’ If they should say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not receive repentant sinners, say to them, ‘See here, Manasseh bears witness that I received him through repentance, since it is stated (in II Chron. 33:13), “When he (i.e., Manasseh) prayed unto him, He (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He,) granted his request, heard his [entreaty,] and restored him to Jerusalem and to his kingdom […].”’ Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), ‘and Manasseh is Mine.’ (Ibid., cont.:) ‘Ephraim also is My chief stronghold.’ And if they say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not attend to (pqd) barren women, say to them, ‘See here, Elkanah of Mount Ephraim bears witness that I attended to (pqd) his wife Hannah, as stated (in I Sam. 2:21), “For the Lord visited (pqd) hannah; [so she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters].”’ (Ibid., cont.:) ‘Judah is my scepter.’ If they say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not rescue from the fire, say to them, ‘See here, Hananiah and his friends bear witness that I rescued them from the fire, as stated (in Dan. 1:6), “Now among those from the Children of Judah were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.”’ Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), ‘Judah is my scepter.’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 60:9), “Gilead is Mine”: If someone says to you, “Why did Elijah build an altar up on Mount Carmel and sacrifice on it, when the Temple existed at that time? For Moses has said (in Lev. 17:3–4), ‘If any single person from the house of Israel slaughters [an ox, a lamb or a goat in the camp]…, And does not bring it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting [to offer a sacrifice to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord, blood guilt shall be imputed to that person],’” say to him, “Everything that Elijah did, he did for the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and by divine command. (yTa‘an. 2:8 (65d); Lev. R. 22:9.) It is so stated (in I Kings 18:36), ‘And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the oblation (minhah), the prophet Elijah drew near and said […, and that I have done all these things at Your bidding].’” Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), “Gilead is Mine.” (Ibid., cont.:) “And Manasseh is Mine.” If someone says to you, “Why did Gideon sacrifice in a high place (bamah); see here, it was forbidden because there was Shiloh in existence?” [In answer to this question,] R. Abba bar Lahana said, “Gideon did seven [unlawful] things: (yMeg. 1:14 (or 12) (72c); Zev. 14:6; M. Sam. 13; see Tem. 28b-29a.) (1) He sacrificed a bull which had been worshipped, (2) a bull which had been set aside (for idolatry), (3) he built an altar, (4) he cut wood [for it] from the asherah, (5) he sacrificed at night, (6) without the high priest, and (7) he was among idol-serving priests. Yet whatever he did, he did by divine command. It is so stated (in Jud. 6:25-26), ‘And it came to pass during that night that the Lord said to him, “Take the bull ox that belongs to your father […]”’” Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), “and Manasseh is Mine.” (Ibid., cont.:) “Judah is my scepter.” If someone says to you, “See here, David transgressed against a negative commandment,” (Buber, n. 147, suggests that the allusion is to the Bathsheba incident (II Sam. 11). This interpretation is suggested by citation of Ps. 51:15 which follows, since according to the introduction of this Psalm, David wrote it when Nathan came to him to condemn him for the Bathsheba affair. Cf. also Numb. R. 14:1, which alludes in this context to David building an altar and offering sacrifices on a high place (II Sam. 24:18-25 // I Chron. 21:18-26).) the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Say to him, ‘David taught the penitents, like a scribe teaching children.’” It is so stated (in Ps. 51:15), “Let me teach transgressors your ways and the sinners shall return unto You.” Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), “Judah is My scepter. (Ibid.:) “Ephraim also is My chief stronghold.” If someone says to you, “Why did Joshua profane the Sabbath in Jericho,” say to him, “He acted on divine command.” It is so stated (in Joshua 6:2), “Then the Lord said unto Joshua, ‘See, I have given Jericho into your hand […].’” It is also written (in vss. 3-4), “So you shall go around the city […]; thus shall you do for six days. And seven priests […]; but on the seventh day you shall go around the city seven times, [and the priests shall blow on the shofars].’” And how is it shown that it was on the Sabbath? In that there are never seven days without a Sabbath. (See yShab. 1:3 or 8 (4ab); Gen. R. 14:10; Seder Olam Rabbah 11.) Ergo, “Ephraim also is My chief stronghold.” Now Joshua did yet another thing on his own initiative, which was not told to him. When Jericho was conquered, it was Sabbath. He said, “All of the Sabbath is holy, so whatever we conquer on the Sabbath will be holy to the Lord, as stated (in Josh. 6:19), “But all the silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are holy to the Lord […].” R. Berekhyah the Priest Berabbi said, “He treated it like a city condemned (for idolatry), and in the case of a city condemned (for idolatry) it is forbidden [to derive] benefit [from it]. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 13:17), ‘and you shall burn with fire the city with all its plunder, wholly for the Lord your God.’” R. Judah bar Shallum the Levite said, “[Joshua] taught Israel what the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel (in Numb. 15:20), ‘You shall set aside the first of your dough [as a hallah offering].’ Joshua said, ‘In as much as we conquered it first, we shall dedicate all its booty to the most high.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘In as much as you have done so, see, your offering is supporting your tribe and overriding the Sabbath.’ Thus it is stated (in Numb. 7:48), ‘On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim (who made the offering).’” This text is related (to Eccl. 8:4–5), “For a king's word is supreme […]. Whoever observes a commandment shall not know anything evil.” And so it says (in II Sam. 23:3), “The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me, ‘One who governs over a person, who governs righteously the fear of God.” And who is the one who governs over his [evil] drive. (See above, Gen. 5:6.) One who does the will of the Omnipresent. And who is this? This was Joseph, the father of [Ephraim], the father of the father of Joshua ben Nun. What is written about him (in Gen. 39:7–8)? “And it came to pass after these things that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph […]. But he refused […].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You did not heed her. By your life, I am making you king over Egypt. Then they all shall obey you, as stated (in Gen. 41:55), “then Pharaoh said to all Egypt, ‘Go unto Joseph.’” It also says (in vs. 40), “You shall be over my house,” and the children of my palace (Lat.: praetorium; Gk.: praitorion.) shall do nothing without your consent. So it says (in Gen. 42:6), “Now Joseph was the governor over the land.” Because he governed his [evil] drive, he became governor over the land. (Gen. 39:2:) “And he was a successful man. It was only necessary to say "righteous man." Why is “successful man,” written? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to [Joseph], “You achieved what the first Adam did not achieve.” (I.e., unlike Adam, Joseph resisted temptation and overcame his evil drive.) Successful (rt.: tslh) simply means achievement. Thus it is stated (in II Sam. 19:18), “and they crossed (rt.: tslh) the Jordan ahead of the king.” (The context is the successful return of King David to Jerusalem after his forces had achieved the defeat of Absalom. Cf. also Gen. R. 86:4.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “No sacrifice by an individual overrides the Sabbath; yet by your life, the sacrifice by your son (Ephraim) will override the Sabbath, because of the good work (mitswah) that you did (in resisting temptation).” Ergo (in Numb. 7:48), “On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim, Elishama ben Ammihud.” R. Azariah said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, [i.e.] to Joseph, ‘You have kept the commandment (mitswah) (from Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), of “You shall not commit adultery.” So you have fulfilled the Torah before I gave it. By your life, no tribe shall come between your two sons with a sacrifice. Instead (according to Numb. 7:48) Ephraim [shall bring an offering] on the seventh day; and (according to Numb. 7:54) Manasseh, on the eighth day.’” R. Meir and R. Joshua ben Qorhah were interpreting the names, “Elishama [means], he (Joseph) heeded (shama') my God (Eli), and he did not heed his mistress. Ben Ammihud (‘MYHWD) means, His glory (HWDW) was with me (‘MY) and not with another. Similarly also in the case of (Numb. 7:54), Gamaliel ben Pedahzur [prince of the Children of Manasseh, means that] Joseph said, God (El) has recompensed (gamal) my people with a good recompense (gemulim).’ Ben pedahzur (pdhtswr) means, the Rock (tswr) redeemed (pdh) me from my distress of the prison. And so is it written (according to Ps. 18:21), ‘The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the purity of my hands…’” R. Samuel bar Abba said, “What is the meaning of ‘according to the purity of my hands?’ According to the purity of my hands, because I was pure through good works.” (yTa’an. 3:12 (or 10) (67a).) (Ps. 18:21:) “The Lord rewarded me.” How? When someone is poor, he trusts in the Holy One, blessed be He; but when he [becomes] wealthy, he trusts in his wealth and has no fear of [God]. However, when Joseph was a slave, he feared the Lord. When his mistress enticed him with words, he said to her (in Gen. 39:9), “then how shall I do this great evil and sin against God?” Also when he became king he added [to his] fear [of the Holy One, blessed be He], as stated (in Gen. 42:18), “And Joseph said to them on the third day, ‘Do this and live, for I fear God.’” And when his brothers came down to him a second time (according to Gen. 43:16), “When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, [he said… ‘Slaughter and prepare (wehakhen) an animal, for the men will eat with me at noon].’” (Because this verse uses the word, wehakhen, and because the same word also occurs in Exod. 16:5, it is assumed that the conditions of Exod. 16:5 apply here to Gen. 43:16.) Now surely it is not customary for kings to prepare [food] one day ahead for the next. R. Johanan said, “It was the Sabbath, as stated (in Gen 42:16, ‘and prepare.’ And prepare only means [preparation for] the Sabbath, as stated (in Exod. 16:5), ‘And it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that when they prepare.’” (Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Beshallah, 1; Numb. R. 14:2; TDER 24 (or 26), p. 131.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You have kept the Sabbath before it was given. By your life, I will have the son of your son offer [his sacrifice] on the Sabbath day, as stated (in Numb. 7:48), “On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim.”

Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 9:1

And it was on the eighth day: Rabbi Tanchuma, Rabbi Chiya, Rabbah and Rabbi Berakhiya in the name of Rabbi Elazar [all] said, "Any place that it is stated, 'and it was (vayehi),' it is nothing but a term of grief [hinting to the sound, (vay), meaning woe]." Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Natan, "This midrash came up to our hands from the exile - 'Any place that it is stated, "and it was in the days of," it is nothing but a term of grief.'" And there are five: (1) "And it was in the days of Amrafel" (Genesis 14:1). What grief was there over there? They made a war to kill Avraham, our father, as it is stated (Genesis 14:2), "made war." [It is comparable] to a dear friend of a king who entered a province, and on his account was the king [concerned] about that whole province. [Then people] came and grappled with him with words. And when he wanted to leave, they all said to him, "Woe that the king will no longer be concerned about the province as he was." So [too,] was Avraham a dear friend of the Holy One, blessed be He - as it is written about him (Isaiah 41:8), "the seed of Avraham, My dear one"; and it is written (Genesis 12:3), "and through you shall all the families of the world be blessed." And when the kings came and grappled with him, they all said, "Woe that the Holy One, blessed be He, will not be concerned with the world as He was; since He was concerned with the world for his sake." This is [the meaning of] that which the verse stated (Genesis 14:7), "And they came to Ein Mishpat (which can be understand as the eye of justice)" - Rabbi Acha said, "They sought to grapple with no less than the eyeball of the world." They said, "They sought to blind the eye that [suppressed] the trait of [strict] judgment in the world." [The verse continues -] "It (hee) is Kadesh," [but] it is written, "he (hu) is Kadesh"; meaning to say, he sanctified (hu kidesh) the name of the Holy One, blessed be He and went down to the fiery furnace. When they saw that the things were like this, they cried out. (2) "And it was in the days of Achaz the son of Yoshiah, King of Yehudah" (Isaiah 7:1). What grief was there over there? "It is what is stated by the verse (Isaiah 9:11), "Aram is in front and the Philistines are behind, etc." [It is comparable] to a king that gave his son over to a mentor, and the mentor hated him. He said, "If I kill him, I will become liable for death. Rather, I will take away his nourishment from him and he will die on his own." So did the evil Achaz say, "If there are no goats, there will be no rams; if there is no flock, there will be no shepherd, [and] where will the world be?" So did he say, "If there are no masters, there will be no students; if there are no students, there will be no sages; if there is no Torah, there will be no synagogues and study halls." What did he do? He passed all the synagogues and study halls and sealed them. And this [is the meaning of] that which the verse states (Isaiah 8:16), "Bind up the message; seal the instruction with My disciples." And when they saw that the things were like this, they all started to cry out, "Woe that the world is being destroyed" - when [study of] the Torah was negated, that was in the days of Achaz. (3) "And it was in the days of Yehoyakim the son of Yoshiyahu" (Jeremiah 1:3). What grief was there over there? "I looked at the earth, and behold it was empty and void; at the heavens and their light was not" (Jeremiah 4:23), [It is comparable] to edicts of the kings that were brought to the provinces of the kingdom. In each and every province, when it came to their hands, everyone would stand on their feet, uncover their heads and read them with fear, trembling and perspiration. But when they were brought to the province of the king, they tore them up and burned them: When the Holy One, blessed be He, sends His messenger to the nations of the world, they repent, cover themselves in sackcloth and fast - as did the people of Nineveh, as it is stated (Jonah 3:7), "from the order of the king and his principals, etc." They, may their memory be blessed, said, "One who had a beam or a stone that was stolen in his house would destroy the house and remove it and return the theft." And because of this did Yonah fear to prophesy to Nineveh. As Rabbi Tarfon said, "The fish was designated, etc." And the nations of the world are afraid in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, and [so, they are] close to repentance, whereas Israel is stiff-necked. This is what the verse stated (Jeremiah 36:23), "And it was when Yehudi would read three columns or four" - meaning to say, he read four verses - and in the fifth verse, he read, "And her tormentors became the head" (Lamentations 1:5) - and it is is written (Jeremiah 36:23), "he would tear it with a scribe's blade and throw it into the fire until the end of all of the scroll." And when they saw this, everyone began to cry out, "Woe for the decree that is hanging over us." And the other (4) - "And it was in the days of Achashverosh" (Esther 1:1). What grief was there over there? [It is comparable] to a king that had a vineyard, and he had three enemies. What did they do? One cut the small berries, the second ripped the clusters and the third uprooted the vines: The king is King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He; His vineyard is Israel, as it is stated (Isaiah 5:7), "For a vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the House of Israel"; [And] their three enemies are Pharaoh, Nevukhadnetsar and Haman. Pharaoh began with the small berries, as it is stated (Exodus 1:22), "Any son that is born, throw him into the river." Nevukhadnetsar ripped the clusters, as it is stated (Jeremiah 29:2), "the craftsmen and the smiths." Who are the craftsmen (charash)? These are the ones that pray the mute prayer silently, and are victorious with their prayer over all the nations of the world. The smiths? That all the nations of the world come in a vice in front of them but [then] flee, as they put a vice on all the nations - and Nevukhadnetsar come to destroy them; and he destroyed the craftsmen and the smiths, and exiled them. The evil Haman [then] came [to] uproot the vines, as it is stated (Esther 3:13), "to annihilate, to kill and to destroy." Everyone began to cry out, "Woe," and they mourned in front of the Omnipresent. (5) "And it was in the days when the judges ruled" (Ruth 1:1) - there was famine there; and what grief is greater than famine? And from where [do we know] that there was famine? As it is stated (Ruth 1:1), "and there was a famine in the land." And why was there a famine? Because Israel and the judges were not judging true judgement; as it is is stated, "And it was in the days when the judges ruled" - [and] we find [following it], "he", which indicates evildoers. [As] so do we find, "he was Datan and Aviram" (Numbers 26:9); "he was Achashverosh" (Esther 1:1); "he was [...] Achaz" (II Chronicles 28:22). So too were the judges. And to what is the matter comparable? To a province that was liable a tax to the king. [So] he sent collectors to collect it. The people of the province rose and smote the collectors and hung them. The judgment that they were liable - as they appointed other judges for themselves - they did to the collectors. So did they do at that time, as Elimelekh would judge the judges; [since] he was a strongman and there were many men below him. He saw the distress and the famine, but he did not warn the sinners to repent from their evil. And he stopped living in Beit Lechem for himself to live in the field of Moav - to sustain his soul during the famine, and the soul of his wife during the famine, and the soul of his sons; and he did not know that [it is] the Torah that sustains its masters and not the vanities of the world. And he was one who was important, as it is stated (Ruth 1:1), "and a man went from Beit Lechem, Yehudah." And we only say, "man," about an important man, as it is stated (Numbers 12:3), "And the man, Moshe, was very humble." As Elimelekh was an important man, as they would consider him [so] in his place - and [yet] he went to save his soul and the soul of his household, and did not trouble himself about the matters of the community; even as he was an important man and they would have believed his words, [such as] to make them repent from their evil and bring them to repentance. And therefore, it occurred to him as it is written in the verse (Ruth 1:3), "And Elimelekh, the husband of Naomi died." And so [too,] his sons died, as it is stated (Ruth 1:5), "And [...his] two [sons,] Machlon and Khilyon died, and the woman survived her two children and her husband." As so were they judging their judges, like Sodom. Rabbi Shimon ben Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "Any place that it is stated, 'and it was (vayehi),' it is used for grief and it is used for joy. And when for grief, there is no grief like it, and when for joy, there is no joy like it." (The text is missing the following integral part of the midrash, found in Bereishit Rabbah 42:3 and other places: Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman came and divided it, "Any place that it is stated 'it will be,' it is used for joy; [but] 'and it was' [is for] grief.") The Sages responded, "Behold 'And God said, "Vayehi (here used as a command form, and not past tense) light"' [is] joy!" He said to them, "It too is not of joy, as the world did not merit to use that light. As so did Rabbi Yehudah bar Simon say, '[Regarding] the light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day, Adam [could] look and observe from [one] end of the world to the [other] end. [But] since the Holy One, blessed be He, saw the deeds of the generation of Enosh and the generation of the flood, He arose and hid it from them. That is [the meaning of] what the verse states (Job 38:15), "From the wicked is their light withheld." And to where is it hidden? [It is] in the Garden of Eden, for the righteous ones, as it is stated (Psalms 97:11), "Light is sown for the righteous, and joy for the straight-hearted."'" They responded to him further, "It states, 'And it was evening and it was morning, one day.'" He said to them, "On that day too, it is not of joy, as all the acts of the first day are destined to wither, as it is stated (Isaiah 51:6), 'when the heavens melt away like smoke and the earth wither like a garment.'" They responded to him, "Behold, the [acts of] the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day." He said to them, "They too are not of joy, as all the acts of the six days of creation require further action - for example, wheat needs to be ground; mustard needs to be mellowed; lupine need to be mellowed." They responded to him, "[And what about,] 'And it was that the Lord was with Yosef and he was a successful man' (Genesis 39:7)?" He said to them, "It too is not of joy, as that 'bear' chanced upon him from this, as it is stated in the verse, 'after' - 'And it was after these things, and the wife of his master raised, etc.' (Genesis 39:7)." They responded to him, "[And what about,] 'And it was that the Lord was with Yehoshua, and his reputation was in all the land' (Joshua 6:27)?" He said to them, "It too is not of joy, as Yair the son of Menashe, whose weight corresponded to the majority of the Sanhedrin, fell at that time; as it is stated (Joshua 7:5), 'And the men of Ai smote of them, like thirty-six men' - and the master said, 'That is Yair the son of Menashe, whose weight corresponded to the majority of the Sanhedrin.'" They responded to him, "And is it not written (I Samuel 18:14), 'And it was that David was successful in all of his ways and the Lord was with him'?" He said to them, "It too is not of joy, as enmity descended into the heart of Shaul from this, as it is stated (I Samuel 18:9), 'And it was that Shaul eyed David.'" They responded to him, "And is it not written (II Samuel 7:1), 'And it was when the king sat in his house and the Lord allowed him rest from all of his enemies'?" He said to them, "It too is not of joy, as on that same day, Natan the prophet came to David and said to him, 'However you will not build the House' (I Kings 8:19)." They said to him, "Behold, we have said what is ours; [now] say what is yours - that 'and it will be' is joy." He said to them, "'And it will be on that day that the mountains will drip with nectar' (Joel 4:18), that will be in the days of the messiah, and there will be great joy for Israel. And so [too,] 'And it will be on that day that a man shall save alive a heifer of the herd and two sheep' (Isaiah 7:21). And so [too,] 'And it will be on that day that living waters will come out from Jerusalem' (Zechariah 14:8). And so [too,] 'And he will be like a tree planted over streams of water' (Psalms 1:3). And so [too,] 'And the remnant of Yaakov will be among many nations' (Micah 5:6)." They said to him, "But behold, it is written (Jeremiah 38:28), 'vahaya (here used in the past tense, and not like the other examples) when Jerusalem was captured'!" He said to them, "It too is not of grief, as on that day was the verdict of Israel for their sins taken; as so is it written (Lamentations 4:22), 'Your sin has been completed, Daughter of Zion, He will not again exile you.'"

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 5:2

Our sages inform us that on one occasion Potiphar’s wife assembled a number of Egyptian women so that they might see how very handsome Joseph was. But before she summoned Joseph she gave each of them an ethrog and a knife. When they saw Joseph’s handsome countenance, they cut their hands. She said to them: “If this can happen to you, who see him only once, how much more so does it happen to me, who must look at him constantly.” Each day she strove to entice him with words, but he suppressed his evil inclination. Whence do we know this? From what we read in the section: His master’s wife cast her eyes upon him (Gen. 39:7).

Midrash Tehillim 7:2

Thoughts on David. Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Levi that three things came out of David's mouth regarding Saul, and all three were fulfilled. As it is said (1 Samuel 26:10), "As the Lord lives, the Lord shall strike him." And so it was. Either his day will come and he will die, and so it was. Or he will go down in battle and perish, and so it was, as it is said (1 Samuel 31:6), "So Saul died, and his three sons." Rabbi Elazar said, "By the life of the Lord, I swear to the evil inclination that I will not do this thing." Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said to Avishai ben Tzeruya, "By the life of the Lord, if you touch the blood of the righteous, I will mix your blood with his." And Saul had a concubine, as it is written (2 Samuel 3:7), "And David took more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem." And you compare yourself to Saul. Saul's feet were as swift as eagles; Rabbi Levi said he could travel sixty miles in one day. Rabbi Simon said "One hundred and twenty," and the rabbis say "One hundred and eighty." And when was this? When the Ark was captured. This is as it is written (1 Samuel 4:10-11), "And a man of Benjamin ran from the battle line and came to Shiloh the same day, with his clothes torn and with dirt on his head. When he arrived, there was Eli sitting on his chair by the side of the road, watching, because his heart feared for the ark of God. When the man entered the city and told what had happened, the whole city sent up a cry." Just as Saul was compared to the man of Benjamin who ran to Shiloh, so too, a person who goes to a party should not bring his children with him because of appearances. But Saul went to war, and he knew that the judgment of the law would fall upon him, and he brought his children with him. And you say (2 Samuel 21:17), "You shall go out no more with us to battle." Saul ate non-sacred food in purity, as it is stated (1 Samuel 9:23-24), "The cook took up the thigh and what was attached to it, and set it before Saul. And Samuel said, 'This is what has been kept for you. Eat, because it was set aside for you for this occasion, from the time I said, "I have invited guests."' And Saul ate with Samuel that day." Rabbi Yochanan says the thigh and the tail. Rabbi says the thigh and the breast. He ate non-sacred food in purity, and you compare yourself to Saul. This is what the Scripture says (Job 12:16), "With Him is strength and wisdom; the deceived and the deceiver are His." Strength refers to Torah, as it is stated (Psalms 29:11), "The Lord will give strength to His people." Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, "Why is it called wisdom? Because it gives strength to the body and the eyes." What is meant by (Job 12:16), "The deceived and the deceiver are His"? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, "Prophets and prophetesses." Rabbi Shimon said "Shetia" and the Rabbis said "Sega". If a person makes a mistake in Torah study, the words of Torah correct him. This is what the verse means when it says, "Even though I have erred, the teaching has not strayed from me" (Job 6:10). It is not enough that the Torah waits for a person during his lifetime, it also waits for him at the moment of his death. David requested "Let my soul be redeemed from distress" (Psalms 25:17). Regarding the words of Kush the Benjamite, Rabbi Chanina bar Papa said, "Just as Joseph's mistress summoned him, as it says, 'Lie with me' (Genesis 39:7), so too did the Holy One, blessed be He, summon him, as it says, 'Come to me, the Hebrew slave' (Genesis 39:17). Similarly, Saul said, 'My sons have stirred up my servants against me to ambush me' (1 Samuel 22:8). Rabbi Acha said, "But isn't it true that someone who commits an abomination is not punished? So why did David say this about Saul?" It is because he sang a song to God, as it is written, "In the falling of your enemy, do not rejoice" (Proverbs 24:17).

Ruth Rabbah, Petichta 7

Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great, and Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Elazar: This midrash came up with us from the Exile: (From Babylonia. Presumably, this is a way of stating that it is an ancient tradition.) Any place that “It was [vayhi]” is stated, [it alludes to] trouble. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great: Any place that “It was [vayhi]” is stated, it can serve [to allude to] either trouble or joy. If it is trouble, there is none like it. If it is joy, there is none like it. Rabbi Shmuel said: There are five [instances of] “during the days of [bimei].” “It was [vayhi] during the days of [bimei] Amrafel” (Genesis 14:1) – what was the trouble there? They waged a war. [It is analogous] to the friend of a king who was located in a certain province. Because of him, the king took care of the province. One time, barbarians came and beset him [the king’s friend]. They say: Woe for us, the king will no longer care for the province as he had done. Likewise, the entire world was created only due to the merit of Abraham our patriarch; that is what is written: “They turned back and came to Ein Mishpat, (Ein Mishpat literally means ‘eye of justice’.) which is [hi] Kadesh” (Genesis 14:7). Rabbi Aḥa said: They came to beset the eyeball of the world. (Abraham.) The eye that overcame the attribute of justice in the world you seek to blind? (The midrash is rhetorically addressing the kings that attacked Abraham.) “Which is [hi] Kadesh” – Rabbi Aḥa said: Hu Kadesh. (The word hi, meaning ‘which is,’ is spelled with a vav as the middle letter, which could be read as the masculine hu. The midrash is reading hi Kadesh as hu kidesh, he sanctified.) He [Abraham] sanctified [kidesh] the name of the Holy One blessed be He in the fiery furnace. (See Tanḥuma, Lekh Lekha 6.) When everyone saw that all the kings came to beset him, they began screaming: Woe [vai]; that is, “It was [vayhi] during the reign of Amrafel.” “It was during the days of Aḥaz” (Isaiah 7:1) – what was the trouble there? “Aram from the east and the Philistines from the west” (Isaiah 9:11) – [it is analogous] to the son of a king who had a tutor who sought to kill him. He [the tutor] said: If I kill him, I will be condemned to death by the king; instead, I will withhold his wet nurse from him, and he will die on his own. So did Aḥaz say: If there are no kids, there are no rams, and if there are no rams there is no flock, and if there is no flock there is no shepherd. So Aḥaz thought to say: If there are no children, there are no adults, and if there are no adults there are no students, if there are no students there are no scholars, if there are no scholars, there are no synagogues and study halls, if there are no synagogues and study halls, the Holy One blessed be He, as it were, cannot rest His Divine Presence in the world. Therefore, I will seize all the synagogues and study halls. That is what is written: “Bind the testimony, seal the Torah in my disciples” (Isaiah 8:16). Rabbi Ḥanina said: Why was he named Aḥaz? It is because he seized [aḥaz] the synagogues and study halls. Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Avin: Isaiah said: “I will wait for the Lord, who conceals His face from the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 8:17). There was no time that was as difficult for Israel as that time, as it is stated: “I will conceal My face” (Deuteronomy 31:18) – in this world. But from that moment, “I hoped for Him” (Isaiah 8:17), as it is written: “As it will not be forgotten from the mouths of their descendants” (Deuteronomy 31:21). Was it [this verse] fulfilled for him [Isaiah]? “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me” (Isaiah 8:18) – were they his [Isaiah’s] children? Were they not his students? It teaches that they were as dear to him as his sons. Once everyone saw that he seized the synagogues and study halls, they began screaming: Woe [vai]: that is, “It was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥaz.” “It was during the days of Yehoyakim” (Jeremiah 1:3) – what was the trouble there? “I saw the land, and behold, it is emptiness and disorder, and the heavens, and their light is not” (Jeremiah 4:23) – [it is analogous] to a king who sent a proclamation to a province. What did the residents of the province do to it? They took it, ripped it, and burned it in fire. They said: Woe to us when the king becomes aware of these matters. That is what is written: “It was, as Yehudi would read three columns or four” (Jeremiah 36:23) – three or four verses. When he reached the fifth verse: “Its besiegers are ascendant” (Lamentations 1:5), (This is the fifth verse of the first chapter of Lamentations.) immediately: “He would cut it with a scribe’s razor and cast it into the fire that was in the fireplace, until the end of the scroll, upon the fire that was in the fireplace” (Jeremiah 36:23). Once they saw that it was so, they began screaming: Woe [vai]; that is, “it was [vayhi] during the days of Yehoyakim.” “It was during the days of Aḥashverosh” (Esther 1:1) – what was the trouble there? [It was] “to kill, and to eliminate all the Jews” (Esther 3:13). [It is analogous] to a king who entered a vineyard and three enemies beset him: The first began picking unripe grapes, the second began trimming the clusters, and the third sought to uproot all the vines. Likewise, the wicked Pharaoh begin picking the unripe grapes; that is what is written: “[Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying:] Every son who is born you shall cast into the Nile” (Exodus 1:22). The wicked Nebuchadnezzar began trimming the clusters; that is what is written: “[He exiled Yehoyakhin.…] and the artisans and the smiths, one thousand” (II Kings 24:15–16). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Yehuda said: One thousand artisans and one thousand smiths; Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All of them were one thousand. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitzḥak said: These are the notables. Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Simon said: These are the Torah scholars. Haman the wicked sought to uproot the entire egg; (Egg, in the sense of the very origins of Israel.) [as] they say buy [the hen] with the egg (A aphorism meaning that he sought to complete the task, leaving no future.) – “to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” (Esther 3:13). When they saw that it was so, they began screaming: Woe [vai]; “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥashverosh.” “It was during the days when the judges judged” (Ruth 1:1) – what was the trouble there? “There was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1) – [it is analogous] to a province that owed a tax to the king. What did the king do? He sent a tax collector to collect it. What did the residents of the province do? They took him, struck him, and extracted it [the money] from him. They said: What he sought to do to us we did to him. Likewise, during the days when the judges judged, an Israelite person would worship idols, and a judge would seek to bring him to trial, and he would come and flog the judge. He would say: What he sought to do to me, I did to him. Woe unto a generation whose judges are judged; (The midrash is reading the verse to mean that it was in the days that the judges were judged, i.e. punished.) that is, “It was during the days when the judges judged.” Shimon bar Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Everywhere that it [“it was,” vayhi] is stated, [it alludes to] trouble or to joy; if trouble, there is no trouble like it, if joy, there is no joy like it in the world. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman came and suggested a [different] distinction: Everywhere that it says, “it was [vayhi],” [it alludes to] trouble, everywhere that it says “it will be [vehaya],” joy. But it is written: “God said: Let there be light, and there was [vayhi] light.” He said to them: Even that is not light of joy, as the world did not merit to use that light. By the light that was created on the first day, a person could look out and see from one end of the world to the other end. When He perceived that the wicked were destined to appear, like the generation of Enosh, the generation of the Flood, and the generation of the Dispersion, (After the Tower of Babel.) and like the people of Sodom, He took it [the light] away. That is what is written: “From the wicked their light is withheld” (Job 38:15). He sequestered it for the righteous in the future, as it is stated: “Light is sown for the righteous” (Psalms 97:11). They objected to him: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as the heavens are destined to wither; that is what is written: “As the heavens will be eroded like smoke” (Isaiah 51:6). They objected to him: Is it not written: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, a second day.… third.… fourth.… fifth.… sixth” (Genesis 1:8–31). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as everything that was created during the six days of Creation requires action, e.g., it is necessary to sweeten mustard, lupines must be sweetened, and wheat requires grinding. But it is written: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it is written: “For they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). But it is written: “It was [vayhi] on the day that Moses completed [assembling the Tabernacle]” (Numbers 7:1). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it was sequestered when the Temple was built, as it is stated: “Moses was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting” (Exodus 40:35). (The verse does not seem to be related to the point. Perhaps it is brought to communicate that even on the day that the construction of the Tabernacle was completed, the celebration was tempered by the fact that Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting.) But it is written: “It was [vayhi] when Joshua was [at Jericho]” (Joshua 5:13). He said to them: That too is not joy, as Joshua rent his garments, as it is stated: “Joshua rent his garments” (Joshua 7:6). (After the setback at Ai.) But it is written: “It was [vayhi] on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1). (The day of the dedication of the Temple.) He said to them: That too is not joy, as on that day Nadav and Avihu died. (See Leviticus 10:1–2.) But it is written: “It was [vayhi] when the king (David.) dwelled in his house” (II Samuel 7:1). He said to them: That too was not joy, as it was then that Natan the prophet came and said to him: “However, you will not build the House” (I Kings 8:19). They said to him: We said ours, now you say yours. (Prove that every place it says vehaya it is an expression of joy.) He said to them: It is written: “It will be [vehaya] on that day, the mountains will drip with nectar” (Joel 4:18). “It will be [vehaya] on that day that spring water will emerge [from Jerusalem]” (Zechariah 14:8). “It will be on that day that the Lord will set His hand again the second time, [to recover the remnant of His people]” (Isaiah 11:11). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, each man shall keep [a calf of the herd and two sheep] alive” (Isaiah 7:21). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, that a great shofar will be sounded, [and they will come…and bow down to the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem]” (Isaiah 27:13). “It will be that one who is left in Zion and he that remains in Jerusalem [will be called holy]” (Isaiah 4:3). They objected to him: It is written: “And it was [vehaya] when Jerusalem was captured” (Jeremiah 38:28). He said to them: Even that is not trouble but joy, as on that day, Israel made complete penance for their iniquities, on the day that the Temple was destroyed. Conclusion of the prologue to Rut Rabba

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 2:16:2

“Who herds among the lilies,” Rabbi Yoḥanan was afflicted and suffered from a fever for three and a half years. Rabbi Ḥanina ascended to visit him. He said to him: ‘How much are you [suffering]?’ He said to him: ‘I am [suffering] more that I can bear.’ He said to him: ‘Do not say that. Rather, say: Faithful God.’ When his suffering was difficult for him, he would say: ‘Faithful God.’ When his suffering was more difficult than he could bear, Rabbi Ḥanina would ascend and say something for him, and his soul would be restored. (Rabbi Ḥanina would recite an incantation that would give Rabbi Yoḥanan relief (Matnot Kehuna).) Sometime later, Rabbi Ḥanina fell ill. Rabbi Yoḥanan ascended to visit him. He said to [Rabbi Ḥanina]: ‘How much are you [suffering]?’ [Rabbi Ḥanina] said to him: ‘How difficult is the suffering!’ He said to [Rabbi Ḥanina]: ‘And how great is their reward!’ [Rabbi Ḥanina] said to him: ‘I want neither them nor their reward.’ He said to [Rabbi Ḥanina]: ‘Why do you not say that word that you would say for me, and which restored my soul?’ [Rabbi Ḥanina] said: ‘When I was on the outside, I was responsible for others. Now that I am on the inside, do I not require someone else to be responsible for me?’ He said to [Rabbi Ḥanina]: ‘It is written: “Who herds among the lilies.” The rod of the Holy One blessed be He comes often only upon people whose hearts are soft as lilies.’ (God brings suffering upon people who are able to accept God’s decree with love (Matnot Kehuna).) Rabbi Elazar said: [This is analogous] to an owner who had two cows, one that had great strength and one that had minimal strength. Which one does he exert? Is it not the one that has great strength? So too, the Holy One blessed be He does not subject the wicked to ordeals. Why? Because they would not be able to withstand it, as it is written: “But the wicked are like the troubled sea” (Isaiah 57:20). Whom does He subject to an ordeal? The righteous, as it is stated: “The Lord will test the righteous” (Psalms 11:5); “It was after these matters that God subjected Abraham to an ordeal” (Genesis 22:1); “It was after these matters that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph” (Genesis 39:7). Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: A flax worker, when his flax is hard, he does not beat it very much. Why? Because it will break. When his flax is fine, the more he beats it, the more it improves. So too, the Holy One blessed be He does not subject the wicked to ordeals, as they cannot withstand it, but he subjects the righteous to ordeals, as it is stated: “The Lord will test the righteous.” Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A potter, when he checks his kiln, does not check with the flimsy jugs. Why? Because if he would tap on them they would break. With which does he check? With the sturdy jugs, as even were he to tap on them several times, they would not break. So too, the Holy One blessed be He does not subject the wicked to ordeals. Whom does He subject to ordeals? The righteous, as it is stated: “The Lord will test the righteous.”

Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 145:17

“…that he did not obey her…” (Bereshit 39:10) Rebbe said: he listened to her but the Holy One brought the likeness of his father and he was embarrassed and fled. The second time he went in (to her) the Holy One lifted up the foundation stone and said to him, ‘if you touch her, behold I will throw it down and destroy the world!’ This is what is written, “…and his arms were gilded from the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob; from there he sustained the rock of Israel.” (Bereshit 49:24) R’ Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of R’ Yochanan: anyone who does one commandment in this world, it precedes him and goes before home in the World to Come as it says, “…and your righteousness shall go before you…” (Isaiah 58:8) and anyone who transgresses one transgression in this world it clings to him and goes before him to the Day of Judgement as it says, “The paths of their way are held [by them]; they go up in waste and are lost.” (Job 6:18)

Mishnah

Those liable to receive karet who were flogged are exempt from punishment, as atonement is achieved through flogging; performing mitzvot yields greater reward than punishment for transgressions; abstaining from sins one desires yields great reward, as seen in abstaining from blood consumption.

Mishnah Makkot 3:15

All those liable to receive karet who were flogged are exempted from their punishment of karet, as it is stated: “And your brother shall be debased before your eyes” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating: Once he is flogged he is as your brother, as his sin has been atoned and he is no longer excised from the Jewish people; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel says: And if for one who performs one transgression his soul is taken for it, as one’s soul can be uprooted from the world for one transgression, for one who performs a single mitzva, it is all the more so the case that his soul will be given to him, as the reward for performing mitzvot is greater than the punishment for performing transgressions. Rabbi Shimon says: It is derived from its own place in the Torah, as it is stated at the conclusion of the passage discussing intercourse with forbidden relatives, which is punishable with karet: “And the souls that perform them shall be excised” (Leviticus 18:29), and it states toward the beginning of that chapter: “That a person shall perform and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is inferred that with regard to one who sits and did not perform a transgression, God gives him a reward like that received by one who performs a mitzva. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that as the verse states: “Only be steadfast to not eat the blood, as the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23), it can be derived a fortiori: And if with regard to the blood, which a person’s soul loathes, one who abstains from its consumption receives a reward for that action, as it is written in a subsequent verse: “You shall not eat it, so that it shall be good for you and for your children after you” (Deuteronomy 12:25); then concerning robbery and intercourse with forbidden relatives, which a person’s soul desires and covets, one who abstains from their performance and overcomes his inclination, all the more so that he and his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations will merit a reward.

Musar

Joseph's beauty led him to preen his hair, causing God to incite his master's wife against him, resulting in Joseph being placed in prison (Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:23).

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:23

(Bereshith 39:6): "And Joseph was beautiful in from and in appearance": As Rashi explains it, once he saw himself elevated, he began preening his hair, at which the Holy One Blessed be He said to him: "Your father is in mourning and you preen your hair! I will incite the 'bear' against you," whereupon (Ibid. 7): "And it was, after these things, that the wife of his master, etc." and Heaven contrived to have him placed in the prison house.

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that Joseph was punished for reporting negative things about his brothers, as seen in their treatment of animals, handmaids, and accusations of immorality. Ibn Ezra discusses the elongated imperative form of "sell me" in Hebrew and the significance of the birthright in Genesis. The German commentary references Joseph in Genesis 39 as an example of someone who resisted temptation and did not sin.

German Commentary on Mishnah Makkot 3:15:7

der da sitzt und keine Sünde begeht. Nach dem Talmud (Kidduschin 39 b) ist hier die Rede von Einem, der Gelegenheit hatte, eine Sünde zu begehen, aber seine Begierde bezwang und nicht sündigte, wie Joseph (Gen. 39, 7 ff.).

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:31:1

SELL ME. Mikhrah (sell me) is vocalized with a chirik, (Mikhrah (sell me) is an elongated imperative, the usual imperative of sell being mekhor. The rule in Hebrew grammar is that when a word in the kal follows the efol, vocalization of its elongated imperative is written with a kamatz katan, i.e., zekhor (remember) is elongated like zokhrah (Neh. 5:19), and shemor (keep) to shomrah (Ps. 25:20). Hence mekhor should become mokhrah. I.E. points out that even though mekhor follows the efol conjugation, it is elongated as an efal. In the latter, the elongated imperative is vocalized with a chirik (Cherez).) like shilchah (send) in Send (shilchah) the lad (Gen. 43:8) and shikhvah (lie) in Lie (shikhvah) with me (Gen. 39:7. (These words are conjugated in the efal and are thus vocalized with a chirik in the elongated imperative.) The birthright refers to the double share of the father’s wealth which belongs to the first born. (Cf. Deut. 21:17.) Others maintain that the first born is always superior to his younger siblings in that they must rise before him and serve him as a son serves his father. (In other words Jacob did not buy the birthright because he wanted a double share but because the birthright had honorary significance. I.E. offers this interpretation either because he believes that Isaac was poor at this time and the double share was insignificant, or because the law of the double share of the first-born took effect only after the revelation at Sinai.)

Rashi on Genesis 37:2:4

את דבתם רעה THEIR EVIL REPORT — Whatever he saw wrong in his brothers, the sons of Leah, he reported to his father: that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal, that they treated the sons of the handmaids with contempt, calling them slaves, and that they were suspected of living in an immoral manner. With three such similar matters he was therefore punished. In consequence of his having stated that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal Scripture states, (Genesis 37:31) “And they slew a he-goat" after they had sold him and they did not eat its flesh whilst the animal was still living. And because of the slander which he related about them that they called their brothers slaves — (Psalms 105:17) “Joseph was sold for a slave.” And because he charged them with immorality (Genesis 39:7) “his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 84:7).

Second Temple

Abraham, Joseph, and the importance of resisting bodily pleasures are highlighted in these texts from the Second Temple period. Abraham's refusal to lie with Pleasure, Joseph's rejection of the Egyptian's wife, and their dedication to God's guidance and virtue are emphasized as examples of self-control and piety.

Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III 84:2

[237] So Joseph too, the self-controlling character, when pleasure says to him “Sleep with me” (Gen. 39:7) ‘and being human indulge human passions and enjoy the delights that come in life’s course,’ refuses to comply with her saying, ‘I shall be sinning against God the Lover of virtue, were I to show myself a lover of pleasure; for this is a wicked deed.’

On Dreams, Book II 15:7

[106] when he rises from his deep slumbering to abiding wakefulness and welcomes clearness before uncertainty, truth before false supposition, day before night, light before darkness; when moved by a yearning for continence and a vast zeal for piety he rejects bodily pleasure, the wife of the Egyptian, as she bids him come in to her and enjoy her embraces (Gen. 39:7);

On the Migration of Abraham 4:3

[19] What, then, are the uncorrupted parts? His having nothing to do with Pleasure when she says, “Let us lie together” (Gen. 39:7) and enjoy the good things of mankind: the shrewdness coupled with the resoluteness which enabled him to recognize the products of empty fancies which many accounted to be good, and to distinguish them as mere dreams from those which are really so; and to confess that the true and certain interpretations of things are given under God’s guid ance (Gen. 40:8), while the doubtful imaginations that have no certainty follow the rule and line of the erring and deluded life of men who have not undergone purification, a life that finds its joy in the delights provided by bakers and cooks and butlers.

Talmud

Rabbi Yoḥanan compares Lot's temptation with Joseph and Samson's temptation, all involving the eyes. The phrase "his eyes" is used similarly in each case. The text also draws parallels between Lot's actions and those of Joseph, Samson, and Shechem, using various verses to illustrate the connections. The mention of the "entire plain of the Jordan" and it being well watered is also linked to other biblical references.

Horayot 10b:11

He explains: “And Lot cast his eyes” is an allusion to the verse: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). “His eyes” is an allusion to the verse: “And Samson said: Get her for me, as she is pleasing to my eyes” (Judges 14:3). “And beheld” is an allusion to the verse: “And Shechem, son of Hamor, the prince of the land, beheld her; and he took her and lay with her” (Genesis 34:2). “The entire plain [kikar] of the Jordan” is an allusion to the verse: “For on account of a prostitute a man is brought to a loaf [kikar] of bread” (Proverbs 6:26). “That it was well watered [mashke] everywhere” is an allusion to the verse “I will follow my lovers, givers of my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink [veshikkuyai]” (Hosea 2:7).

Nazir 23a:16

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: “And Lot lifted up his eyes” employs the same expression as a verse that refers to Joseph’s temptation: “That his master’s wife lifted up her eyes” (Genesis 39:7), which is clearly referring to sin. The phrase used in reference to Lot, “his eyes,” is stated similarly to Samson’s appraisal of the Philistine girl he sought to marry: “For she is pleasing in my eyes” (Judges 14:3).

Targum

In Genesis 39:7, Onkelos and Targum Jonathan both recount how Potiphar's wife tried to seduce Joseph by saying "Be with me" or "Lie with me."

Onkelos Genesis 39:7

After these events, his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Yoseif, and she said, Be with me.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:7

And it was after these things that the wife of his master lifted up her eyes to Joseph, and said, Lie with me.

וַיְמָאֵ֓ן ׀ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־אֵ֣שֶׁת אֲדֹנָ֔יו הֵ֣ן אֲדֹנִ֔י לֹא־יָדַ֥ע אִתִּ֖י מַה־בַּבָּ֑יִת וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־יֶשׁ־ל֖וֹ נָתַ֥ן בְּיָדִֽי׃ 8 J But he refused. He said to his master’s wife, “Look, with me here, my master gives no thought to anything in this house, and all that he owns he has placed in my hands.
Joseph's refusal to commit adultery with his master's wife was marked by protest and amazement, showing his disgust at her immoral demand and teaching us to combat the yetzer hara by recognizing the trust placed in us by God. His loyalty to God and his master was greater than his fear of her anger, emphasizing his moral obligations and loyalty to God over personal desires. Joseph's righteousness in refusing Potifar's wife's advances due to his trust in God and fear of sinning was rewarded, highlighting the importance of following God's commandments over human authority. The use of the shalsheleth cantillation mark in Genesis 19:16 is explained by Minchat Shai, and Ramban discusses the significance of Joseph's refusal, emphasizing the cultural differences between Egyptians and Hebrews. Lessons in Leadership explores Joseph's internal conflict of identity while facing temptation in Egypt, highlighting his struggle between betraying his master and his Jewish beliefs. Joseph's response to Potifar's wife in the Targum emphasizes his loyalty to his master and God, refusing to betray the trust placed in him.

Chasidut

Joseph's refusal to commit adultery with his master's wife was marked by a tone of protest and amazement, signifying his disgust at her immoral demand. This act of refusal teaches us to combat the yetzer hara by recognizing the trust placed in us by God, leading to a sense of shame that helps avoid sin. Initially refusing temptation without reasoning allows for true understanding and wisdom to follow.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayeshev 6

Genesis 39,8. “he refused, saying to his master’s wife, ‎etc.” the tone sign shalshelet over the word ‎וימאן‎ ‎signifies that Joseph raised his voice in protest and amazement at ‎the suggestion of his master’s wife that he commit adultery with ‎her. He expressed his disgust at such an immoral demand on her ‎part.‎

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 4:4

"But he refused. He said to his master’s wife, “Look, with me here, my master gives no thought to anything in this house, and all that he owns he has placed in my hands.” (Bereishit 39:8). This teaches us to combat the yetzer hara by contemplating how we are entrusted by Hashem to follow His will, despite having the freedom to choose otherwise. Yosef, recognizing his master's complete trust, refused Potiphar's wife, illustrating that such trust should lead one to feel ashamed to betray it. This shame helps one avoid sin. Initially, one must refuse temptation without reasoning, which then allows for true understanding and wisdom to follow, as stated in Avot 3:9: "Anyone whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom will endure."

Commentary

Joseph refused to lie with his master's wife, even though she desired him, fearing God more than her. He explained to her that his loyalty to God and his master was greater than his fear of her anger, emphasizing that he had been entrusted with everything in the household and did not want to betray that trust. Joseph's refusal was based on his moral obligations and loyalty to God, rather than any personal reasons or desires.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:8:1

‘But he (Joseph) refused, and said to his master’s wife’, etc. (39:8) First of all, the verse states that he inwardly refused – as being a mortal sin – to consort , rebelliously and treacherously, with his master’s wife – and, even more so, to beget children destined for idol-worship. And, besides this, i.e. his inward refusal to succumb – he also openly declared to her his reasons for avoiding intimacy with her –

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:8:2

‘Look, my master has handed over all his affairs to me’, etc. (39:8). What he wished to point out by this was that an individual who sins does so exclusively either to satiate himself with something materially beneficial, or for the sake of obtaining glory, or to fulfill a pledge (made by him); ‘but in my case, none of these factors apply: from the aspect of material benefit, my master has no idea of what household items are under my control, having placed all his possessions in my hand. As to obtaining glory, ‘even my master himself is not of higher rank in the household than I am’ – by which he meant to say: ‘whilst it is possible that within the king’s household, he is greater than I, in this household, he is not’. And as regards fulfillment of a pledge, my master has withheld nothing from me besides you, and that too is only because of your being his wife – i.e. insofar as your marital status is concerned; but not in any other respect. Accordingly, if all that remains to him is yourself, on account of your marriage to him, how can I perpetrate so great an evil as to remove you forcibly from him? – for by doing so, I would be acting like a traitor and a thief in respect of what was placed in my care. Furthermore, even if he knew nothing of the affair, and I could thus not be called a sinner against him personally, still, there can be no doubt that the sin would be against God, Who is aware of secret matters’. This, then, is what he meant by exclaiming: ‘I will have sinned against the Almighty!’

Haamek Davar on Genesis 39:8:1

But he refused. The verse testifies that he, without any reasoning, refused to turn his cohabitation into fornication, but that he was forced to give his master's wife ulterior reasons apart from this.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:8:1-2

וימאן, ויאמר אל אשת אדוניו הן אדוני, “he refused, and he said to the wife of his master: ‘here my master, etc.” At the beginning of their conversation, Joseph said to Mrs Potiphar: הן אדוני, “my master is present;” he meant: “what do you want with me, seeing you already have a husband?” The reason that Tanchuma interprets Joseph’s words in that fashion is that the tone-sign shalshelet over the word וימאן suggests that Joseph’s refusal contained an element of something forbidden. It is not unusual for the tone-signs on the words to reveal matters not spelled out but which nevertheless we are to read between the lines. This is not unlike to what is called in English “body-language.” The manner in which a person walks, for instance, indicates whether he looks forward to his destination or whether he drags his feet because he dreads what is expected of him at the end of his walk. The Midrash felt that the tone-sign revealed that Joseph’s refusal was hesitant. Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 8 also claims that the words הן אדוני, are a reference to his father Yaakov’s features which sudddenly appeared before Joseph’s mind’s eye, reminding him what moral obligations he owed to the wishes of G’d, his “Master.” His father phrased his admonition thus: “your brothers’ names will be engraved on the gemstones of the High Priest’s Ephod (shoulder epaulettes). Do you want to risk that your name will be omitted from that list? Do you prefer to tend to whores for the rest of your life?”

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:8:3

ותאמר שכבה עמי, “she said: lie with me!” She spoke vulgarly as do the whores, similar to what has been described in Proverbs 7,10: “and here a woman came toward him dressed in harlot’s attire and of determined heart.” Words such as reported here by the Torah are typical of an adulterous woman. When a chaste woman desires to express similar sentiments she uses refined language as did Ruth when she said to Boaz: “spread your robe over your handmaid;” (Ruth 3,9).

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:8:4

ויאמר אל אשת אדוניו, “he said to the wife of his master, etc.” The Torah could have simply written: “he said to her.” However, the Torah wanted to let us know that Joseph explained to Mrs. Potiphar that seeing she was his master’s wife he was duty bound to accept instructions from her; however, in this instance his duty towards G’d took precedence over his duty to obey her commands.

Radak on Genesis 39:8:1

וימאן, the meaning is clear beyond mistake.

Ramban on Genesis 39:8:1

BUT HE REFUSED, AND SAID UNTO HIS MASTER’s WIFE. Scripture relates that he refused to do her will even though she was his mistress, i.e., his master’s wife, and he feared her, for he feared G-d more. This is the meaning of the expression, unto his master’s wife.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:8:1

לא ידע וגו׳, er hat das unbegrenzte Vertrauen zu meiner Geschicklichkeit, וכל אשר יש לו ונו׳ das unbegrenzte Vertrauen zu meiner Redlichkeit.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:8

He refused to lie with her; and in order not to offend her, Joseph explained that his refusal was not because of her appearance or some other reason. He said to his master’s wife: Behold, my master Potifar does not know anything about what is in the house. He trusts me to such a degree that he has no idea what I do in this house, and he has placed everything that he has in my charge.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:8:1

ויאמר אל אשת אדוניוו וימאן “He refused, and said to the wife of his master, etc.” Although we are well aware that Potiphar was Joseph’s master, the Torah reports his position, in order to explain that Joseph’s refusal to respond to the advances of his mistress was based on her husband being his master, also. It was not based on Joseph finding her unattractive. He had reason to also fear the anger of his mistress, but he made plain that his fear of G’d was stronger than his fear of the results of her displeasure with him.

Midrash

Joseph's righteousness is highlighted in the Midrash, where he refused Potifar's wife's advances due to his trust in God and fear of sinning. He was rewarded for his actions, becoming a ruler in Egypt. The text also emphasizes the importance of following God's commandments over human authority, using Joseph's story to illustrate the consequences of obedience and faith.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:6

“On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:54). “On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” – that is what is written: “I keep the king’s directive, [and in regard to the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). If the king will say to you that his fear shall be upon you and you shall observe his decrees, observe his decrees. Likewise, it says: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) – that his fear shall be upon you. And it says: “Any man who will disobey your directive, [and does not heed your words in everything that you command him, will be put to death]” (Joshua 1:18). “I” that is written here is nothing other than fear of the monarchy, just as Pharaoh said to Joseph. That is what is written: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, and without you no man shall lift his hand…” (Genesis 41:44). What is “I am Pharaoh”? This is what Pharaoh said to Joseph: Even though I said to you: “You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:40) – that I made you king over everyone – be careful to treat me with respect and make me king over you. That is why he said: “I am Pharaoh” – in other words, that the fear of my kingship shall be upon you. Similarly, “God spoke to Moses, and He said to him: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:2) – why was it necessary to say here: “I am the Lord”? Rather, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: Even though I set you as a god for Pharaoh, as the verse states: “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1) be careful that my Godliness will be upon you, as I made you a god only over Pharaoh alone. That is, “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is “I” who requires you to “keep the king’s directive” – that his fear shall be upon you. Make certain that you do not flout his commands. Is it, perhaps, even if he tells you to violate the words of the Omnipresent? The verse states: “And in regard to the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – the verse comes to inform you that “and in regard to the word of an oath of God” will be paramount over the command of flesh and blood, as you should nullify the will of flesh and blood before the will of God and fulfill all the commandments that are in the Torah, as you entered into an oath in their regard to fulfill them, just as it says: “To pass you into the covenant of the Lord your God and into His oath…” (Deuteronomy 29:11), and it says: “[Cursed be] who will not uphold the matters of this Torah to perform them; and the entire people shall say: Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:26). Similarly, “each of you shall fear his mother and his father…” (Leviticus 19:3) – is it, perhaps, even if his father said to him: Slaughter for me and cook for me on Shabbat, that he should listen to him? The verse states: “And you shall observe My Shabbatot” (Leviticus 19:3) – all of you are obligated in My honor. Here too, “and the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as above the word of the king observe the word of an oath to God. “Do not be frightened; leave his presence [mipanav]; [do not remain in a bad situation, as he will do what he wills]” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). If [a king of] flesh and blood will become angry at you in order to cause you to violate the statutes of the Torah, do not be frightened by his anger and follow his counsel, just as it says: “Who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalms 1:1). Panav is nothing other than his anger, just as it says: “And the expression on his face [anpohi] was distorted” (Daniel 3:19). That is, “leave his presence”; “do not remain in a bad situation [bedavar]” – do not remain in his path to follow it, just as it says: “And did not remain in the path of sinners” (Psalms 1:1). What is “bedavar” (Ecclesiastes 8:3)? It is that you should not fear that evil matter, that he will say to you that he will burn you, kill you, or subject you to harsh suffering if you do not fulfill his decree, and he will threaten you that there is no God in the world who will be able to rescue you from his hand. That is what is written thereafter: “As he will do what he wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). Just as Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya: “At that time you will be cast into the burning fiery furnace; who is the god who will save you from my hands?” (Daniel 3:15). “Since authority is by the king’s word, [who will say to him: What are you doing?]” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). If you devote yourself to the mitzvot to fulfill the decree of the Holy One blessed be He and to nullify the decrees of flesh and blood, what is your reward? When the Holy One blessed be He issues a decree to bring calamity to the world – as he is the King of the world and Ruler of everything, to do everything that He desires and no one can impede him: “He is of one mind, and who can respond to Him? His soul desires, and He does” (Job 23:13) – you will stand and ask for mercy regarding the decree to abrogate it. The Holy One blessed be He will show forbearance to you, and He will nullify it because you nullified the decree of flesh and blood in order to fulfill His decree. That is why it is stated: “Since authority is by the king’s word” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, when He says to bring something to the world to inform of his authority in the world, just as it says: “God caused that they would experience fear before Him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). Know, who can impede His decree and say to Him: ‘Why are You doing so’? It is one who observes mitzvot. That is why it is stated: “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” Who can say to Him: ‘Why are You doing this to Your creations? Descend to them with the attribute of mercy’? That is one who observes His mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva [will know no evil matter]” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5)? It is measure for measure; he did not remain in a bad situation, therefore, “he will know no evil matter.” “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – as there is a wise man who considers the consequences and reckons the loss from a mitzva against its reward and the loss from a transgression against its reward. He considers in his heart: If I transgress His mitzvot, and I have an opportunity to do what I want and there is no one who can impede me, tomorrow, the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him (Referring to himself.) because he violated His Torah. Likewise it says: “The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool [walks in darkness]” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). And it says: “The heart of the wise inclines to his right, [and the heart of a fool inclines to his left]” (Ecclesiastes 10:2). “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” – one whose heart is wise knows that if he transgresses the mitzvot, that the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him, and he refrains from the transgression. That is what is written thereafter: “For there is a time and a judgment for every matter…” (Ecclesiastes 8:6) – regarding every situation where a person performs his will and nullifies the will of the Omnipresent, it should be known to him that he is destined to be judged. Even though retribution is not exacted from him immediately, let him not think that the Holy One blessed be He would overlook his iniquity for him, but rather, He is slow to anger and collects what is due to Him. When does He exact retribution from him? It is when the hin is filled. Likewise it says: “With the filling of his quota, he will be troubled; [the hand of all travail will come upon him]” (Job 20:22). That is why it is stated: “As the evil of man overwhelms him” (Ecclesiastes 8:6); just as He did with the generation of the Flood, as He gave them an extension but ultimately exacted retribution from them, just as it says: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…” (Genesis 6:5). What is written thereafter? “The Lord said: I will obliterate man…” (Genesis 6:7). “For he does not know what will be, [for whenever it will be, who will have told him]?” (Ecclesiastes 8:7). The verse comes to teach you that anyone who does not repent from a transgression that he committed and does not fear the Day of Judgment, when it will arrive they will not show him forbearance. Were he to come and say that he be given an extension so he could repent, they will not listen to him. That is, for whenever punishment “will be, who will have told him” so he would repent and be accepted. It is to say to you that prior to the sentence they listen to him; after the sentence they do not listen to him. That is why it is stated: “For whenever it will be, who will have told him?” “There is no man who rules the spirit [to retain the spirit, and there is no rule on the day of death, and there is no sending a proxy in war, and wickedness will not rescue its owner]” (Ecclesiastes 8:8) – because we found that the Holy One blessed be He decreed four court-imposed death penalties for performers of transgressions. That is why four matters are written here, corresponding to them, where the living lack the ability to be rescued from them after their sentence. These are: “There is no man who rules the spirit [ruaḥ] to retain the spirit” – this is death by strangulation and the like, as a person dies from it only due to breath [ruaḥ], as he has no place from which to breathe. That is, “there is no man who rules the spirit” to exhale it when the day comes that the breath will be constricted in his body. “And there is no rule on the day of death” – this is death by stoning and the like, just as it says: “You shall stone him with stones, and he will die” (Deuteronomy 13:11). “There is no sending a proxy in war” – this is death by decapitation by sword and the like, just as it says: “Go out and wage war with Amalek” (Exodus 17:9), and it is written: “Joshua weakened [Amalek and its people by sword]” (Exodus 17:13). “And wickedness will not rescue its owner” – this is death by burning and the like, just as it says: “All the criminals and all the doers of wickedness will be straw; the day that is coming will burn them…” (Malachi 3:19). These are the four court-imposed death penalties mentioned in this verse. Even though the Sanhedrin ceased and the four court-imposed death penalties were abrogated, the sentence of the four court-imposed death penalties were not abrogated, as the Holy One blessed be He judges the living to die of them with harsh punishments corresponding to them. One who incurs liability to be strangled either drowns in the river, dies of diphtheria, or is delivered into the hands of idol worshippers who strangle him. One who incurs liability to be stoned either falls off the roof, or a beast tramples him, or idol worshippers stone him. One who incurs liability to be beheaded, robbers come upon him and behead him. One who incurs liability to be burned either falls into the fire or a snake bites him. You learned that a person cannot escape the judgment of the Holy One blessed be He that He will not punish him measure for measure. That is why it is stated: “There is no man who rules the spirit….” (Ecclesiastes 8:8). Another matter: “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is speaking of Joseph the righteous, who observed the “I” that Pharaoh had said to him, just as it says: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, [and without you no man shall lift his hand]” (Genesis 41:44), as he never flouted his command. “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as even though he entered into that prominence, he did not throw the yoke of Heaven from upon him and he feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “[I fear] God” (Genesis 42:18). That is why “God” is stated. (According to the Etz Yosef, the midrash is explaining that this is an allusion to the verse, “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2).) He was very cautious regarding the oath, as he did not take an oath “as the Lord lives,” but rather, “as Pharaoh lives, that you will not depart from here” (Genesis 42:15). That is, “an oath.” What is “the word of [divrat]”? It is because he separated himself from lasciviousness, just as it says: “He shall not see a lascivious matter [davar] in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it says: The young woman, because [al devar] she did not cry out in the city…” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Likewise it says: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). What is written there? “He refused, and he said to his master’s wife: Behold, my master…” (Genesis 39:8). That is why it is stated: “The word of [divrat],” just as it says: “It was, as she spoke [kedabra] to Joseph day after day, and he did not heed her…” (Genesis 39:10). “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence” – when he entered the house to perform his labor, and the house was vacant and there was no person who could see him, just as it is written: “It was, on a certain day he went into the house to perform his labor, and there was no one [of the people of the household there in the house]” (Genesis 39:11), she came and seized his garment so that he would lie with her. Nevertheless, he was not frightened by her actions, and he went outside, just as it says: “He left his garment in her hand, fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). That is why it is stated: “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence.” He was not frightened by the house being vacant, but rather he fled and left, even though she said to him that if he would not lie with her, she would say to her husband that he sought to rape her, and her husband will kill him, and there would be no one to impede him, because he is his slave. Nevertheless, he did not allow her to fulfill her desire because of that evil matter that she threatened to do to him. That is why it says: “Do not remain in a bad situation, as God will do what He wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). From where do you derive that she threatened him in that manner? It is from the end of the matter. When she saw that her actions were to no avail, look at what she did: “She called to the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying.… It was, when he heard.… She placed his garment [beside her, until his master’s arrival home]. She spoke to him…[saying: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to me to mock me]. It was, as I raised my voice [and cried out, that he left his garment with me, and fled outside]” (Genesis 39:14–18). “Since authority is by the king’s word…” (Ecclesiastes 8:4) – what reward did the Holy One blessed be He give him for this? He placed him in a position of authority in the land of Egypt. That is what is written: “Since [authority is] by the king’s word…,” just as it says: “Pharaoh spoke to Joseph: In my dream, behold, I am…” (Genesis 41:17). “Authority” – just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4), just as it says: “Go to Joseph; what he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). Why to that extent? It is because he observed the mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter”? It is this evil matter that the butler said, just as it says: “There with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief executioner…” (Genesis 41:12). He said three matters here in Joseph’s regard: “Lad” – that he was a fool, just as it says: “Folly is bound in the heart of a lad” (Proverbs 22:15); “Hebrew” – an enemy; “slave” – that he is not worthy of kingship. Nevertheless, Joseph knew no evil matter. In other words, the matter did not affect him, as he ruled. “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this was Joseph, who was called wise, just as it says: “There is no one as wise and understanding as you” (Genesis 41:39). He knew that he would be held accountable had he touched Potifar’s wife; that is why he withdrew from her. That is what is written: “He did not heed her [to lie with her, to be with her]” (Genesis 39:10); “to lie with her” in this world; “to be with her” in the World to Come. Another matter: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this is the Holy One blessed be He, in whose regard it is written: “Wise of heart and mighty of power” (Job 9:4). He brought about a time to reward Joseph on the basis of measure for measure. How so? He ruled over his inclination and did not touch her; therefore, he became a ruler, just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). He did not heed her, just as it says: “He did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10); therefore, the Holy One blessed be He crowned him as king over Egypt in its entirety, and everyone heeded his words, just as it says: “What he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). His mouth [piv] did not kiss [nashak] in transgression; therefore, “at your directive [pikha] my entire people will be sustained [yishak]” (Genesis 41:40). He said: “There is no one greater in this house than I…” (Genesis 39:9) in order to rebuff her; therefore, “you will be in charge of my house” (Genesis 41:40). He did not seize her, but she seized him with her hands, just as it says: “She seized him by his garment…” (Genesis 39:12); therefore, “Pharaoh removed his signet ring from upon his hand, and he placed it upon Joseph’s hand” (Genesis 41:42). He left his garment in her hand; therefore, “he dressed him in linen garments” (Genesis 41:42). He did not bend his neck toward her; therefore, “he placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42). He did not mount [rakhav] her; therefore, “he had him ride [vayarkev] in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43). She called the people of her household in this regard, just as it says: “She called the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14); therefore, “they called before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43). He was relegated to the prison for this, just as it says: “He relegated him [vayitenehu] to the prison” (Genesis 39:20); therefore, “he appointed him [venaton oto] over the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:43). He did not direct his glance toward her, and not toward the Egyptian women when he ruled, just as it says: “Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful bough alongside a spring [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22), as he averted his eye [she’ilem eino] from Potifar’s wife and from the Egyptian women. “Branches [banot] (Banot can also mean women.) ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22). Therefore, alei shur. Rabbi Reuven said: What is alei shur? The Holy One blessed be He said: It is incumbent upon me to pay a reward for that eye. How so? The Rabbis taught that in the Temple they would eat offerings of lesser sanctity within the wall, within the wall of Jerusalem. But in Shilo, which was in the portion of Joseph, they would eat it within eyeshot. (Within eyeshot of the Tabernacle (Rambam, Mishna Zevaḥim 14:6).) That is alei shur, just as it says: “The eye of one who sees me will not behold me [teshureni]” (Job 7:8). Rabbi Azarya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Joseph: You observed the mitzva of: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), which is the seventh of the Commandments, and you did not commit adultery with Potifar’s wife. And you observed the mitzva of: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), which is the eighth of the Commandments, as you did not steal Potifar’s property and you did not “steal” his wife, just as it says: “The eye of the adulterer observes the night, saying: No eye will behold [teshureni] me…” (Job 24:15). The time will come when I will repay you for them. Tomorrow, when the princes come to bring [offerings] for the dedication of the altar, the princes of your two sons, one will present his offering on the seventh day, and the second on the eighth day. And no other tribe will interpose between your two sons, just as you did not interpose (Namely, you did not differentiate between them. You observed both of them. As a reward, Benjamin did not interpose between Ephraim and Manasseh.) between “you shall not commit adultery” and “you shall not steal,” as it is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim.… On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh…” (Numbers 7:48–54) That is why it is written: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:7

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:55). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]…” – do not read it as kaarat, but rather as akart, corresponding to Jacob, who extracted [akar] the birthright (The birthright refers to the extra portion of the inheritance that the eldest son received.) from Reuben and gave it to Joseph: “I have given you one portion more than your brothers…” (Genesis 48:22). “Silver” – just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20), just as he (Silver alludes to the statement made by Jacob, who was righteous.) said: “Ephraim and Manasseh will be for me like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – when Jacob descended to Egypt on account of Joseph, he was one hundred and thirty years old, as it is stated: “Jacob said to Pharaoh: The days of the years of my residence are one hundred and thirty years” (Genesis 47:9). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – corresponding to Joseph, who was cast [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “Silver” – after: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20) – what he said to his father (Silver alludes to the statement made by Joseph, who was righteous.) : “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn; place your right hand upon his head” (Genesis 48:18). “Seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” – as it was through him that seventy people descended to Egypt. “Both of them full…” – Jacob and Joseph, both of them were full-fledged righteous men and both produced tribes. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:56). “One gold ladle of ten shekels…” – corresponding to the ten districts of Manasseh, as it is stated: “Ten districts fell to Manasseh” (Joshua 17:5). “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:57). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:58). “One young bull, one ram [one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering]; one goat…” – these (This is a reference to the three burnt offerings.) are three corresponding to the three generations that Joseph saw from Manasseh that received a portion in the land, (This is a reference to the fact that there were three major families named after the three generations following Manasseh, in addition to the family which was named after Manasseh himself. Therefore, the phrase “the sons of Makhir” refers to Makhir himself, Gilad, and Iezer.) as it is stated: “The children of Makhir son of Manasseh, too, were born at Joseph’s knees” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise, it says: “The sons of Manasseh: For Makhir, the family of the Makhirites, and Makhir begot Gilad.… These are the sons of Gilad: Of Iezer…” (Numbers 26:29–30). Makhir, Gilad, and Iezer – these are three generations that were patrilineal houses that were attributed to Joseph, as Manasseh is attributed to Jacob, just as it says: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before my coming to you to Egypt, they are mine” (Genesis 48:5). The fourth, this was Ya’ir son of Manasseh, who received a portion in the land, just as it says: “Ya’ir son of Manasseh went and captured their villages [ḥavot], and he called them Ḥavot Ya’ir” (Numbers 32:41). The three species of burnt offerings corresponded to the sons of Makhir son of Manasseh. (This is referring to what was mentioned above, and is mentioned again since the midrash now also explains what the sin offering signifies.) The goat sin offering corresponded to Ya’ir, who did not bequeath his portion to his sons, because he did not have sons. That is why he called them (The villages.) by his name, because he did not have any remnant, and the sons of his brother Makhir inherited his portion. “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:59). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the tribe of Manasseh, which split into two and received two portions in the land, half of it on the east bank of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan. “Five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year” – these are three species, corresponding to three things that Joseph did on behalf of Manasseh, whom he sought to elevate over his brother Ephraim. The first: “Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim in his right hand to the left of Israel, and Manasseh in his left hand to the right of Israel” (Genesis 48:13). The second: “He supported his father’s hand, to remove it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh” (Genesis 48:17). The third: “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn…” (Genesis 48:18). Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five women from the tribe of Manasseh who took a portion in the land. These were Tzelofḥad’s five daughters, just as it says: “Tzelofḥad’s daughters speak justly; give them a holding for inheritance…” (Numbers 27:7). They were five, as it is stated: “These are the names of his daughters: Maḥla, Noa, Ḥogla, Milka, and Tirtza” (Numbers 27:1). Likewise, Jacob mentioned them in the blessing of Joseph, as it is stated: “Branches [banot] ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22); these are Tzelofḥad’s daughters [banot], who received a portion in the land. Alternatively, why were they five each? It corresponds to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “May they proliferate like fish in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16), and fish were created on the fifth day. “This was the offering of Gamliel…” – since the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented the offering in this order, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Gamliel…”

Bereshit Rabbah 87:5

“He refused, and he said to his master's wife: Behold, my master, having me, does not know what is in the house, and he has placed everything that he has in my charge” (Genesis 39:8). “He refused, and he said to his master's wife” – Yehuda ben Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: If, in the matter of a mitzva, one may refuse, in the matter of a transgression, [is it] not [obvious] that one must refuse? In the matter of a mitzva one may refuse – “my husband’s brother has refused [to perpetuate a name for his brother in Israel, he is unwilling to perform levirate marriage with me]” (Deuteronomy 25:7). In the matter of a transgression, must one not refuse? “He refused, and he said…: Behold, my master….” He said to her: ‘The Holy One blessed be He is accustomed to choose from the beloved of my father’s household for a burnt offering – to Abraham: “Take now your son” (Genesis 22:2). Shall I accede to you? Perhaps I have been chosen as a burnt offering, and I will be disqualified from being an offering.’ Another matter, “he said to his master's wife” – he said to her: ‘The Holy One blessed be He is accustomed to reveal Himself to the beloved of my father’s household at night: Abraham – “After these matters, the word of the Lord was to Abram in a vision,” (Genesis 15:1); Isaac – “The Lord appeared to him that night” (Genesis 26:24); Jacob – “He dreamed, and behold, a ladder” (Genesis 28:12). If I accede to you, perhaps the Holy One blessed be He will reveal Himself to me and find me impure.’ Another matter, “Behold, my master” – he said to her: ‘I am afraid. If Adam the first man was commanded regarding a minor mitzva, and when he violated it, he was expelled from the Garden of Eden, this, which is a major transgression of forbidden sexual relations, all the more so.’ “Behold, my master” – [he said to her:] ‘I am afraid of my father, in the land of Canaan; Reuben, because it is written in his regard: “Reuben went and lay with Bilha” (Genesis 35:22), his birthright was taken from him and given to me. If I accede to you, I will be rejected from my birthright.’ Another matter, “Behold, my master” – [he said to her:] ‘I am afraid of my master.’ She said to him: ‘I will kill him.’ He said to her: ‘Is it not sufficient that I will be counted in the company of adulterers, that [I should also be among] the company of murderers? And if this matter is what you seek – “behold, my master” – go to the one who is before you’ . Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The milk of black goats and the milk of white goats is the same. (If you seek sexual relations, go to your husband, who can provide that just as well as I can. ) Another matter, “Behold, my master” – [he said to her:] ‘I am afraid of the Lord.’ She said to him: ‘He is not here.’ He said to her: “The Lord is great and highly extolled, [and His greatness is unfathomable]” (Psalms 145:3). Rabbi Avin said: She took him from room to room aand from bed chamber to bed chamber until she positioned him next to her bed. Her idol was etched above it. She took a sheet and covered its face. He said to her: ‘You have done well that you covered its face. The one in whose regard it is written: “They are the eyes of the Lord roving throughout the earth” (Zechariah 4:10), all the more so.’ (If you are concerned about being seen by your idol, all the more so should you be concerned about being seen by God. ) “There is no one greater in this house than I, and he has not withheld anything from me but you, as you are his wife. How can I do this great wickedness, and sin to God?” (Genesis 39:9). Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Ami: Was the verse missing anything? “And sin to the Lord” (This is the typical expression when referring to sin.) is not written here, but rather, “[and sin] to God.” By God, I will not perform this evil matter. (The midrash interprets Joseph to have taken an oath that he would not perform this sin. )

Bereshit Rabbah 88:5

“The chief butler related his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding; its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). “The chief butler related…behold, a vine was before me” – this is Israel, as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils” – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “It was as though it was budding” – the redemption of Israel was budding. “Its blossoms emerged” – the redemption of Israel blossomed. “Its clusters produced ripe grapes” – the vine that budded immediately blossomed; grapes that emerged immediately ripened. “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:11). “Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days” (Genesis 40:12). “In three more days Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your position, and you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink” (Genesis 40:13). “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand” – on this basis the Sages instituted the four cups on Passover eve. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Benaya: Corresponding to the four expressions of redemption that were stated in Egypt: “I will take you out…I will deliver you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Corresponding to the four cups stated here: “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand… you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand…” (These are the first and fourth mentions of the word cup. Between them there are: “I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.”) Rabbi Levi said: Corresponding to the four kingdoms. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the four cups [kosot] of bewilderment that the Holy One blessed be He will give the idolaters to drink. That is what is written: “For so said the Lord, God of Israel, to me: Take this cup of the wine of anger” (Jeremiah 25:15); “a golden cup is Babylon in the hand of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 51:7); “he will rain…upon the wicked [ blazing coals and sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot [menat kosam]]” (Psalms 11:6). (The fourth is: “For a cup is in the hand of the Lord, with foaming wine…” (Psalms 75:10) (Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 10:1).) Corresponding to them, the Holy One blessed be He will give Israel four cups [kosot] of salvation in the future, as it is stated: “The Lord is my lot [menat kosi]” (Psalms 16:5); “I will lift a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (Psalms 116:13): “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup is full” (Psalms 23:5). “A cup of salvation [kos yeshua]” (Psalms 116:13) is not written here, but rather, “a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (The word yeshuot is plural, such that a more literal translation would be “a cup of salvations.” Consequently, this alludes to the third and fourth cups. ) – one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. “If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and take me out of this house” (Genesis 40:14). [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me good tidings; (The butler’s dream, as explained above, alluded to the redemption of Israel, and therefore constituted good tidings. ) I, too, will give you good tidings: “In three more days…if only you remember me…”’ “For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews and here, too, I have done nothing, that they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti]” – Rav Aḥa said: From here [it may be derived] that he was abducted twice. (He was sold by his brothers, and then the Midyanites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites (see Genesis 37:27–28). Alternatively, his being thrown into the pit by his brothers was considered a kidnapping, and he was subsequently stolen from the pit by the Ishmaelites (Maharzu, 84:6).) “And here, too, I have done [nothing]…”

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 8:1

But he refused, and said unto his master’s wife (Gen. 39:8). Scripture states elsewhere in reference to this verse: Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord (Jer. 17:7). You find that while Joseph dwelt in his master’s home, the Lord was with Joseph, and he prospered, and his master saw that the Lord was with him (Gen. 39:2–3). How did the wicked Potiphar recognize, then, that the Holy One, blessed be He, was with him? In what way was the Lord with him? The name of the Holy One, blessed be He, never left Joseph’s lips. When Joseph entered to serve him, he would whisper to himself: “Master of the Universe, you are the One in whom I trust; you are the One who is my protector, may I find grace, kindness, and mercy in your sight, and in the sight of all who see me, and in the eyes of my master, Potiphar.” Thereupon Potiphar asked him: “What are you whispering about? Perhaps you are trying to weave a spell over me?” “No,” he replied, “I am praying that I may find favor in your sight.” Hence it is written: And his master saw that the Lord was with him.

Quoting Commentary

Minchat Shai explains the use of the shalsheleth cantillation mark in Genesis 19:16, noting its appearance in seven places in the Tanakh. Ramban discusses the significance of Joseph refusing Potiphar's wife's advances, highlighting the cultural differences between Egyptians and Hebrews. Lessons in Leadership delves into Joseph's internal conflict of identity while facing temptation in Egypt, emphasizing his struggle between betraying his master and his own Jewish beliefs.

Lessons in Leadership; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Tzav; On Not Trying to Be What You Are Not 6

The third brings us to Egypt and the life of Joseph. Sold by his brothers as a slave, he is now working in the house of an eminent Egyptian, Potiphar. Left alone in the house with his master’s wife, he finds himself the object of her desire. He is handsome. She wants him to sleep with her. He refuses. To do such a thing, he says, would be to betray his master, her husband. It would be a sin against God. Yet over “he refused” is a shalshelet (Gen. 39:8), indicating – as some rabbinic sources and mediaeval commentaries suggest – that he does so at the cost of considerable effort. (Tanḥuma, Vayeshev 8, cited by Rashi in his commentary to Genesis 39:8.) He nearly succumbs. This is more than the usual conflict between sin and temptation. It is a conflict of identity. Recall that Joseph is now living in, for him, a new and strange land. His brothers have rejected him. They made it clear that they did not want him as part of their family. Why then should he not, in Egypt, do as the Egyptians do? Why not yield to his master’s wife if that is what she wants? The question for Joseph is not just, “Is this right?” but also, “Am I an Egyptian or a Jew?”

Minchat Shai on Torah, Genesis 19:16:1

And he tarried It is written in the Sefer Mikhlol, at the end of the section on verb grammar, that the latter mem has a qamaṣ on account of the shalsheleth cantillation, becuase it follows the rule of pausals. And it is masoretically recorded about this that "there are seven cantillation marks of the Thundering and Pausing" [translator's note: meaning, the cantillation mark shalsheleth appears seven times in the Tanakh, namely here, Genesis 24:12, Genesis 39:8, Leviticus 8:23, Isaiah 13:8, Amos 1:2, and Ezra 5:15] . And thus I saw handwritten in some books. But "If he tarries, wait for him" (Habakkuk 2:3) has a pathaḥ on the second mem.

Ramban on Genesis 39:6:1

SAVE THE BREAD WHICH HE DID EAT. In the words of our Rabbis, this is a refined expression which refers to his wife. (Bereshith Rabbah 86:7.) Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said in interpretation of the verse that whatever Potiphar possessed was left in the hands of Joseph excepting the bread which he ate. This he did not even permit him to touch since he was a Hebrew. It was the customary behavior of the Egyptians towards the Hebrews that they not permit the Hebrews to touch their food, because that is abhorrent to the Egyptians. (Further, 43:32.) Possibly this is so. Perhaps the interpretation of the verse is that his lord did not know of Joseph taking anything from him save only the bread which Joseph ate, but no other pleasures as young people are wont to do. Nor did he gather wealth and property, just as it is said of David, And I have found no fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day. (I Samuel 29:3.) Now the verse, Having me, he knoweth not what is in the house, (Verse 8 here. Joseph speaking to Potiphar’s wife.) expresses another matter, namely, that he [Joseph’s lord] did not trouble himself to know about anything inside the house. But the present verse, Having him, he knew not aught, is an expression of negation; he knew that nothing in the house is [taken by Joseph except the bread which he eats]. (See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 219-220.)

Targum

Joseph refused to be with his master's wife, telling her that his master trusts him with everything in the house and is unaware of what he is doing. (Onkelos Genesis 39:8; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:8)

Onkelos Genesis 39:8

He refused and said to his master’s wife, Behold, my master knows nothing about what I am doing in the house, and all that he possess, he has placed in my hands.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:8

But he refused to come near her, and said to his master's wife, Behold, my master taketh no knowledge of what is with me in the house, and all he hath he delivereth into my hand;

אֵינֶ֨נּוּ גָד֜וֹל בַּבַּ֣יִת הַזֶּה֮ מִמֶּ֒נִּי֒ וְלֹֽא־חָשַׂ֤ךְ מִמֶּ֙נִּי֙ מְא֔וּמָה כִּ֥י אִם־אוֹתָ֖ךְ בַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר אַתְּ־אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וְאֵ֨יךְ אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֜ה הָרָעָ֤ה הַגְּדֹלָה֙ הַזֹּ֔את וְחָטָ֖אתִי לֵֽאלֹהִֽים׃ 9 J He wields no more authority in this house than I, and he has withheld nothing from me except yourself, since you are his wife. How then could I do this most wicked thing, and sin before God?”
Chasidut emphasizes the importance of resisting temptation by recognizing Hashem's trust and choosing not to sin, as seen in Joseph's refusal of Potiphar's wife. Jewish Thought discusses the Jewish people's interactions with non-Israelite nations and Moses' expectation of doubt, while Midrash highlights how Joseph, David, and Boaz overcame evil inclinations with oaths. Musar considers lashon hara more severe than other sins, attributing it as the cause of idolatry, illicit relations, and bloodshed. Commentary praises Joseph's steadfastness in refusing Potiphar's wife, citing his loyalty to God and moral integrity. Talmud discusses the distinction between sins committed with the body and money, using examples like Joseph and Potiphar's wife, and considers forbidden sexual relations, bloodshed, and malicious speech as great transgressions. Targum interprets Joseph's refusal of Potiphar's wife as acknowledging his authority but refusing to sin due to it being evil and against God.

Chasidut

Yosef's firm refusal of Potiphar's wife in Genesis 39:8-9 teaches us to combat temptation by recognizing Hashem's trust in us and the choice to sin. This should deter us from acting against His will. Yosef's example emphasizes the importance of initial refusal without rationalization, affirming the importance of acting according to Hashem's will. Additionally, dependence on other human beings can lead to obstacles in prayer, highlighting the importance of relying on God alone for livelihood and honor.

Likutei Moharan 66:6:1

6. This is also the meaning of (Beitzah 32b): When someone is dependent on other human beings, his world chashakh (turns dark). ChaShaKh connotes an obstacle, as it is written (Genesis 39:9), “neither has he ChaSaKh (withheld) anything from me”; “because you did not ChaSaKhta (withhold) your son” (ibid. 22:16). In other words, when a person is dependent on other human beings, he experiences obstacles. This is “his world chashakh”—i.e., when he is in public, he encounters obstacles and it is difficult for him to pray honestly, as explained above. Thus when a person is dependent on human beings, it is more beneficial and easier for him to pray in private. But someone who is not dependent on other humans, who is not reliant on them for anything, can stand in the midst of thousands of people and pray honestly, to God alone. This is because he does not depend on any human being for livelihood, honor or anything else. Rather, “his hope is in God his Lord.”

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 2:5

Yosef refused Potiphar's wife, saying, “My master trusts me with everything in this house except you, his wife. How could I do this wicked thing and sin before Hashem?” (Bereishit 39:8-9). This teaches us to combat temptation by recognizing that Hashem allows us the choice to sin, which should deter us from acting against His will. Yosef aimed to dissuade Potiphar’s wife from temptation, as he had no desire for her, shown by the term וימאן, meaning he refused without any temptation. His firm refusal allowed him to clearly state his position.

Sefat Emet, Genesis, Vayeshev 3:5

In Bereishis 39:8-9, Yosef refused his master's wife, saying, “My master trusts me with everything in this house except you, because you are his wife. How could I do this wicked thing and sin before Hashem?” We learn from this to guard against the evil inclination by recognizing Hashem’s trust in us. Despite His power to prevent us from sinning, He gives us free will to accept His sovereignty. This realization should humble us, guiding us to act according to Hashem’s will and affirming His dominion over all creation. Yosef’s example shows that initial refusal without rationalization is key. He first refused Potiphar’s wife and then explained his reasoning, highlighting the importance of firm refusal before contemplation.

Commentary

Joseph explained to Potiphar's wife that sleeping with her would not only be a betrayal of his master's trust but also a sin against God, as illicit relations were forbidden by God to all, including Gentiles. Joseph emphasized that sleeping with a married woman was a violation of God's law, which was a primary concern even before the secondary concern of betraying his master. Potiphar's wife was trying to tempt Joseph, but he refused, citing religious and moral reasons for his refusal.

Chizkuni, Genesis 39:9:1

וחטאתי לאלוקים, “and I would commit a sin against G-d;” even if the matter will remain concealed from human beings, G-d sees everything.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:9:1

באשר את אשתו, "inasmuch as you are his wife." Joseph meant that Potiphar had not placed his wife out of bounds to Joseph in so many words; the matter was understood because of her status.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:9:2

ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה, "how could I possibly commit such a great evil?" By doing so I would lose everything I have achieved.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:9:3

Furthermore, I would create an unbridegable gap to the holy roots of my soul seeing that adultery is forbidden to Gentiles as well as to Jews. This is what Joseph meant when he said "I would sin against G'd."

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:9:4

Furthermore, by mentioning that he would commit a sin vis-a-vis G'd Joseph already countered Mrs Potiphar's argument that her husband did not need to know about their liaison and that therefore Joseph did not stand to lose anything. Joseph attributed his present status to the help of G'd. He would certainly forfeit G'd's help if he became guilty of adultery.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:9:1

איך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת וחטאתי לאלוקים , “and how could I commit such a great wrong and sin against the Lord?” He explained that indulging in sex with his master’s wife would be wrong on two counts. Not only would it be an act of betrayal against his employer but it would also be a grievous offense against G’d. This is similar to the wording used by the High Priest Eli when he rebuked his sons in Samuel I 2,25: “If a man sins against a man, the Lord may pardon him [after he has served the penalty decreed by a human tribunal, Ed.]; but if a man sins against G’d who can obtain pardon for him?“

Radak on Genesis 39:9:1

איננו גדול בבית הזה, there is no one in this house who is superior to me in rank except you who are out of bounds to me inasmuch as you are my master’s wife; how could I abuse the trust placed in me by my master?

Radak on Genesis 39:9:2

כי אם אותך באשר את אשתו; these words lend support to the words of the Midrash which saw in the words כי אם הלחם a euphemistic reference to Potiphar’s wife. It is also possible that Potiphar had warned Joseph specifically against getting involved with his wife because he was so handsome. There was no need for the Torah to spell out such a prohibition

Radak on Genesis 39:9:3

ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת, to sleep with his wife and to betray his trust? Furthermore, this would not only be a grievous wrong against my master, but it would also be a sin against G’d Who commanded man certain rules of sexual behaviour. (we explained these rules in connection with Genesis 2,24 on ודבק באשתו)

Ramban on Genesis 39:9:1

AND I SHALL SIN AGAINST G-D. The Sons of Noah (See Note 113 above.) were commanded concerning forbidden relations. This is Rashi’s language. This is correct. It is only due to the feminine lack of knowledge that he first told her that the act would constitute a betrayal of his master who trusted him, and following that he added that it also involves a sin against G-d. It is possible to further explain the verse, And I shall sin against G-d, by this betrayal, since “it would be a matter of great evil consequence which would be accounted to me as a sin against G-d since His eyes are upon the faithful of the land, (Psalms 101:6.) and no traitor dare come before Him.” Joseph spoke the truth. However he did not mention the prohibition of the illicit relation (According to this interpretation.) because he spoke in language suitable to women.

Rashi on Genesis 39:9:1

וחטאתי לאלהים AND SIN AGAINST GOD — The “Sons of Noah” (בני נח) were subject to the command which forbade immorality (Sanhedrin 56b).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:9:1

וחטאתי לאלקי׳, abgesehen von der Schlechtigkeit gegen deinen Gatten, ists ja auch, wie jede Unsittlichkeit, ein Verbrechen gegen Gott. — חטא. Es ist von Wichtigkeit, den Begriff der Sünde nach dem hebräischen Sprachgedanken zu ergründen, da sich daraus zugleich der Begriff des Gegensatzes, der des sittlichen Lebens ergibt. Im Deutschen heißt Sünde das zu Sühnende, ein Begriff, der in חטא nicht ursprünglich liegt. Wir wagen die Verwandtschaft von חטא mit חתה hervorzuheben. חתה: etwas aus seinem gehörigen Kreis herausnehmen, insbesondere aber: brennende Kohlen aus dem Feuer nehmen. Es ist nun nicht unmöglich, daß הטא ebenso heiße: irgend eine unserer Beziehungen jenem Feuer, dem Feuerstrahle jenes Elementes entziehen, das eigentlich unser ganzes Wesen fassen, wecken, durchläutern und beleben soll. Die Kohle, die ich aus dem Feuer nehme, erlischt. So lange irgend eine meiner Kräfte von jenem göttlichen Feuer beherrscht ist, wird sie leben und das erreichen, wozu sie bestimmt ist. Überlasse ich aber irgend eine Beziehung meines Wesens diesem Feuer nicht, so wird sie: Sünde. Wir sind berechtigt, das zur Beherrschung unseres ganzen Wesens bestimmte Element als "Feuer" zu denken. Nennt sich ja das Göttliche selber אשרת ,אש אוכלת. Ihm sollen wir stets ganz hingegeben sein, und so lange sind wir ohne Schlacken, das göttliche Feuer leuchtet stets und stets in uns und durch uns, wir sind לחם אשה ד׳: Nahrung des Göttlichen auf Erden. Sobald etwas diesem Feuer entfällt, wird es dunkel, schlecht. Ist das Sinnliche nicht Träger des Göttlichen, nicht קדוש, wird es viehisch: קָדֵש. Was sich der Glut des Göttlichen entzieht, verfällt der Glut der Leidenschaft. Heißt aber חטא: etwas dem Herde des göttlichen Feuers entziehen, das dadurch dunkel, unerleuchtet, undurchglüht von dem Feuer wird, das es durchglühen sollte: so begreifen wir, wie sich das ganze מעשה קרבנות als symbolische Wiederherstellung des durch חטא gestörten Verhältnisses in buchstäblichstem Sinne darstellt. Wenn unser הטא nichts anderes war, als daß unser הלב וכליות sich nicht als Nahrung dem göttlichen Feuer überlassen, resp. hingegeben haben: so ist die Wiederherstellung eben nichts anderes, als daß wir sie dem göttlichen Feuer wieder übergeben. Unser ganzes Wesen נפש, gehört Gott an, und als Konsequenz davon, alle unsere Glieder, איברים, Seinem Feuer, נתינת אברים על גבי האש ist reine Konsequenz von נתינת דם על המזבח. — (Siehe auch Kap. 13, 13.)

Sforno on Genesis 39:9:1

כי אם אותך באשר את אשתו, the only restrictions imposed upon me in this house concern the inviolable marital relations between you and my master, your husband.

Sforno on Genesis 39:9:2

הרעה הגדולה הזאת, to repay good with evil.

Sforno on Genesis 39:9:3

להיות עמה, in seclusion.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:9

There is no one greater in this house than I; he has provided good living conditions for me and he has not withheld anything from me but you, as you are his wife. Furthermore, aside from the fact that lying with you would constitute a betrayal of my master’s trust and a complete lack of appreciation for all that he has provided me, there are also religious grounds for my refusal: How can I do this great wickedness, and sin to God?

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:9:1

וחטאתי לאלוקים, “I would commit a sin against G’d.” Rashi explains that basic legislation about incestuous relations including adultery applied universally, not only to Jews. Nachmanides writes that he finds it difficult that Joseph mentioned the sin of adultery against his own master Potiphar, which is secondary, before mentioning the sin against G’d which is primary. He answers this problem by saying that women do not perceive matters in that order. They relate first and foremost to their visible masters, their husbands, and are only marginally concerned with their sins against the Creator, who remains invisible both to them and to their husbands. There is also another way of answering the manner in which Joseph described the sin of giving in to the allure of Mrs. Potiphar. He did not refer to the aspect of illicit sex at all directly, other than saying that he would be committing a great wrong against G’d’s law, without implying that she would be a party to that sin. According to that approach, the words הרעה הגדולה, “the great evil,” would modify the words וחטאתי לאלוקים.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 101-102

“Except yourself, since you are his wife” [39:9]. Toldot Yizhak writes. Why does the verse have to say, he did not withhold anything, he gave everything into my hands except for you. You are his wife. The explanation is that Joseph said: my master has commanded me concerning everything in my master’s house, even concerning you. I have the authority; if you need clothes and jewelry you must come to me. I can give it to you or not. However, you are his wife to sleep with him, and I am not that. Therefore, the verse says, “since you are his wife” [39:9]. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 39:9.) Bahya and Toldot Yizhak cite the Midrash. His master’s wife said to him. Why do you not want to sleep with me? No person will know? Joseph responded: A Hebrew is not allowed to sleep with a gentile woman even if she is unmarried. How can I sleep with you? You are a married woman and have a husband. A parable. A gentile calls a Hebrew to eat an excellent pig with him. The Hebrew responds: I cannot even eat ox meat that has not been properly slaughtered. So Joseph said: your widows and unmarried women are forbidden to us. How much more so a married woman! (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 39:9; Bahya, Genesis, 39:10.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 103-104

“I would sin before God” [39:9]. Hizkuni writes. You tell me that there is no person here. Joseph responded: the Holy One knows about everything. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 39:9.) Rashi writes that Joseph said to her. It is also forbidden for you to sleep with a strange man. Not sleeping with a married woman is also a commandment that was given to the children of Noah before the Torah was given. (Rashi, Genesis, 39:9.)

Jewish Thought

The Jewish people did not despise other nations, as seen through their interactions and covenants with various non-Israelite peoples. Moses expected his people to doubt him and his mission, as they tended to attribute miracles and success to him rather than to G-d. Aaron's involvement in the creation of the golden calf was not enthusiastic cooperation, but rather an attempt to teach a lesson about faith in G-d. Moses argued for extenuating circumstances surrounding the sin, emphasizing the people's recent departure from Egypt and their lack of exposure to proper beliefs. G-d held the Jewish people collectively responsible for the golden calf incident, even though it was the act of one individual.

Akeidat Yitzchak 53:1:15

It is in this context that we must understand the repeated references Moses made to the Jewish people at the burning bush, when he said to G-d that the Jewish people would not believe in him or his mission. Moses expected the same reaction from his own people that he had expected from Pharaoh. This is why he said "when they ask me for Your name, what shall I say?" (Exodus 3, 13) The miracle had been needed to demonstrate the existence of such a G-d. Whenever things went well, the people believed in G-d, Moses and his mission. Whenever difficulties arose, they saw in this proof that there was no free G-d, no Personal Providence, only superior showmanship by Moses, presently revealed as inadequate. Proof of all this lies in the fact that whenever they refer to the Exodus from Egypt, they ascribe it to Moses the man, not to G-d. (compare Exodus 14, 12; 16,3; Numbers 16, 12) Their admiration of Moses was based on Moses being an outstanding man rather than Moses as an instrument of G-d. (1) As soon as Moses was out of sight, not having announced when he would return, (possibly he had not known when he would return) the people wanted to see if they themselves could do what Moses had been doing all the time. Therefore, they had lots of time at their disposal to urge Aaron. The fortieth day was in fact only the last of many days that Aaron had been under pressure. (2) These people believed that the configuration of the ox might hold the secret of Moses’s power. Therefore they traded their own horoscope (that of the lamb) for that of the ox. This is the meaning of Psalms 106,20 "they themselves chose this trade, exchange." It was not Aaron's doing. No doubt, during those forty days the pressure on Aaron had been increasing steadily, the murder of Chur being part of that pressure. Had the Torah reported all this in detail, the impression that Aaron co-operated reluctantly would have been created, and the golden calf would have been viewed as the triumph of the belief in witchcraft over those who believed in G-d and His leadership. Now, that the text seems to suggest Aaron's enthusiastic co-operation, the whole episode can be seen as the creation of a symbol representing the ultimate that human art was capable of. (3+4) In this way, once the impotence of that symbol would become evident to one and all, the illusion that man could fashion a deity would be debunked once and for all. This was Aaron's reasoning when he decided to co-operate. He had no way of knowing that as soon as the calf would emerge, some Jewish lowbrows would commence dancing around it and proclaiming it as their new deity. When that happened, Aaron quickly built an altar for G-d, and tried to allow reason to prevail by postponing the celebration until the morrow, and by dedicating the altar to the Lord. He hoped all the time, of course, that in the interval remaining, G-d would tell Moses to return to the people in order to forestall tragic consequences. Even so, only three thousand people were enthusiastic enough to actually worship this idol before it had demonstrated powers equal or superior to those demonstrated by Moses. (This is why the rest of the nation was not punished by death) We see from all this, that far from precipitating or even participating in the sin, Aaron had used his best efforts to teach the people a lesson of faith in the Lord. This is why, at a later stage, G-d was able to say to Moses "You shall cause your brother Aaron to come close to Me, to be My priest" (Exodus 28, 1) (5) G-d indicated to Moses that if the latter were to pray, He would not then become angry, since the action of a fool acting out of foolishness does not warrant his master's anger. Nonetheless, even fools must repent and confess their errors. Psalms 25,8, and Hoseah 14,2 are some of the sources in scripture for the need to expiate. Sieverity of a sin is measured by three criteria. 1) The manner in which the Torah describes a sin, is a good indication of the view the Torah holds concerning such sin. Expressions such as "abomination, immorality" are used for acts which are especially serious. 2) Any kind of misdemeanour when committed by a person of high rank, becomes more serious, since the sinner's stature should have precluded such conduct on his part. 3) When the disobedience is directed against a supreme lawgiver, it is more serious than disobedience against a man made law. (10) Moses, admits in his confession, that "this nation" had come closer to G-d than any of its predecessors, and should therefore have known better. When he refers to "this great sin," he confesses that due to the people's elevated stature their sin had assumed an added degree of severity. He confesses the heinous nature of the sin when viewed objectively, when he refers to "the golden deity" that this nation had made. While confessing all this, Moses manages to inject powerful arguments about the extenuating circumstances surrounding this crime. Shemot Rabbah 28, clothes Moses’s arguments in the following words: (6) Moses to G-d "Your children have made an assistant for You, and You are angry? Did You not Yourself make the sun shine, and the latter bestows some of its light on the moon? (making it an assistant) Did You not make rain, which in turn promotes the growth of plants etc?" To this G-d replied: "You too are in error, since the golden calf is not capable of doing anything." To this, Moses replied: "in that case why do You get angry over a mere nothing?" Philosophically speaking, Moses presents the golden calf as incapable of offering competition to G-d, and therefore not deserving His concern. Concerning the second criterion for measuring the severity of a sin which we have mentioned, Moses refers to "this people." He refers to their having come out of Egypt. He implies that it is unreasonable to expect high standards of faith from a nation that had just left a country in which it had absorbed a totally wrong way of looking at the world for several hundred years. The Midrash describes it in this way. A father put his son in charge of a perfumery situated in a red light district. Naturally, both the location of the store and the type of customers he dealt with, combined with the son's personal character weakness to corrupt him. When the father finds out and is enraged and threatens to kill his son, the father's friend has to intervene. This friend berates the father, saying: "you have lost him because you have failed to teach him a trade that would bring him into contact with the upper classes of society. Not only that, but you have made him reside amongst harlots. How can you be surprised at the outcome?" Finally, since it was G-d’s declared purpose to use the Jewish people to aggrandize His name, and to make Egypt aware of this, (Exodus 9, 16) what would the Egyptians say when they hear that You have wiped out this nation?" We read in Joshua 7, 10 that G-d told Joshua that Israel's defeat at Ai was due to the nation having sinned, having transgressed the injunction not to appropriate any of the loot of Jericho etc. Actually, only one man, Achan ben Karmi, had committed those acts. (7) When G-d told Moses that the Jewish people had made themselves a cast calf, worshipped it etc, Moses may have thought that this could have been the act of a single individual, and that G-d had referred to the collective responsibility every Jew bears for the actions of another Jew. It had not occurred to Moses that the nation as a whole had been involved in this act.

Sefer Yesodei HaTorah 35:1

Others among the early peoples despised and hated all nations besides them for not having attained to their level in wisdom and art, and they called them "barbarians" and regarded them as beasts. But the children of Israel and their fathers never hated or despised other peoples. Abraham was covenanted with Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, the Amorites, and he and his son Isaac entered a covenant with Avimelech, king of the Philistines. Jacob cursed the ferocity of the wrath of his two sons for killing the men of Shechem who had violated their sister. Judah entered into partnership with Chira the Adulamite. Joseph said (Bereshith 39:9) "How can I do this great evil (adultery) and sin against G-d," even though his master was an Egyptian. And Joshua and the chiefs (of the tribes) kept their oath to the Giveonites even though they were Canaanites and even though their oath was taken in error. And Ezekiel says that Tzidkiyahu will fall by the hand of the king of Bavel (Nevuchadnezzar) for having rebelled against him after having made a covenant with him and having sworn allegiance to him. And even though Nevuchadnezzar was an idolator and a tyrant, the prophet does not justify Tzidkiyahu's rebellion, but cries out (without naming names) that one who breaks his covenant will not succeed or escape, viz. (Ezekiel 17:15) "Shall the doer of these succeed or escape? Shall the breaker of a covenant escape!"

Midrash

Joseph, David, and Boaz all overcame their evil inclinations with an oath. Joseph refused to sin against God, David swore not to harm Saul, and Boaz took an oath to resist temptation. These oaths demonstrated their strength in resisting evil.

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:3

“On the seventh day…” – that is what is written: “Lift your heads, gates…” (Psalms 24:7). You find that when Solomon built the Temple, he sought to bring the Ark into the chamber of the Holy of Holies. At that moment, the gates clung together. Solomon uttered twenty-four supplications, from the verse “For will God indeed dwell…” (II Chronicles 6:18) until “Now, rise, Lord God, to Your resting place, You, and the ark of Your might…” (II Chronicles 6:41), twenty-four verses, but he was not answered. He then said: “Lift your heads, gates; be raised, [everlasting portals, so the King of glory may enter]” (Psalms 24:7), but was not answered. He then said: “Lift your heads, gates; raise yourselves, [everlasting portals, so the King of glory may enter]” (Psalms 24:9), but he was not answered. When he said: “Lord God, do not turn away the face of Your anointed; remember the acts of kindness of David Your servant” (II Chronicles 6:42), he was immediately answered, and the gates lifted their heads, the Ark entered, the Divine Presence rested in the Temple, and fire descended from heaven, as it is written thereafter: “When Solomon had concluded praying, the fire descended from heaven, and it consumed the burnt offering and the peace offerings, and the glory of the Lord filled the Temple” (II Chronicles 7:1). Why was Solomon tormented? It is because he had been arrogant and said: “I have built [ You an abode…” (I Kings 8:13). What is “I have built”? Rabbi Yaakov son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel said: I built a built building. (Solomon took credit for building a building in which his role was very limited.) Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: Everyone assists the king, all the more so that everyone assists the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, even spirits, even demons, and even angels. Rabbi Berekhya said: “The Temple in its construction…” (I Kings 6:7) – it is not written, “that they were building,” but rather, “in its construction” – it was constructed on its own. “Was built of whole stones that were transported” (I Kings 6:7) – it teaches that the stone would transport itself, ascend, and be placed atop the course of stones. Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not wonder; is it not written: “One stone was brought and was placed over the mouth of the den” (Daniel 6:18). Are there stones in Babylon? (There are no mountains there from which to hew stones.) Rather, it teaches that it stood from the Land of Israel and came and settled over the mouth of the den. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Yosef: An angel descended at that moment and appeared in the image of a stone lion and settled on the mouth of the pit. That is what is written: “My God sent His angel, and he shut the lions’ mouths, and they did not harm me” (Daniel 6:23). If for the glory of flesh and blood one stone was brought, for the glory of the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He all the more so. That is why it is stated: “Lift your heads, gates” (Psalms 24:7). What is, “so the King of glory [hakavod] may enter” (Psalms 24:9)? Rabbi Simon said: Why is the Holy One blessed be He called the King of glory? He is the King who accords honor [kavod] to those who fear Him. Rabbi Simon said: It is written: “The people did not travel until Miriam’s readmission” (Numbers 12:15) – it teaches that the cloud lingered on her account. Rabbi Luleyani in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: It is written: “Moses would speak, and God would respond to him with a voice” (Exodus 19:19). It is not written here, “God would speak, and Moses would respond to him with a voice,” but rather, “Moses would speak, and God would respond to him with a voice.” It teaches that He would speak with him in Moses’ voice. Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Simon: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). What is written? “God was with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Aivu: I have derived only in good times, in times of trouble from where is it derived? “The warden of the prison did not oversee anything that was in his (Joseph’s) charge, for the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39:23). Another matter: “King of glory” (Psalms 24:9) – all the Tabernacle vessels were covered with taḥash hides on top of them. Regarding the Ark, it is written: “They shall spread an entirely sky-blue woolen cloth over it” (Numbers 4:6). Why to that extent? It is so the Ark would be distinctive. That is, “so the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9). Another matter: “King of glory” (Psalms 24:9) – Ḥizkiya said: In what way is the sky-blue dye different from all other dyes, that the Holy One blessed be He commanded that it should be in ritual fringes? It is because the sky-blue dye [tekhelet] is like grass, (While tekhelet is usually translated as “sky-blue,” tekhelet can also encompass the color green.) grass is like the sea, the sea is like the firmament, the firmament is like the rainbow, the rainbow is like the cloud, the cloud is like the Throne, and the Throne is like the Glory, as it is stated: “Like the appearance of the rainbow that is in the cloud…[thus…the likeness of the appearance of the Glory of God]” (Ezekiel 1:28). He allotted to those who fear Him sky-blue dye, which is a microcosm of His glory, as it is stated: “They shall place on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (Numbers 15:38). That is, “so the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9), as He accords glory to those who fear Him. Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – Rabbi Avin said: He allots of His glory to those who fear Him. A king of flesh and blood, one may not ride his horse, one may not sit on his throne, one may not use his scepter, one does not wear his garment. But the Holy One blessed be He is not so. Regarding the Holy One blessed be He it is written: “He soared on wings of wind” (Psalms 18:11), and it says: “In a storm and in a tempest is His way” (Nahum 1:3), and he gave it to Elijah, as it is stated: “Elijah went up in a tempest to the heavens” (II Kings 2:11). A king of flesh and blood, one may not sit on his throne, but regarding Solomon it is written: “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23). He gave His scepter to Moses, as it is stated: “Moses took the staff from before the Lord” (Numbers 20:9). The garment of the Holy One blessed be He is glory and grandeur, as it is stated: “You donned glory and grandeur” (Psalms 104:1), and he gave it to the messianic king, as it is stated: “You bestow glory and grandeur upon him” (Psalms 21:6). Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – as He accorded honor to Joseph the righteous because he feared God, as it is stated: “God I fear” (Genesis 42:18), as it was on his behalf that the Lord rested [His Divine Presence] upon his master, as it is stated: “His master saw that the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39:3). Rabbi Avin HaLevi ben Rabbi said: Joseph would bless the Holy One blessed be He for each and every act that he would perform. His master would see him whispering with his mouth and would say to him: What are you saying? He would respond to him and say: I am blessing the Holy One blessed be He. He said to him: I wish to see Him. Joseph said to him: The sun is one of several of His attendants, and you are unable to look at it; how will you be able to look at His glory? The Holy One blessed be He said to him: As you live, in your honor, I will reveal Myself to him, as it is stated: “His master saw that the Lord was with him.” Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – as He accorded honor to those who fear Him. Joseph the righteous feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “How could I perform this great evil, and sin against God” (Genesis 39:9)? He accorded honor to the Holy One blessed be He in that he did not touch her, because of his fear of Him. He said to him: As you live, I will repay your descendant, as I will grant him permission to present his offering on My holy day, and he will not be harmed. That is what is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim…”

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:6

“On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:54). “On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” – that is what is written: “I keep the king’s directive, [and in regard to the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). If the king will say to you that his fear shall be upon you and you shall observe his decrees, observe his decrees. Likewise, it says: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) – that his fear shall be upon you. And it says: “Any man who will disobey your directive, [and does not heed your words in everything that you command him, will be put to death]” (Joshua 1:18). “I” that is written here is nothing other than fear of the monarchy, just as Pharaoh said to Joseph. That is what is written: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, and without you no man shall lift his hand…” (Genesis 41:44). What is “I am Pharaoh”? This is what Pharaoh said to Joseph: Even though I said to you: “You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:40) – that I made you king over everyone – be careful to treat me with respect and make me king over you. That is why he said: “I am Pharaoh” – in other words, that the fear of my kingship shall be upon you. Similarly, “God spoke to Moses, and He said to him: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:2) – why was it necessary to say here: “I am the Lord”? Rather, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: Even though I set you as a god for Pharaoh, as the verse states: “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1) be careful that my Godliness will be upon you, as I made you a god only over Pharaoh alone. That is, “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is “I” who requires you to “keep the king’s directive” – that his fear shall be upon you. Make certain that you do not flout his commands. Is it, perhaps, even if he tells you to violate the words of the Omnipresent? The verse states: “And in regard to the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – the verse comes to inform you that “and in regard to the word of an oath of God” will be paramount over the command of flesh and blood, as you should nullify the will of flesh and blood before the will of God and fulfill all the commandments that are in the Torah, as you entered into an oath in their regard to fulfill them, just as it says: “To pass you into the covenant of the Lord your God and into His oath…” (Deuteronomy 29:11), and it says: “[Cursed be] who will not uphold the matters of this Torah to perform them; and the entire people shall say: Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:26). Similarly, “each of you shall fear his mother and his father…” (Leviticus 19:3) – is it, perhaps, even if his father said to him: Slaughter for me and cook for me on Shabbat, that he should listen to him? The verse states: “And you shall observe My Shabbatot” (Leviticus 19:3) – all of you are obligated in My honor. Here too, “and the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as above the word of the king observe the word of an oath to God. “Do not be frightened; leave his presence [mipanav]; [do not remain in a bad situation, as he will do what he wills]” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). If [a king of] flesh and blood will become angry at you in order to cause you to violate the statutes of the Torah, do not be frightened by his anger and follow his counsel, just as it says: “Who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalms 1:1). Panav is nothing other than his anger, just as it says: “And the expression on his face [anpohi] was distorted” (Daniel 3:19). That is, “leave his presence”; “do not remain in a bad situation [bedavar]” – do not remain in his path to follow it, just as it says: “And did not remain in the path of sinners” (Psalms 1:1). What is “bedavar” (Ecclesiastes 8:3)? It is that you should not fear that evil matter, that he will say to you that he will burn you, kill you, or subject you to harsh suffering if you do not fulfill his decree, and he will threaten you that there is no God in the world who will be able to rescue you from his hand. That is what is written thereafter: “As he will do what he wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). Just as Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya: “At that time you will be cast into the burning fiery furnace; who is the god who will save you from my hands?” (Daniel 3:15). “Since authority is by the king’s word, [who will say to him: What are you doing?]” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). If you devote yourself to the mitzvot to fulfill the decree of the Holy One blessed be He and to nullify the decrees of flesh and blood, what is your reward? When the Holy One blessed be He issues a decree to bring calamity to the world – as he is the King of the world and Ruler of everything, to do everything that He desires and no one can impede him: “He is of one mind, and who can respond to Him? His soul desires, and He does” (Job 23:13) – you will stand and ask for mercy regarding the decree to abrogate it. The Holy One blessed be He will show forbearance to you, and He will nullify it because you nullified the decree of flesh and blood in order to fulfill His decree. That is why it is stated: “Since authority is by the king’s word” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, when He says to bring something to the world to inform of his authority in the world, just as it says: “God caused that they would experience fear before Him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). Know, who can impede His decree and say to Him: ‘Why are You doing so’? It is one who observes mitzvot. That is why it is stated: “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” Who can say to Him: ‘Why are You doing this to Your creations? Descend to them with the attribute of mercy’? That is one who observes His mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva [will know no evil matter]” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5)? It is measure for measure; he did not remain in a bad situation, therefore, “he will know no evil matter.” “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – as there is a wise man who considers the consequences and reckons the loss from a mitzva against its reward and the loss from a transgression against its reward. He considers in his heart: If I transgress His mitzvot, and I have an opportunity to do what I want and there is no one who can impede me, tomorrow, the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him (Referring to himself.) because he violated His Torah. Likewise it says: “The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool [walks in darkness]” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). And it says: “The heart of the wise inclines to his right, [and the heart of a fool inclines to his left]” (Ecclesiastes 10:2). “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” – one whose heart is wise knows that if he transgresses the mitzvot, that the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him, and he refrains from the transgression. That is what is written thereafter: “For there is a time and a judgment for every matter…” (Ecclesiastes 8:6) – regarding every situation where a person performs his will and nullifies the will of the Omnipresent, it should be known to him that he is destined to be judged. Even though retribution is not exacted from him immediately, let him not think that the Holy One blessed be He would overlook his iniquity for him, but rather, He is slow to anger and collects what is due to Him. When does He exact retribution from him? It is when the hin is filled. Likewise it says: “With the filling of his quota, he will be troubled; [the hand of all travail will come upon him]” (Job 20:22). That is why it is stated: “As the evil of man overwhelms him” (Ecclesiastes 8:6); just as He did with the generation of the Flood, as He gave them an extension but ultimately exacted retribution from them, just as it says: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…” (Genesis 6:5). What is written thereafter? “The Lord said: I will obliterate man…” (Genesis 6:7). “For he does not know what will be, [for whenever it will be, who will have told him]?” (Ecclesiastes 8:7). The verse comes to teach you that anyone who does not repent from a transgression that he committed and does not fear the Day of Judgment, when it will arrive they will not show him forbearance. Were he to come and say that he be given an extension so he could repent, they will not listen to him. That is, for whenever punishment “will be, who will have told him” so he would repent and be accepted. It is to say to you that prior to the sentence they listen to him; after the sentence they do not listen to him. That is why it is stated: “For whenever it will be, who will have told him?” “There is no man who rules the spirit [to retain the spirit, and there is no rule on the day of death, and there is no sending a proxy in war, and wickedness will not rescue its owner]” (Ecclesiastes 8:8) – because we found that the Holy One blessed be He decreed four court-imposed death penalties for performers of transgressions. That is why four matters are written here, corresponding to them, where the living lack the ability to be rescued from them after their sentence. These are: “There is no man who rules the spirit [ruaḥ] to retain the spirit” – this is death by strangulation and the like, as a person dies from it only due to breath [ruaḥ], as he has no place from which to breathe. That is, “there is no man who rules the spirit” to exhale it when the day comes that the breath will be constricted in his body. “And there is no rule on the day of death” – this is death by stoning and the like, just as it says: “You shall stone him with stones, and he will die” (Deuteronomy 13:11). “There is no sending a proxy in war” – this is death by decapitation by sword and the like, just as it says: “Go out and wage war with Amalek” (Exodus 17:9), and it is written: “Joshua weakened [Amalek and its people by sword]” (Exodus 17:13). “And wickedness will not rescue its owner” – this is death by burning and the like, just as it says: “All the criminals and all the doers of wickedness will be straw; the day that is coming will burn them…” (Malachi 3:19). These are the four court-imposed death penalties mentioned in this verse. Even though the Sanhedrin ceased and the four court-imposed death penalties were abrogated, the sentence of the four court-imposed death penalties were not abrogated, as the Holy One blessed be He judges the living to die of them with harsh punishments corresponding to them. One who incurs liability to be strangled either drowns in the river, dies of diphtheria, or is delivered into the hands of idol worshippers who strangle him. One who incurs liability to be stoned either falls off the roof, or a beast tramples him, or idol worshippers stone him. One who incurs liability to be beheaded, robbers come upon him and behead him. One who incurs liability to be burned either falls into the fire or a snake bites him. You learned that a person cannot escape the judgment of the Holy One blessed be He that He will not punish him measure for measure. That is why it is stated: “There is no man who rules the spirit….” (Ecclesiastes 8:8). Another matter: “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is speaking of Joseph the righteous, who observed the “I” that Pharaoh had said to him, just as it says: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, [and without you no man shall lift his hand]” (Genesis 41:44), as he never flouted his command. “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as even though he entered into that prominence, he did not throw the yoke of Heaven from upon him and he feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “[I fear] God” (Genesis 42:18). That is why “God” is stated. (According to the Etz Yosef, the midrash is explaining that this is an allusion to the verse, “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2).) He was very cautious regarding the oath, as he did not take an oath “as the Lord lives,” but rather, “as Pharaoh lives, that you will not depart from here” (Genesis 42:15). That is, “an oath.” What is “the word of [divrat]”? It is because he separated himself from lasciviousness, just as it says: “He shall not see a lascivious matter [davar] in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it says: The young woman, because [al devar] she did not cry out in the city…” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Likewise it says: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). What is written there? “He refused, and he said to his master’s wife: Behold, my master…” (Genesis 39:8). That is why it is stated: “The word of [divrat],” just as it says: “It was, as she spoke [kedabra] to Joseph day after day, and he did not heed her…” (Genesis 39:10). “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence” – when he entered the house to perform his labor, and the house was vacant and there was no person who could see him, just as it is written: “It was, on a certain day he went into the house to perform his labor, and there was no one [of the people of the household there in the house]” (Genesis 39:11), she came and seized his garment so that he would lie with her. Nevertheless, he was not frightened by her actions, and he went outside, just as it says: “He left his garment in her hand, fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). That is why it is stated: “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence.” He was not frightened by the house being vacant, but rather he fled and left, even though she said to him that if he would not lie with her, she would say to her husband that he sought to rape her, and her husband will kill him, and there would be no one to impede him, because he is his slave. Nevertheless, he did not allow her to fulfill her desire because of that evil matter that she threatened to do to him. That is why it says: “Do not remain in a bad situation, as God will do what He wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). From where do you derive that she threatened him in that manner? It is from the end of the matter. When she saw that her actions were to no avail, look at what she did: “She called to the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying.… It was, when he heard.… She placed his garment [beside her, until his master’s arrival home]. She spoke to him…[saying: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to me to mock me]. It was, as I raised my voice [and cried out, that he left his garment with me, and fled outside]” (Genesis 39:14–18). “Since authority is by the king’s word…” (Ecclesiastes 8:4) – what reward did the Holy One blessed be He give him for this? He placed him in a position of authority in the land of Egypt. That is what is written: “Since [authority is] by the king’s word…,” just as it says: “Pharaoh spoke to Joseph: In my dream, behold, I am…” (Genesis 41:17). “Authority” – just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4), just as it says: “Go to Joseph; what he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). Why to that extent? It is because he observed the mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter”? It is this evil matter that the butler said, just as it says: “There with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief executioner…” (Genesis 41:12). He said three matters here in Joseph’s regard: “Lad” – that he was a fool, just as it says: “Folly is bound in the heart of a lad” (Proverbs 22:15); “Hebrew” – an enemy; “slave” – that he is not worthy of kingship. Nevertheless, Joseph knew no evil matter. In other words, the matter did not affect him, as he ruled. “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this was Joseph, who was called wise, just as it says: “There is no one as wise and understanding as you” (Genesis 41:39). He knew that he would be held accountable had he touched Potifar’s wife; that is why he withdrew from her. That is what is written: “He did not heed her [to lie with her, to be with her]” (Genesis 39:10); “to lie with her” in this world; “to be with her” in the World to Come. Another matter: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this is the Holy One blessed be He, in whose regard it is written: “Wise of heart and mighty of power” (Job 9:4). He brought about a time to reward Joseph on the basis of measure for measure. How so? He ruled over his inclination and did not touch her; therefore, he became a ruler, just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). He did not heed her, just as it says: “He did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10); therefore, the Holy One blessed be He crowned him as king over Egypt in its entirety, and everyone heeded his words, just as it says: “What he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). His mouth [piv] did not kiss [nashak] in transgression; therefore, “at your directive [pikha] my entire people will be sustained [yishak]” (Genesis 41:40). He said: “There is no one greater in this house than I…” (Genesis 39:9) in order to rebuff her; therefore, “you will be in charge of my house” (Genesis 41:40). He did not seize her, but she seized him with her hands, just as it says: “She seized him by his garment…” (Genesis 39:12); therefore, “Pharaoh removed his signet ring from upon his hand, and he placed it upon Joseph’s hand” (Genesis 41:42). He left his garment in her hand; therefore, “he dressed him in linen garments” (Genesis 41:42). He did not bend his neck toward her; therefore, “he placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42). He did not mount [rakhav] her; therefore, “he had him ride [vayarkev] in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43). She called the people of her household in this regard, just as it says: “She called the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14); therefore, “they called before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43). He was relegated to the prison for this, just as it says: “He relegated him [vayitenehu] to the prison” (Genesis 39:20); therefore, “he appointed him [venaton oto] over the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:43). He did not direct his glance toward her, and not toward the Egyptian women when he ruled, just as it says: “Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful bough alongside a spring [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22), as he averted his eye [she’ilem eino] from Potifar’s wife and from the Egyptian women. “Branches [banot] (Banot can also mean women.) ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22). Therefore, alei shur. Rabbi Reuven said: What is alei shur? The Holy One blessed be He said: It is incumbent upon me to pay a reward for that eye. How so? The Rabbis taught that in the Temple they would eat offerings of lesser sanctity within the wall, within the wall of Jerusalem. But in Shilo, which was in the portion of Joseph, they would eat it within eyeshot. (Within eyeshot of the Tabernacle (Rambam, Mishna Zevaḥim 14:6).) That is alei shur, just as it says: “The eye of one who sees me will not behold me [teshureni]” (Job 7:8). Rabbi Azarya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Joseph: You observed the mitzva of: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), which is the seventh of the Commandments, and you did not commit adultery with Potifar’s wife. And you observed the mitzva of: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), which is the eighth of the Commandments, as you did not steal Potifar’s property and you did not “steal” his wife, just as it says: “The eye of the adulterer observes the night, saying: No eye will behold [teshureni] me…” (Job 24:15). The time will come when I will repay you for them. Tomorrow, when the princes come to bring [offerings] for the dedication of the altar, the princes of your two sons, one will present his offering on the seventh day, and the second on the eighth day. And no other tribe will interpose between your two sons, just as you did not interpose (Namely, you did not differentiate between them. You observed both of them. As a reward, Benjamin did not interpose between Ephraim and Manasseh.) between “you shall not commit adultery” and “you shall not steal,” as it is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim.… On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh…” (Numbers 7:48–54) That is why it is written: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:7

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:55). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]…” – do not read it as kaarat, but rather as akart, corresponding to Jacob, who extracted [akar] the birthright (The birthright refers to the extra portion of the inheritance that the eldest son received.) from Reuben and gave it to Joseph: “I have given you one portion more than your brothers…” (Genesis 48:22). “Silver” – just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20), just as he (Silver alludes to the statement made by Jacob, who was righteous.) said: “Ephraim and Manasseh will be for me like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – when Jacob descended to Egypt on account of Joseph, he was one hundred and thirty years old, as it is stated: “Jacob said to Pharaoh: The days of the years of my residence are one hundred and thirty years” (Genesis 47:9). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – corresponding to Joseph, who was cast [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “Silver” – after: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20) – what he said to his father (Silver alludes to the statement made by Joseph, who was righteous.) : “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn; place your right hand upon his head” (Genesis 48:18). “Seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” – as it was through him that seventy people descended to Egypt. “Both of them full…” – Jacob and Joseph, both of them were full-fledged righteous men and both produced tribes. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:56). “One gold ladle of ten shekels…” – corresponding to the ten districts of Manasseh, as it is stated: “Ten districts fell to Manasseh” (Joshua 17:5). “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:57). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:58). “One young bull, one ram [one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering]; one goat…” – these (This is a reference to the three burnt offerings.) are three corresponding to the three generations that Joseph saw from Manasseh that received a portion in the land, (This is a reference to the fact that there were three major families named after the three generations following Manasseh, in addition to the family which was named after Manasseh himself. Therefore, the phrase “the sons of Makhir” refers to Makhir himself, Gilad, and Iezer.) as it is stated: “The children of Makhir son of Manasseh, too, were born at Joseph’s knees” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise, it says: “The sons of Manasseh: For Makhir, the family of the Makhirites, and Makhir begot Gilad.… These are the sons of Gilad: Of Iezer…” (Numbers 26:29–30). Makhir, Gilad, and Iezer – these are three generations that were patrilineal houses that were attributed to Joseph, as Manasseh is attributed to Jacob, just as it says: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before my coming to you to Egypt, they are mine” (Genesis 48:5). The fourth, this was Ya’ir son of Manasseh, who received a portion in the land, just as it says: “Ya’ir son of Manasseh went and captured their villages [ḥavot], and he called them Ḥavot Ya’ir” (Numbers 32:41). The three species of burnt offerings corresponded to the sons of Makhir son of Manasseh. (This is referring to what was mentioned above, and is mentioned again since the midrash now also explains what the sin offering signifies.) The goat sin offering corresponded to Ya’ir, who did not bequeath his portion to his sons, because he did not have sons. That is why he called them (The villages.) by his name, because he did not have any remnant, and the sons of his brother Makhir inherited his portion. “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:59). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the tribe of Manasseh, which split into two and received two portions in the land, half of it on the east bank of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan. “Five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year” – these are three species, corresponding to three things that Joseph did on behalf of Manasseh, whom he sought to elevate over his brother Ephraim. The first: “Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim in his right hand to the left of Israel, and Manasseh in his left hand to the right of Israel” (Genesis 48:13). The second: “He supported his father’s hand, to remove it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh” (Genesis 48:17). The third: “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn…” (Genesis 48:18). Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five women from the tribe of Manasseh who took a portion in the land. These were Tzelofḥad’s five daughters, just as it says: “Tzelofḥad’s daughters speak justly; give them a holding for inheritance…” (Numbers 27:7). They were five, as it is stated: “These are the names of his daughters: Maḥla, Noa, Ḥogla, Milka, and Tirtza” (Numbers 27:1). Likewise, Jacob mentioned them in the blessing of Joseph, as it is stated: “Branches [banot] ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22); these are Tzelofḥad’s daughters [banot], who received a portion in the land. Alternatively, why were they five each? It corresponds to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “May they proliferate like fish in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16), and fish were created on the fifth day. “This was the offering of Gamliel…” – since the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented the offering in this order, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Gamliel…”

Bereshit Rabbah 86:6

“Joseph found favor in his eyes, and he served him. He appointed him overseer of his household, and everything that was his, he placed in his charge” (Genesis 39:4). “It was once he appointed him overseer of his household and over everything that was his, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; the blessing of the Lord was in all that he had, in the house and in the field” (Genesis 39:5). “Joseph found…. It was once…” – Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: Everywhere that the righteous go, the Divine Presence goes with them. He was there twelve years, six in the house and six in the field. (Many commentaries emend the text to read: He was there twelve months, six in the house and six in the field (see, e.g., Matnot Kehuna; Yefeh To’ar). ) “He left everything that he had in Joseph's charge and he did not know anything with him about his doings, except the bread that he would eat. Joseph was of fine form, and of fair appearance” (Genesis 39:6). “He left everything that he had in Joseph's charge…except the bread that he would eat” – a euphemism. (This was a euphemism for his wife, as Joseph later says to her: “He has not withheld anything from me but you, as you are his wife” (Genesis 39:9).) “Joseph was of fine form, and of fair appearance” – Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Cast a stick onto the ground and it will land on its source. Because it is written: “Rachel was of fine form [and fair appearance]” (Genesis 29:17); therefore, “Joseph was….”

Bereshit Rabbah 87:5

“He refused, and he said to his master's wife: Behold, my master, having me, does not know what is in the house, and he has placed everything that he has in my charge” (Genesis 39:8). “He refused, and he said to his master's wife” – Yehuda ben Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: If, in the matter of a mitzva, one may refuse, in the matter of a transgression, [is it] not [obvious] that one must refuse? In the matter of a mitzva one may refuse – “my husband’s brother has refused [to perpetuate a name for his brother in Israel, he is unwilling to perform levirate marriage with me]” (Deuteronomy 25:7). In the matter of a transgression, must one not refuse? “He refused, and he said…: Behold, my master….” He said to her: ‘The Holy One blessed be He is accustomed to choose from the beloved of my father’s household for a burnt offering – to Abraham: “Take now your son” (Genesis 22:2). Shall I accede to you? Perhaps I have been chosen as a burnt offering, and I will be disqualified from being an offering.’ Another matter, “he said to his master's wife” – he said to her: ‘The Holy One blessed be He is accustomed to reveal Himself to the beloved of my father’s household at night: Abraham – “After these matters, the word of the Lord was to Abram in a vision,” (Genesis 15:1); Isaac – “The Lord appeared to him that night” (Genesis 26:24); Jacob – “He dreamed, and behold, a ladder” (Genesis 28:12). If I accede to you, perhaps the Holy One blessed be He will reveal Himself to me and find me impure.’ Another matter, “Behold, my master” – he said to her: ‘I am afraid. If Adam the first man was commanded regarding a minor mitzva, and when he violated it, he was expelled from the Garden of Eden, this, which is a major transgression of forbidden sexual relations, all the more so.’ “Behold, my master” – [he said to her:] ‘I am afraid of my father, in the land of Canaan; Reuben, because it is written in his regard: “Reuben went and lay with Bilha” (Genesis 35:22), his birthright was taken from him and given to me. If I accede to you, I will be rejected from my birthright.’ Another matter, “Behold, my master” – [he said to her:] ‘I am afraid of my master.’ She said to him: ‘I will kill him.’ He said to her: ‘Is it not sufficient that I will be counted in the company of adulterers, that [I should also be among] the company of murderers? And if this matter is what you seek – “behold, my master” – go to the one who is before you’ . Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The milk of black goats and the milk of white goats is the same. (If you seek sexual relations, go to your husband, who can provide that just as well as I can. ) Another matter, “Behold, my master” – [he said to her:] ‘I am afraid of the Lord.’ She said to him: ‘He is not here.’ He said to her: “The Lord is great and highly extolled, [and His greatness is unfathomable]” (Psalms 145:3). Rabbi Avin said: She took him from room to room aand from bed chamber to bed chamber until she positioned him next to her bed. Her idol was etched above it. She took a sheet and covered its face. He said to her: ‘You have done well that you covered its face. The one in whose regard it is written: “They are the eyes of the Lord roving throughout the earth” (Zechariah 4:10), all the more so.’ (If you are concerned about being seen by your idol, all the more so should you be concerned about being seen by God. ) “There is no one greater in this house than I, and he has not withheld anything from me but you, as you are his wife. How can I do this great wickedness, and sin to God?” (Genesis 39:9). Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Ami: Was the verse missing anything? “And sin to the Lord” (This is the typical expression when referring to sin.) is not written here, but rather, “[and sin] to God.” By God, I will not perform this evil matter. (The midrash interprets Joseph to have taken an oath that he would not perform this sin. )

Bereshit Rabbah 88:2

The Rabbis say: The butler – a fly was found in his goblet; (A fly was found in the goblet he served to Pharoah. ) the baker – a pebble was found in his loaf. That is what is written: “The butler of the king of Egypt and the baker sinned against their master” – in the service of their master. Rabbi Evyatar said: They sought to consort with the king’s daughter. Here it is stated: “Sinned” and elsewhere it is stated: “[How can I do this wicked thing] and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). (This verse was stated by Joseph as part of his refusal to commit adultery with Potiphar’s wife. )

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sanhedrin 11:121

Men of Sodom, etc. Our Rabbis were taught: Men of Sodom have no share in the world to come, as it is said (Gen. 13, 13) But the people of Sodom were wicked and sinners, i.e., wicked in this world, and sinners, in the world to come. R. Juda said: "They were wicked with their bodies and sinners with their money. With their bodies, as it is written (Ib. 39, 9) How then can I do this great evil and sin against God? And sinners with their money, as it is written (Deut. 15, 9) It will be sin in thee. Before the Lord, refers to blasphemy. Exceedingly — all their sins were intentional." In a Baraitha it was taught the reverse: Wicked, with their money, as it is written (Ib., ib. 9) And thy eye be thus evil against thy needy brother, and sinners, with their bodies, as it is written (Gen. 39, 9) and sin against God. Before the Lord, refers to blasphemy, and exceedingly, means bloodshed, as it is said (II Kings, 21, 16) And also innocent blood did Menasseh shed exceedingly. Our Rabbis were taught: The men of Sodom became overbearing only on account of the wealth that the Holy One, praised be He! bestowed upon them. And what is written concerning them; (Job 28, 58) The earth out of which cometh forth bread, is under its surface turned up as it were with fire. Her stones are the place whence the sapphire cometh; and golden dust is also there. On the path which no bird of prey knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not surveyed, etc. And they said: "Since our land supplies us with sufficient bread, why should we permit travellers who come only to diminish our money? Come, let us make the law of free trade forgotten in our land," as it is said (Ib. ib. 4) He breaketh a channel far from the inhabited place, those of unsteady foot, etc.

Midrash Aggadah, Genesis 10:12:1

The great city of God: Why was Nineveh called a great city of God? Because they were evil through their bodies in forbidden sexual relations, as it is written, "How can I do this great evil and sin before God (Genesis 39:9)?

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Metzora 4:1

[(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.] This text is related (to Prov. 18:21): DEATH AND LIFE ARE IN THE POWER OF THE TONGUE. Everything depends on the tongue. (Tanh., Lev. 5:2.) < If > one is acquitted, he is acquitted for life; < if > one is not acquitted, he is condemned to death. < If > one is engaged in Torah with his tongue, he is acquitted for life, inasmuch as the Torah [is called life, according to what is stated] (in Prov. 3:18): < WISDOM > IS A TREE OF LIFE TO THOSE WHO TAKE HOLD OF IT. It (i.e., the Torah) is also one's healing for the evil tongue (i.e., slander), as stated (in Prov. 15:4): A HEALING TONGUE IS A TREE OF LIFE. But if one is occupied with slander, his soul is condemned to death, since slander is more harmful than the shedding of blood. Thus whoever kills takes only one life, but the one who speaks slander kills three people: the one who tells it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is told. (PRK 4:2; Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Deut. R. 5:10; M. Pss. 12:2; yPe’ah 1:1 (16a).) Doeg spoke slander against Ahimelech; and he (i.e., Ahimelech) was killed, [as stated] (in I Sam. 22:16): BUT {SAUL} [THE KING] SAID: YOU SHALL SURELY DIE, AHIMELECH. Saul also was killed, [as stated] (in I Chron. 10:13): < SO SAUL DIED > FOR THE TREACHERY WHICH HE HAD COMMITTED AGAINST THE LORD. And thus did Saul say (in II Sam. 1:9, to a young man): PLEASE STAND OVER ME AND SLAY ME, FOR DEATH THROES HAVE SEIZED ME. < The young man was > the accuser (Gk.: kategoros.) of Nob, the city of priests. Now DEATH THROES (ShBTs) can only denote priesthood, since it is stated (in Exod. 28:13 with reference to high-priestly dress): AND YOU SHALL MAKE GOLD BROCADE (rt.: ShBTs). Doeg also was uprooted (ShRSh) from the life of this world and from all life in the world to come. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 52:7 [5]): GOD WILL ALSO TEAR YOU DOWN FOR EVER; HE WILL SEIZE YOU, TEAR YOU AWAY FROM YOUR TENT, AND UPROOT (ShRSh) YOU FROM THE LAND OF THE LIVING. SELAH. < I.e., he will uproot you > from life in the world to come. Who is more severe? One who smites with the sword or < one who > smites with the dart? [Say: The one who smites with the dart.] The one who smites with the sword is only able to kill his companion if he draws near to him and touches him; but in the case of one who smites with the dart, it is not so. Rather one throws the dart wherever he sees him. Therefore, one who speaks slander is comparable to the dart, as stated (in Jer. 9:7 [8]): THEIR TONGUE IS A SHARPENED DART; IT SPEAKS DECEIT. It also says (in Ps. 57:5 [4]): THE CHILDREN OF ADAM, WHOSE TEETH ARE SPEARS AND DARTS, [AND WHOSE TONGUE A SHARP SWORD]. See how harmful slander is, in that it is more harmful than adultery, blood shedding, and idolatry. (M. Pss. 52:2.) Of adultery it is written (in Gen. 39:9, where Joseph is addressing Potiphar's wife): THEN HOW SHALL I DO THIS GREAT EVIL AND SIN AGAINST GOD? Of blood shedding it is written (in Gen. 4:13): AND CAIN SAID TO THE LORD: MY SIN IS GREATER THAN I CAN BEAR. Of idolatry it is written (in Exod. 32:31, with reference to the golden calf): ALAS, THIS PEOPLE HAS SINNED A GREAT SIN. But when it (i.e., Scripture) mentions slander, it does not say "great" (in the masculine singular, as in Gen. 4:13), "great" in the feminine singular, as in Gen. 39:9 and Exod. 32:31), but "great" (in the feminine plural). Thus it is written (in Ps. 12:4 [3]): THE LORD SHALL CUT OFF ALL FLATTERING LIPS, < EVERY > TONGUE SPEAKING GREAT THINGS (in the feminine plural). It is therefore stated (in Prov. 18:21): DEATH AND LIFE ARE IN THE POWER OF THE TONGUE.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Nasso 33:1

[Another interpretation (of Numb. 7:48:) ON THE SEVENTH DAY IT WAS THE PRINCE OF THE CHILDREN OF EPHRAIM, ELISHAMA BEN AMMIHUD.] R. Meir and R. Joshua ben Qorhah were interpreting the names. Elishama : "He (Joseph) heeded (shama') my God (Eli)," and he did not heed his mistress. BEN AMMIHUD means: He was "with me ('immi)" but was not with her. (Cf. the parallel in Tanh., Numb. 2:28: “AMMIHUD (‘MYHWD) means: ‘His glory (HWDW)’ was ‘with me (‘MY)’ and not with another.”) Similarly also in the case of (Numb. 7:54:) GAMALIEL BEN PEDAHZUR , Joseph said: [Gamaliel] : "God (El) has recompensed (gamal)" my people with a good recompense (gemulim). Ben Pedahzur (PDHTsWR) means: "A rock (TsWR) redeemed" (PDH)" him. And who brought it about for him (according to Ps. 18:21–22 [20–21])? THE LORD REWARDED ME ACCORDING TO MY RIGHTEOUSNESS; ACCORDING TO {MY PURITY} [THE PURITY OF MY HANDS] …. R. Samuel bar Abba said: What is the meaning of ACCORDING TO {MY PURITY} [THE PURITY OF MY HANDS]? According to the purity of my hands, because I was pure through good works. (yTa’an. 3:12 (or 10) (67a.) (Ps. 18:21 [20]:) THE LORD REWARDED ME. How? When someone is poor, he trusts in the Holy One; but when he is wealthy, he trusts in his wealth and has no fear . (Cf. Mark 10:25 // Matthew 19:24 // Luke 22:25.) However, when Joseph was a slave, he feared the Lord. When his mistress enticed him with words, he said to her (in Gen. 39:9): THEN HOW SHALL I DO THIS GREAT EVIL AND SIN AGAINST GOD? Also when he became king he continued in fear , as stated (in Gen. 42:18): FOR I FEAR GOD. And when his brothers came down to him a second time (according to Gen. 43:16): WHEN JOSEPH SAW WITH THEM, … SLAUGHTER AND PREPARE (wehakhen) AN ANIMAL, FOR THE MEN WILL EAT WITH ME AT NOON. (Because this verse uses the word, wehakhen, and because the same word also occurs in Exod. 16:5, it is assumed that the conditions of Exod. 16:5 apply here to Gen. 43:16.) Now surely it is not customary for kings to {eat} [prepare] one day ahead for the next. R. Johanan said: It was the Sabbath, and he had merely prepared for the Sabbath day, as stated (in Exod. 16:5): THAT WHEN THEY PREPARE WHAT THEY BRING, . (Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Beshallah, 1; Numb. R. 14:2; TDER 24 (or 26), p. 131.) The Holy One said to him: You have kept the Sabbath before it was given. By your life I will have the son of your son offer on the Sabbath day, as stated (in Numb. 7:48): ON THE SEVENTH DAY IT WAS THE PRINCE OF THE CHILDREN OF EPHRAIM.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Metzora 2:1

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” This text is related (to Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” Everything depends on the tongue. [If] one is acquitted, he is acquitted for life; [if] one is not acquitted, he is condemned to death. [If] one is engaged in Torah with his tongue, he is acquitted for life, inasmuch as the Torah is a tree of life, as stated (in Prov. 3:18), “[Wisdom] is a tree of life to those who take hold of it.” It (i.e., the Torah) is also one's healing for the evil tongue (i.e., slander), as stated (in Prov. 15:4), “A healing tongue is a tree of life.” But if one is occupied with slander, his soul is condemned to death, since slander is more harmful than the shedding of blood. Thus whoever kills takes only one life, but the one who speaks slander kills three people: the one who tells it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is told. (PRK 4:2; Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Deut. R. 5:10; M. Pss. 12:2; yPe’ah 1:1 (16a).) Doeg spoke slander against Ahimelech; and he (i.e., Ahimelech) was killed, as stated (in I Sam. 22:16), “But the king said, ‘You shall surely die, Ahimelech.’” Saul also was killed, [as stated] (in I Chron. 10:13), “So Saul died for the treachery which he had committed against the Lord.” And thus did Saul say (in II Sam. 1:9, to a young man), “Please stand over me and slay me, for death throes have seized me.” [The young man was] the accuser (Gk.: kategoros.) of Nob, the city of priests [against Saul]. Now death throes (shbts) can only denote priesthood, since it is stated (in Exod. 28:13 with reference to high-priestly dress), “And you shall make gold brocade (rt.: shbts).” Doeg also was uprooted (shrsh) from the life of this world and from all life in the world to come. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 52:7), “God will also tear you down for ever; He will seize you, tear you away from your tent, and uproot (shrsh) you from the land of the living. Selah,” [i.e., He will uproot you] from life in the world to come. Who is more severe? One who smites with the sword or [one who] smites with the dart? Say the one who smites with the dart. The one who smites with the sword is only able to kill his companion if he draws near to him and touches him; but in the case of one who smites with the dart, it is not so. Rather one throws the dart wherever he sees him. Therefore, one who speaks slander is comparable to the dart, as stated (in Jer. 9:7), “Their tongue is a sharpened dart; it speaks deceit.” It also says (in Ps. 57:5), “people, whose teeth are spears and darts, and whose tongue a sharp sword.” See how harmful slander is, in that it is more harmful than adultery, shedding blood and idolatry. (M. Pss. 52:2.) Of adultery it is written (in Gen. 39:9, where Joseph is addressing Potiphar's wife), “then how shall I do this great evil and sin against God?” Of shedding blood it is written (in Gen. 4:13), “My sin is greater than I can bear.” Of idolatry it is written (in Exod. 32:31, with reference to the golden calf), “Alas, this people has sinned a great sin.” But when it (i.e., Scripture) mentions slander, it does not say "great" (in the masculine singular, as in Gen. 4:13), or "great" (in the feminine singular, as in Gen. 39:9 and Exod. 32:31), but "great" (in the feminine plural). Thus it is written (in Ps. 12:4), “The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, [every] tongue speaking great things (in the feminine plural).” It is therefore stated (in Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” [Another interpretation (of Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”: Do not say, “Since I have license to speak, I am therefore speaking whatever I want.” See, the Torah has already warned you (in Ps. 34:14), “Keep your tongue from evil [and your lips from speaking deceit].” Perhaps you will say that you are suffering a loss. Are you not profiting instead? So the holy spirit proclaims (in Prov. 21:23), “The one who guards his mouth and his tongue guards his soul from trouble (tsarot).” Do not read this as “from trouble.” Instead [read it as], "from leprosy (tsar'at).” Another interpretation (of Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”: Slander is so harmful that one does not produce it from his mouth without denying the Holy One, blessed be He. (M. Ps. 52:2.) Thus it is stated (in Ps. 12:5), “Those who say, ‘By our tongues we shall prevail; our lips are with us, who is to be our Lord?’” The Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, cried out against those who speak slander (in Ps. 94:16), “Who will stand for Me against evildoers…?” Who can stand against them? And who will stand against them? Geihinnom? But Geihinnom also cries out, “I am unable to stand against them.” [Then] the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “I [will come at them] from above and you (Geihinnom), from below. I will hurl darts from above; and you will turn on them with burning coals from below.” Thus it is stated (in Ps. 120:4), “Sharp darts of the warrior along with burning coals of broom wood.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Do you want to be delivered from Geihinnom? Keep yourselves far away from the deceitful tongue. Then you will be acquitted in this world and in the world to come.” Thus it is stated (in Ps. 34:13), “Who is the one who desires life….” And it is [then] written (in vs. 14), “Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit […].” Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:2), “This shall be the law of the leper,” to teach you that one who speaks slander will have blemishes come to him, as it is stated, “This shall be the law of the leper (metsora'),” [i.e.] the one who proclaims evil (motsi' ra') (Above, 5:1; ySot. 2:1 (17d); ‘Arakh. 15b; Cf. Lev. R. 16:1.) will find evil, in that he will have leprosy come upon him. See what is written about Miriam (in Numb. 12:1), “Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses.” Therefore (in vs. 10), “then Aaron turned unto Miriam, and there was [Miriam] with leprosy like the snow.” What is written elsewhere (in Deut. 24:9)? “Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam […].” And is it not all the more so? For if Miriam had this happen, when she only spoke against her beloved brother when he was absent (I.e., she spoke privately to Aaron with no desire to be hostile to Moses. Cf. Sifre, Numb. 12:1 (99:2).) and was only intending to return him to his wife, how much the more so in the case of one who utters slander against his colleague? What is written above on the matter (in Deut. 24:8)? “Take care with the plague of leprosy [to watch diligently and do according to all that the priests and Levites shall teach…].” So the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, also afflicted with it Aaron, who was high priest. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 12:9), “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, [i.e.] against Aaron and against Miriam.” Aaron, however, was healed immediately; but Miriam, after seven days, as stated (in Numb. 12:15), “So Miriam was shut up [outside of the camp] for seven days.” Ergo (in Lev. 14:2), “This shall be the law of the leper (metsora').” The one who proclaims evil (motsi' ra') is the one who finds evil (motse' ra'). And thus you find with the primeval serpent, because he spoke slander [to Eve] against his Creator, for that reason he became leprous. (Cf. Gen. R. 19:4.) What did he say? R. Joshua ben Levi said (citing Gen. 3:5), “’For God knows that on the day that you eat from it, your eyes shall be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ He said to her, ‘Every artisan hates his fellow [artisan]. (The saying is proverbial. See Gen. R. 32:2; M. Pss. 11:6.) Now when [the Holy One, blessed be He,] wanted to create His world, He ate from this tree. So he created His world. You [two] also eat from it. Then you will be able to create like Him.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to [the serpent], ‘You have spoken slander. Your end is to be stricken with leprosy.’” It is so stated (in Gen. 3:14), “So the Lord God said unto the serpent, “Because you have done this, more cursed shall you be than all the beasts of the field.” With what did he curse ('araroh) him? With leprosy. Now a curse can only be leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:52), “for it is a malignant (mam'eret) leprosy.” (The argument assumes that ‘arirah and mam’eret share the same root. So also Exod. R. 3:13.) R. Huna said in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi, “The scales which are on the snake are his leprosy.” (Gen. R. 20:4.) And not only that, but when all the deformed are cured in the world to come, the snake shall not be cured. (Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 11:9; Tanh., Gen. 11:8; Gen. R. 95:1.) Thus it is stated (in Gen. 3:14), “more cursed shall you be than all the beasts.” From here [we learn] that they all shall be healed, but [the serpent] shall not be healed. People shall be healed, as stated (in Is. 35:5), “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened….” It is also [written about] the wild beasts and the cattle (in Is. 65:25), “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion like the ox shall eat straw, but the serpent's food shall be dust”; as he will never be healed, because he [was the one who] brought all mortals down to the dust. And what caused him to have [this punishment]? [It happened] because he had spoken slander.

Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 28:1

(Numb. 7:48:) “On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim.” This text is related (to Ps. 60:9), “Gilead is Mine and Manasseh is Mine; Ephraim also is My chief stronghold; Judah is My scepter.” Resh Laqish said, “If the idolaters should say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not enliven the dead, say to them, ‘See here, Elijah bears witness that I enlivened the dead through his hand.’ (Cf. Numb. R. 14:1.) Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), ‘Gilead is mine,’ as Elijah was of the inhabitants of Gilead. (Ibid., cont.:) ‘And Manasseh is Mine.’ If they should say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not receive repentant sinners, say to them, ‘See here, Manasseh bears witness that I received him through repentance, since it is stated (in II Chron. 33:13), “When he (i.e., Manasseh) prayed unto him, He (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He,) granted his request, heard his [entreaty,] and restored him to Jerusalem and to his kingdom […].”’ Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), ‘and Manasseh is Mine.’ (Ibid., cont.:) ‘Ephraim also is My chief stronghold.’ And if they say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not attend to (pqd) barren women, say to them, ‘See here, Elkanah of Mount Ephraim bears witness that I attended to (pqd) his wife Hannah, as stated (in I Sam. 2:21), “For the Lord visited (pqd) hannah; [so she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters].”’ (Ibid., cont.:) ‘Judah is my scepter.’ If they say to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not rescue from the fire, say to them, ‘See here, Hananiah and his friends bear witness that I rescued them from the fire, as stated (in Dan. 1:6), “Now among those from the Children of Judah were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.”’ Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), ‘Judah is my scepter.’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 60:9), “Gilead is Mine”: If someone says to you, “Why did Elijah build an altar up on Mount Carmel and sacrifice on it, when the Temple existed at that time? For Moses has said (in Lev. 17:3–4), ‘If any single person from the house of Israel slaughters [an ox, a lamb or a goat in the camp]…, And does not bring it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting [to offer a sacrifice to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord, blood guilt shall be imputed to that person],’” say to him, “Everything that Elijah did, he did for the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and by divine command. (yTa‘an. 2:8 (65d); Lev. R. 22:9.) It is so stated (in I Kings 18:36), ‘And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the oblation (minhah), the prophet Elijah drew near and said […, and that I have done all these things at Your bidding].’” Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), “Gilead is Mine.” (Ibid., cont.:) “And Manasseh is Mine.” If someone says to you, “Why did Gideon sacrifice in a high place (bamah); see here, it was forbidden because there was Shiloh in existence?” [In answer to this question,] R. Abba bar Lahana said, “Gideon did seven [unlawful] things: (yMeg. 1:14 (or 12) (72c); Zev. 14:6; M. Sam. 13; see Tem. 28b-29a.) (1) He sacrificed a bull which had been worshipped, (2) a bull which had been set aside (for idolatry), (3) he built an altar, (4) he cut wood [for it] from the asherah, (5) he sacrificed at night, (6) without the high priest, and (7) he was among idol-serving priests. Yet whatever he did, he did by divine command. It is so stated (in Jud. 6:25-26), ‘And it came to pass during that night that the Lord said to him, “Take the bull ox that belongs to your father […]”’” Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), “and Manasseh is Mine.” (Ibid., cont.:) “Judah is my scepter.” If someone says to you, “See here, David transgressed against a negative commandment,” (Buber, n. 147, suggests that the allusion is to the Bathsheba incident (II Sam. 11). This interpretation is suggested by citation of Ps. 51:15 which follows, since according to the introduction of this Psalm, David wrote it when Nathan came to him to condemn him for the Bathsheba affair. Cf. also Numb. R. 14:1, which alludes in this context to David building an altar and offering sacrifices on a high place (II Sam. 24:18-25 // I Chron. 21:18-26).) the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Say to him, ‘David taught the penitents, like a scribe teaching children.’” It is so stated (in Ps. 51:15), “Let me teach transgressors your ways and the sinners shall return unto You.” Ergo (in Ps. 60:9), “Judah is My scepter. (Ibid.:) “Ephraim also is My chief stronghold.” If someone says to you, “Why did Joshua profane the Sabbath in Jericho,” say to him, “He acted on divine command.” It is so stated (in Joshua 6:2), “Then the Lord said unto Joshua, ‘See, I have given Jericho into your hand […].’” It is also written (in vss. 3-4), “So you shall go around the city […]; thus shall you do for six days. And seven priests […]; but on the seventh day you shall go around the city seven times, [and the priests shall blow on the shofars].’” And how is it shown that it was on the Sabbath? In that there are never seven days without a Sabbath. (See yShab. 1:3 or 8 (4ab); Gen. R. 14:10; Seder Olam Rabbah 11.) Ergo, “Ephraim also is My chief stronghold.” Now Joshua did yet another thing on his own initiative, which was not told to him. When Jericho was conquered, it was Sabbath. He said, “All of the Sabbath is holy, so whatever we conquer on the Sabbath will be holy to the Lord, as stated (in Josh. 6:19), “But all the silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are holy to the Lord […].” R. Berekhyah the Priest Berabbi said, “He treated it like a city condemned (for idolatry), and in the case of a city condemned (for idolatry) it is forbidden [to derive] benefit [from it]. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 13:17), ‘and you shall burn with fire the city with all its plunder, wholly for the Lord your God.’” R. Judah bar Shallum the Levite said, “[Joshua] taught Israel what the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel (in Numb. 15:20), ‘You shall set aside the first of your dough [as a hallah offering].’ Joshua said, ‘In as much as we conquered it first, we shall dedicate all its booty to the most high.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘In as much as you have done so, see, your offering is supporting your tribe and overriding the Sabbath.’ Thus it is stated (in Numb. 7:48), ‘On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim (who made the offering).’” This text is related (to Eccl. 8:4–5), “For a king's word is supreme […]. Whoever observes a commandment shall not know anything evil.” And so it says (in II Sam. 23:3), “The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me, ‘One who governs over a person, who governs righteously the fear of God.” And who is the one who governs over his [evil] drive. (See above, Gen. 5:6.) One who does the will of the Omnipresent. And who is this? This was Joseph, the father of [Ephraim], the father of the father of Joshua ben Nun. What is written about him (in Gen. 39:7–8)? “And it came to pass after these things that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph […]. But he refused […].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You did not heed her. By your life, I am making you king over Egypt. Then they all shall obey you, as stated (in Gen. 41:55), “then Pharaoh said to all Egypt, ‘Go unto Joseph.’” It also says (in vs. 40), “You shall be over my house,” and the children of my palace (Lat.: praetorium; Gk.: praitorion.) shall do nothing without your consent. So it says (in Gen. 42:6), “Now Joseph was the governor over the land.” Because he governed his [evil] drive, he became governor over the land. (Gen. 39:2:) “And he was a successful man. It was only necessary to say "righteous man." Why is “successful man,” written? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to [Joseph], “You achieved what the first Adam did not achieve.” (I.e., unlike Adam, Joseph resisted temptation and overcame his evil drive.) Successful (rt.: tslh) simply means achievement. Thus it is stated (in II Sam. 19:18), “and they crossed (rt.: tslh) the Jordan ahead of the king.” (The context is the successful return of King David to Jerusalem after his forces had achieved the defeat of Absalom. Cf. also Gen. R. 86:4.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “No sacrifice by an individual overrides the Sabbath; yet by your life, the sacrifice by your son (Ephraim) will override the Sabbath, because of the good work (mitswah) that you did (in resisting temptation).” Ergo (in Numb. 7:48), “On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim, Elishama ben Ammihud.” R. Azariah said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, [i.e.] to Joseph, ‘You have kept the commandment (mitswah) (from Exod. 20:13 = Deut. 5:17), of “You shall not commit adultery.” So you have fulfilled the Torah before I gave it. By your life, no tribe shall come between your two sons with a sacrifice. Instead (according to Numb. 7:48) Ephraim [shall bring an offering] on the seventh day; and (according to Numb. 7:54) Manasseh, on the eighth day.’” R. Meir and R. Joshua ben Qorhah were interpreting the names, “Elishama [means], he (Joseph) heeded (shama') my God (Eli), and he did not heed his mistress. Ben Ammihud (‘MYHWD) means, His glory (HWDW) was with me (‘MY) and not with another. Similarly also in the case of (Numb. 7:54), Gamaliel ben Pedahzur [prince of the Children of Manasseh, means that] Joseph said, God (El) has recompensed (gamal) my people with a good recompense (gemulim).’ Ben pedahzur (pdhtswr) means, the Rock (tswr) redeemed (pdh) me from my distress of the prison. And so is it written (according to Ps. 18:21), ‘The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the purity of my hands…’” R. Samuel bar Abba said, “What is the meaning of ‘according to the purity of my hands?’ According to the purity of my hands, because I was pure through good works.” (yTa’an. 3:12 (or 10) (67a).) (Ps. 18:21:) “The Lord rewarded me.” How? When someone is poor, he trusts in the Holy One, blessed be He; but when he [becomes] wealthy, he trusts in his wealth and has no fear of [God]. However, when Joseph was a slave, he feared the Lord. When his mistress enticed him with words, he said to her (in Gen. 39:9), “then how shall I do this great evil and sin against God?” Also when he became king he added [to his] fear [of the Holy One, blessed be He], as stated (in Gen. 42:18), “And Joseph said to them on the third day, ‘Do this and live, for I fear God.’” And when his brothers came down to him a second time (according to Gen. 43:16), “When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, [he said… ‘Slaughter and prepare (wehakhen) an animal, for the men will eat with me at noon].’” (Because this verse uses the word, wehakhen, and because the same word also occurs in Exod. 16:5, it is assumed that the conditions of Exod. 16:5 apply here to Gen. 43:16.) Now surely it is not customary for kings to prepare [food] one day ahead for the next. R. Johanan said, “It was the Sabbath, as stated (in Gen 42:16, ‘and prepare.’ And prepare only means [preparation for] the Sabbath, as stated (in Exod. 16:5), ‘And it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that when they prepare.’” (Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Beshallah, 1; Numb. R. 14:2; TDER 24 (or 26), p. 131.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “You have kept the Sabbath before it was given. By your life, I will have the son of your son offer [his sacrifice] on the Sabbath day, as stated (in Numb. 7:48), “On the seventh day it was the prince of the Children of Ephraim.”

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:2

Everything fortunate that occurred to Joseph likewise happened to Zion. It is written of Joseph: And Joseph was of beautiful form and fair to look upon (Gen. 39:6), and of Zion it is stated: Fair in situation, the joy of the whole earth (Ps. 48:3). Concerning Joseph it is written: He is not greater in this house than I (Gen. 39:9), and of Zion: The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former (Hag. 2:9). Joseph: The Lord was with him (Gen. 39:2), Zion: And My eyes and My heart shall be there (II Chron. 7:15). Joseph: And showed kindness unto him (Gen. 39:21), Zion: I remember for thee the affection of thy youth (Jer. 2:2). Joseph: And he shaved himself and changed his raiment (Gen. 41:14), Zion: And the Lord shall have washed away (Isa. 44:4). Joseph: Only in the throne will I be greater than thou (Gen. 41:40), Zion: At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord (Jer. 3:17). Joseph: And arrayed him in vestures of fine linen (Gen. 41:42), Zion: Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments (Isa. 52:1). Joseph: He sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:29), Zion: Behold, I send My messenger (Mal. 3:1).

Midrash Tehillim 12:2

The verse "The Lord will cut off all flattering lips" (Psalms 12:4) is explained by Rabbi Yonatan in the name of Bar Kappara as referring to lashon hara (evil speech). He states that lashon hara is as severe as idol worship, sexual immorality, and murder. The seriousness of idol worship is demonstrated by Exodus 32:31, which describes the people's sin as a great sin. Sexual immorality is condemned in Genesis 39:9, where Joseph asks, "How then can I do this great wickedness?" Murder is considered a great sin, as expressed in 2 Samuel 4:13, which states, "A great guilt has fallen upon us." Lashon hara is referred to as "great speaking" (Proverbs 18:21) and it is written that those who speak lashon hara say, "We will increase our tongue" (Psalms 12:5). Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina teaches that no one speaks lashon hara about their friend unless they deny the fundamental principle that "Who is the Lord, that we should obey him?" (Exodus 5:2). The psalmist also cries out against those who speak lashon hara in Psalm 94:16, asking, "Who will rise up for me against the wicked?" The punishment for those who speak lashon hara is severe, as even hell itself cries out that it cannot bear their presence. God responds to this by saying, "I am above and you are below" (Psalms 50:4), meaning that the punishment for lashon hara is worse than that of a sword or arrow. A sword cannot kill unless it is close to the target, but an arrow can be shot from a distance and hit its target anywhere (Jeremiah 9:7, Psalms 120:4). The phrase "if you have turned your tongue against your fellow" (Job 6:30) implies that speaking lashon hara is equivalent to shedding blood, as it is taught by Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai that lashon hara kills three people: the speaker, the listener, and the one about whom it is spoken. Rabbi Bibi explains that we find that Saul killed four people in his lifetime, but he received a severe punishment for not protesting when others spoke lashon hara (Yoma 22b). Even the High Priestly city of Nov was destroyed because the people spoke lashon hara (Sanhedrin 104b). Rabbi Zera sent a message to Rabbi Simon asking why he did not protest when he heard lashon hara. Rabbi Simon replied that he was only among those who sighed and groaned. Rabbi Zera asked what would become of those who sighed and groaned, and Rabbi Simon replied that they would be punished as well (Ketubot 5b).

Midrash Tehillim 20:1

A Psalm of David. May the Lord answer you on a day of trouble. This is what the verse (Psalms 50:15) means: "Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me." When Israel is in distress and they seek me out, and they honor me in that hour, I answer them, as it is said: "He will call upon me, and I will answer him" (Psalms 91:15). The analogy is made of a woman who is angry with her mother, and her mother responds by screaming at her from above. During the woman's labor pains, she hears her mother's voice from above and screams back at her, even though she is angry with her. The neighbors ask her why she is screaming when she is giving birth with her mother. She replies that even though she is angry with her, she cannot bear her mother's screams because it is her house that is in distress. Similarly, when the Temple was destroyed and gave a cry of lamentation to the world, it is written: "The Lord of Hosts called in that day for weeping and for mourning" (Isaiah 22:12). The angels said to God, "Master of the Universe, you have 'majesty and splendor before Him' (1 Chronicles 16:27), why are you crying?" God replied, "My Temple is destroyed, and my children are in captivity and pain." Thus, it is written: "With him I am in distress" (Psalms 91:15). Rabbi Joshua the Priest said there are nine verses in this psalm that correspond to the nine months of a woman's pregnancy. What does she say? "He will answer your cries" (Psalms 91:15). Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said that you can find the 18 psalms in the book, beginning with the phrase "Happy is the man," through this verse. They correspond to the 18 blessings that a person recites every day in prayer, and one should recite Psalms 91:15 after reciting these 18 psalms. They said to David, "May the Lord answer you." Another explanation is on what day? On a day that everyone acknowledges as a day of trouble for both the upper and lower worlds. And the Holy One, blessed be He, says to the nations of the world: "Come and judge with the children of Israel," as it is said (Isaiah 41:21), "Present your case, says the Lord." And they say, "Master of the Universe, who creates the chaos of your children?" And He says to them, "I am the One who gives strength and might to the people," as it is said (Psalms 68:36), "He gives power and strength to His people." And the ministers of the nations of the world say, "Master of the Universe, is there no distinction in these matters? Some reveal forbidden relationships and others reveal forbidden relationships. These spill blood, and those spill blood. These serve foreign gods, and those serve foreign gods. Why do these go down to Gehenna and those do not?" At that moment, the advocate of Israel becomes silent, as it is said (Daniel 12:1), "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise." And the one who stands becomes silent, as it is said (Job 32:15), "They are dismayed and no longer answer." The advocate wanted to teach the heavenly court about Israel, but when he became silent, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Michael has become silent, and you are not teaching merit and advocacy for my children. I am speaking on their behalf, for I am speaking of their righteousness and their salvation," as it is said (Isaiah 45:21), "I speak the truth; I declare what is right." And in what righteousness? Rabbi Pinchas, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Yochanan said, one of them said, "In the righteousness that you did with me and received the Torah, for if not for it, I would have destroyed you," and one said, "In the reward that you did and received the Torah, for if not for it, I would have destroyed the world and returned it to chaos and emptiness," as it is said (Jeremiah 33:25), "If not for My covenant day and night." (Daniel 12:1) "And at that time shall your people escape, every one that shall be found written in the book. By whose merit? By the merit of Joseph. Why does God look at them all and not see Joseph? Because Joseph did not listen to his mistress, as it is said (Genesis 39:9) "How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" And how do we know that they are called after Joseph? As it is said (Amos 5:15) "Perhaps the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph." Rabbi Samuel bar Nahmani said that it is because of their relationship to him, as it is said (Isaiah 43:7) "Everyone who is called by My name." Rabbi Levi said it is because of the word [used in the text], as it is written here (Daniel 12:1) "And at that time shall your people escape" and it is written there (Joshua 5:9) "And the Lord said to Joshua: 'This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you'"

Midrash Tehillim 52:2

Another thing to consider is the matter of the redoubtable tongue. As it is written in Proverbs 18:21, "Death and life are in the power of the tongue," meaning that everything depends on the tongue. If a person seeks to speak evil, he should say nothing, and if he seeks to speak good, he should speak up. Therefore, one should not say, "Since I have the authority, I will speak whatever I want." The Torah has already warned us and said in Psalm 34:14, "Keep your tongue from evil." And if you say that you lose nothing by doing so, beware, for the Holy Spirit cries out and says in Proverbs 21:23, "He who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from troubles." Another point is that death and life are in the power of the tongue. See how difficult it is to remove evil speech from one's mouth, to the extent that a person denies it altogether, as it is said in Psalm 12:5, "Who said, 'With our tongue we will prevail; our lips are with us—who is master over us?'" And who can stand against them in Gehenna? As it were, the Almighty shouts out to those who speak evil and says in Psalm 94:16, "Who will rise up for me against the wicked?" And who can withstand them in Gehenna? And even Gehenna itself says to Him, "I am unable." And the Holy One, blessed be He, replies to her, "I am above and you are below," as it says in Psalm 120:4, "Sharp arrows of the mighty with coals of the broom tree." The Almighty said to Israel, "If you want to be saved from Gehenna, distance yourselves from evil speech, and you will merit the World to Come," as it is said in Psalm 34:13, "Who is the man who desires life?" Our Rabbis said that there was a story about a peddler who was traveling around the towns of Tzefuria, and so on. Another point is that death and life are in the power of the tongue. The livelihood of figs: if one eats without blessing, it is death in the power of the tongue; if one eats and blesses, it is life in the power of the tongue. Everything depends on the tongue. "If one merits the Torah, one merits life, as the Torah is called the Tree of Life. As it is written (Proverbs 3:18), 'She is a tree of life to those who grasp her.' And the Torah is a remedy for the tongue, as it is written (Proverbs 15:4), 'A soothing tongue is a tree of life.' Therefore, one who speaks negatively about others is endangering lives. Come and see how severe the sin of speaking negatively is, greater even than idol worship, sexual immorality, and murder. For it is written that with these three sins, it is written 'great' and in regards to speaking negatively it is written 'great transgressions.' The tongue speaks of great things, etc. Concerning idol worship, it is written (Exodus 32:31), 'Please, this people has committed a great sin.' Concerning sexual immorality, it is written (Genesis 39:9), 'How can I commit this great evil and sin against God?' Concerning murder, it is written (Genesis 4:13), 'My punishment is too great to bear.' I have come to inform you that speaking negatively is more difficult than these three sins. Another matter is that one who kills a person, only kills one soul. But one who speaks negatively kills three: the one who speaks, the one who is spoken about, and the one who listens. And where do we learn this? From the concern expressed by Doeg, who spoke negatively about Ahimelech before Saul, and three were killed: Saul, who accepted his words, Ahimelech, who was spoken about, and Doeg, who spoke. And how do we know this? From the verse that states concerning Saul, 'So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance' (1 Chronicles 10:13), and concerning Ahimelech, it is written (1 Samuel 22:16), 'Ahimelech died, and his father's household.' And concerning Doeg, it is stated that he was driven from the world, as it is written (Psalm 52:9), 'I will forever praise You for what You have done; in Your name I will put my trust, for Your faithful ones have sought refuge in You.' From the life of the world. And who caused this? Negative speech, as it is written concerning Doeg, who informed Saul."

Ruth Rabbah 6:4

“Stay tonight, and it will be, in the morning, if he will redeem you, good, he will redeem; but if he will be unwilling to redeem you, I will redeem you, as the Lord lives, lie until the morning” (Ruth 3:13). “Stay tonight” – tonight you are lying without a man, but you will not lie another night without a man. “It will be in the morning, if he will redeem you, good, he will redeem; but if he will be unwilling to redeem you…” Rabbi Meir was sitting and expounding in the study hall in Tiberias, and Elisha his teacher was passing through the marketplace riding a horse on Shabbat. They said to Rabbi Meir: Elisha your teacher is coming and passing in the marketplace. He emerged to him. [Elisha] said to him: ‘In what were you engaged?’ He said: ‘“The Lord blessed the latter period of Job more than his beginning”’ (Job 42:12).’ [Elisha] said: ‘What did you say in its regard?’ He said: ‘“Blessed” [indicates that] He doubled his property for him.’ [Elisha] said to him: ‘Akiva your teacher did not say so; rather, the Lord blessed the latter period of Job due to his beginning, thanks to the repentance and good deeds that he had to his credit initially.’ [Elisha] said to him: ‘What else did you say to them?’ [Rabbi Meir said:] ‘“The end of a matter is better than its beginning”’ (Ecclesiastes 7:8). [Elisha] said to him: ‘What do you say in its regard?’ He said to him: ‘There can be a person who purchases merchandise in his youth and he loses, and [he purchases again] in his old age and he profits. Alternatively, “the end of a matter is better than its beginning,” there can be a person who performs evil deeds in his youth and in his old age he performs good deeds. Alternatively, “the end of a matter is better than its beginning,” there can be a person who studies Torah in his youth and forgets it and he reviews it in his old age; that is: “The end of a matter is better than its beginning.”’ [Elisha] said to him: ‘Akiva your teacher did not say so; rather, “the end of a matter is good,” when it was good from “its beginning.” ‘There was an incident involving me. My father Avuya was one of the prominent leaders of the generation. When he came to circumcise me, he invited all the prominent residents of Jerusalem, and he invited Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua among them. When they had eaten and drunk, some began to sing songs and others recited alphabetical poems. Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: ‘These are engaged in theirs, but we are not engaged in ours.’ They began with Torah, and from Torah to Prophets, and from Prophets to Writings, and the matters were as joyous as when they were given from Sinai. Fire began burning around them. During their actual giving at Sinai, were they not given in fire? As it is stated: “The mountain burned with fire until the heart of the heavens” (Deuteronomy 4:11). [Avuya] said: Since the power of Torah is so great, this son, if he endures, I will devote him to Torah. Because his intention was not for the sake of Heaven, my Torah did not endure in me.’ [Rabbi Meir said to Elisha:] ‘What do you say regarding [the verse]: “Gold and glass cannot equal it” (Job 28:17)?’ He said to him: ‘What do you say in its regard?’ [Rabbi Meir] said to him: ‘These are matters of Torah that are as difficult to acquire as gold vessels and are as easily lost as glass.’ [Elisha] said to him: ‘Akiva your teacher did not say so. Rather, just as vessels of gold and glass, if they are broken, can be repaired. So, too, a Torah scholar who forgot his learning can recover it.’ [Elisha] said to [Rabbi Meir]: ‘Go back.’ [Rabbi Meir] said to him: ‘Why?’ [Elisha] said to him: ‘The Shabbat boundary extends [only] to here.’ [Rabbi Meir] said to him: ‘How do you know?’ [Elisha] said: ‘From the [number of] steps my horse [has taken, I can tell] that it has already gone two thousand cubits.’ [Rabbi Meir] said to him: ‘You have all this wisdom and yet you do not repent?’ [Elisha] said to him: ‘I do not have the strength.’ [Rabbi Meir] said to him: ‘Why?’ [Elisha] said to him: ‘I was riding my horse and sauntering behind a synagogue on Yom Kippur that coincided with Shabbat, and I heard a divine voice thundering and saying: “Repent wayward children” (Jeremiah 3:22), “Return to Me and I will return to you” (Malachi 3:7), except for Elisha ben Avuya, who was aware of My might but rebelled against Me.’ From where did he adopt this course of action? (Why did Elisha abandon his religious observance?) They said: One time, he was sitting and studying in the Geinosar Valley and he saw a certain person who climbed to the top of a palm tree and took the mother bird and the fledglings, and he climbed down unharmed. After Shabbat, he saw a certain person who climbed to the top of a palm tree, took the fledglings and sent away the mother bird. He climbed down and was bitten by a snake and died. [Elisha] said: ‘It is written: “Send away the mother and take the fledglings for yourself, so it will be good for you and you will prolong your days” (Deuteronomy 22:7). Where is the goodness for this one? Where are the prolonged days for this one?’ But he did not know that Rabbi Akiva had publicly expounded on it: “So it will be good for you,” in the world that is entirely good; “and you will prolong your days,” in the world that is entirely long. (The World to Come.) Some say, it was because he saw the tongue of Rabbi Yehuda the baker in the mouth of a dog. He said: ‘If for the tongue that toiled in Torah all his days it is so, for a tongue that does not know and does not toil in Torah, all the more so.’ He said: ‘If so, there is no reward given to the righteous and no revival of the dead.’ Some say, it was because when his mother was pregnant with him, she passed houses of idol worship. She smelled [the offering they had sacrificed in their idolatrous rite] and they gave her from that food and she ate it. It was seething in her stomach like the venom of a serpent. (Because Elisha’s mother had eaten from the idolatrous sacrifice, Elisha had an ingrained desire for sin (Etz Yosef). ) Years passed and Elisha ben Avuya fell ill. They came and said to Rabbi Meir: ‘Elisha your teacher is ill.’ He went to him. [Rabbi Meir] said to him: ‘Repent.’ [Elisha] said to him: ‘Is [repentance] accepted even in such [circumstances]?’ Rabbi Meir said to him: ‘But is it not written: “You turn man to contrition [daka] [and say: Return, son of man]” (Psalms 90:3) – until his soul is crushed?’ (The term daka can mean contrition or crushed. Thus, the verse is interpreted to mean that God wants man to repent even if it is at the very end of his life.) At that moment Elisha ben Avuya cried, and he died. Rabbi Meir was joyful. He said: ‘It appears that my teacher departed in repentance.’ When they buried him, fire came to burn his grave. They came and said to Rabbi Meir: ‘The grave of your teacher is burning.’ He emerged and spread his garment over it. [Rabbi Meir] said to [Elisha]: “Stay tonight,” (Ruth 3:13) in this world that is entirely night. “It will be in the morning, if he will redeem you, good, he will redeem” (Ruth 3:13). “It will be in the morning,” – in the world that is entirely good. “If he will redeem you, good, he will redeem,” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, as it is stated: “The Lord is good to all” (Psalms 145:9). “But if he will be unwilling to redeem you, I will redeem you, as the Lord lives, lie until the morning” (Ruth 3:13). (Rabbi Meir is requesting that Elisha be allowed to rest in peace as long as he himself is alive. When Rabbi Meir dies, he will advocate on behalf of Elisha.) [The fire] subsided. They said to [Rabbi Meir]: ‘Our teacher, in the World to Come, if they say to you: What do you request, (For whom would you request protection from punishment.) your father or your teacher, what will you say?’ [Rabbi Meir] said: ‘My father and then my teacher.’ They said to him: ‘Will they listen to you?’ He said: ‘Is it not a mishna: “One may rescue the casing of a scroll with the scroll, and the casing of phylacteries with the phylacteries” (Shabbat 16:1)? They will rescue Elisha due to the merit of his Torah.’ (Just as the casing is saved from fire on Shabbat due to the scroll, Elisha should be saved due to his Torah.) Years later, [Elisha’s] daughters came and demanded charity from Rabbeinu. (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) He said: “Let no one extend kindness to him; and let no one be gracious to his orphans” (Psalms 109:12). They said: ‘Rabbi, do not look at his actions, look at his Torah.’ At that moment, Rabbi wept and decreed that they should be supported. If one whose Torah was not for the sake of Heaven produced such, (Produced such a disciple as Rabbi Meir; alternatively, produced daughters with such wisdom and modest comportment (Etz Yosef).) one whose Torah is for the sake of Heaven, all the more so. Rabbi Yosei said: There are three whose evil inclination came to attack them, but each and every one of them outdid it with an oath. These are Joseph, David, and Boaz. Joseph, as it is written: “How can I perform this great wickedness [and sin to God]?” (Genesis 39:9). Rabbi Ḥunya in the name of Rabbi Idi: Is this verse lacking? “I will sin to the Lord,” is not written here, but rather, “I will sin to God [Elohim].” (The Bible generally refers to sinning before the Lord rather than sinning before God. Elohim appears as an expression of oath in the language of the Sages.) . and said: ‘By God! I will not sin, and I will not perform this great wickedness.’ David, from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “David said: As the Lord lives; rather the Lord will smite him” (I Samuel 26:10). (The verse is David’s response to the suggestion of Avishai ben Tzeruya that he kill Saul. Saul had come with an armed force to kill David, but David and Avishai had sneaked into their camp and could easily have killed Saul.) To whom did he take an oath? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman, Rabbi Elazar said: He took an oath to his evil inclination. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: He took an oath to Avishai ben Tzeruya. He said to him: ‘As the Lord lives, if you touch him, I will mix your blood with his blood.’ Boaz, from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “As the Lord lives, lie until the morning” (Ruth 3:13). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ḥunya, Rabbi Yehuda says: That entire night his evil inclination was agitating him and saying: ‘You are single and seeking a wife and she is single and seeking a husband. Arise and consort with her and she will become your wife.’ He took an oath to his evil inclination and said: ‘As the Lord lives, I will not touch her.’ He said to the woman: “Lie until the morning… if he will redeem you, good, he will redeem.” Rabbi Ḥunya said: “A wise man is strong [baoz]” (Proverbs 24:5), a wise man is Boaz. “And a man of knowledge increases strength” (Proverbs 24:5), but he outdid his evil inclination with an oath.

Vayikra Rabbah 23:11

Rabbi Yosei said: There were three whose evil inclination attacked them and they took an oath against it; Joseph, David, and Boaz. Joseph, from where is it derived? As it is stated: “How can I perform this great wickedness [and sin against God]?” (Genesis 39:9). Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Idi: Is this verse lacking? “And sin against the Lord,” is not written here, but rather, “against God.” He took an oath against his evil inclination and said: ‘By God, I will not sin and I will not perform this great wickedness.’ David, from where is it derived? As it is stated: “David said: As the Lord lives, rather, the Lord will strike him” (I Samuel 26:10). To whom did he take an oath? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It was to his evil inclination that he took an oath. Reish Lakish said: It was to Avishai that he took an oath. He said to him: ‘As the Lord lives, if you touch him, I will mix your blood with his blood.’ That is what is written: “David said to Avishai: Do not destroy him” (I Samuel 26:9). Boaz, from where is it derived? As it is stated: “As the Lord lives, lie until the morning” (Ruth 3:13). Rabbi Yudan and Rabbi Ḥama, Rabbi Yudan says: All that night, his evil inclination was enticing him with words, and saying to him: ‘You are unmarried and she is unmarried. You seek a wife and she seeks a husband.’ To the evil inclination he took an oath: “As the Lord lives.” To the woman he said: “Lie until the morning.” Rabbi Ḥanina said: “A wise man has might” (Proverbs 24:5), this is Boaz. “And a man of knowledge exerts strength” (Proverbs 24:5), as he overcame his evil inclination with an oath.

Musar

Lashon hara is considered more severe than idolatry, illicit relations, and the spilling of blood, as it is said to be the cause of these three sins. Speaking evil speech is seen as denying a fundamental principle and asserting control over one's own actions, contrary to the belief that all actions are subject to God's will. The power of the tongue is emphasized, as it is said to have the ability to kill three: the speaker, the accepter, and the one spoken about.

Sha'arei Teshuvah 3:201

And secondly, for this [too] is one who speaks evil speech considered as if he denied a fundamental principle: For he says in his heart that his lips are in his [own] control; and because they do not do an action and he is in charge of his tongue, he determined in his heart that he should not restrain the spirit of his lips from saying that which comes to his spirit; and that only all the other limbs are not in his control to sin with them - like the matter that is stated (Psalms 12:5), “They say, “with lips such as ours, who can be our master?” And they do not say, “Where is the God that made me, to whom all the movements of His creations are given - not one is lacking. They are all subjected to doing His will. Rather, it is no matter - the petitions about the lips are in our control.” The evildoers that sin with other sins are not like this. For they know that their leaving God is bad and bitter, however they were pulled after their desire and their overpowering [evil] impulse; yet they are pained by this. And our Rabbis said (Arakhin 15b), “Evil speech [...] corresponds to three transgressions [and these are them]: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed. [...] With regard to idol worship, it is stated (Exodus 32:31), ‘Oh, this people have sinned a great sin.’ With regard to forbidden sexual relations, it is stated (Genesis 39:9), ‘How can I do this great wickedness.’ With regard to bloodshed it is stated (Genesis 4:13), ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear.’ [And with regard to evil speech,] it is stated (Psalms 12:4), “May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks great things.”

Shemirat HaLashon, Book I, The Gate of Remembering 4:2

How great is the power of lashon hara, which is over and against three grave transgressions, as stated in Arachin 15b. And in Midrash Shocher Tov: "The school of R. Yishmael taught: 'All who speak lashon hara mount iniquity over and against three transgressions: idolatry, illicit relations, and the spilling of blood, it being written here (Psalms 12:4): 'the tongue that speaks "great" [i.e., slanderous] things'; but, in respect to idolatry (Shemoth 32:31): 'I pray you — this people has sinned a great sin'; in respect to illicit relations (Bereshith 39:9): 'And how shall I do this great evil?'; in respect to the spilling of blood (Ibid. 4:13): 'My sin is too great to bear'" — whence [("things" - plural)] it is derived that lashon hara is severer than these three sins." Another explanation: One who kills a man kills only one soul; but one who speaks lashon hara kills three: the speaker, the accepter, and the one spoken about. Whence do you derive this? From Doeg, who spoke lashon hara about Achimelech before Saul, and the three of them were killed: Saul, who accepted it; Achimelech, who was spoken about; and Doeg, who spoke it. Saul, who accepted it, viz. (I Samuel 31:6): "And Saul died, etc."; Achimelech, who was spoken about, viz. (Ibid. 22:16): "Die, shall you die, Achimelech"; and Doeg, who spoke it, who was driven out of the world [to come], viz. (Psalms 52:7): "G-d also will destroy you forever" from life in the world [to come]. And what caused this? Lashon hara.

Quoting Commentary

Joseph refused the advances of his master's wife, citing his loyalty to his master and the sin it would be against God (Genesis 39:7–9). This act of righteousness by Joseph is emphasized in various commentaries, highlighting his obedience to God's commands and his refusal to commit a great wickedness (Ramban on Leviticus 4:22:1, Rashi on Genesis 39:6:2, Rabbeinu Bahya on Bereshit 18:20:1). Joseph's steadfastness in the face of temptation is praised, with his actions serving as a model of moral integrity (Rambam on Pirkei Avot 1:17:10).

Depths of Yonah 3:1:13

He wields no more authority in this house than I, and he has withheld nothing from me except yourself, since you are his wife. How then could I do this most wicked thing, and sin before God?” (Bereishit 39:9)

Gevia Kesef 3:9

Certainly (this usage of “God”) is true of Joseph, (62. Gen. 39:9, 40:8, 41:16.) for his prophetic faculty utilized dreams, especially when the composite image concerned corporeal and imaginative matters. This completes the Book of Genesis.

Or HaChaim on Numbers 7:48:1

אלשמע בן עמיהוד. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah are quoted in Tanchuma on our verse as saying that the name Elishama suggests that whereas "Joseph listened to the commands of G'd, he did not listen to the command of his mistress to sleep with her. He did not make common cause with the wicked." Joseph did not desist from sinning because he was not tempted but because he was obedient to G'd's imperatives as he pointed out to the wife of Potiphar when he described giving in to his urge as a sin against G'd (Genesis 39,9). This is what is meant by Elishama, i.e אלי שמע, "he listened to Me." Our sages in Sotah 36 explained that at the crucial moment he had a vision of the face of his father. Clearly, this is a reference to a divine image which resembled the face of Jacob. After all, his father was in Canaan and had no inkling of what temptation his son faced at the time not even knowing that Joseph was still alive. What Joseph beheld in the vision was what is known as אביר יעקב אלוקי ישראל. When the sages in the Midrash spoke of the wicked in the plural, they may have referred to many similar temptations that Joseph withstood successfully. The reason the same idea occurs a second time in the name of the father of Elyasaph, i.e. עמיהוד is to hint what the Torah told us in that verse in Genesis that he did not listen to Mrs Potiphar who requested that Joseph agree to be physically close to her. Joseph preferred to remain close to G'd, i.e. עמי הודו.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 28:15:1

ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לה', “and one male goat as a sin-offering for Hashem.” According to the plain meaning of the text he word לה' means the same as in Leviticus 16,8: “one male goat as sin-offering for Hashem.” Alternatively, the word לה' may mean “in respect of a sin committed against Hashem.” This would be a normal construction in Hebrew where the prefix ל often occurs as not meaning “for” but “against.” Examples are: Genesis 39,9 וחטאתי לאלו-הים and I would commit a sin against G’d.” Or, Genesis 44,32: וחטאתי לאבי, “and I would have committed a sin against my father.” According to Chulin 60 (one opinion) the meaning here is the reverse of the usual, G’d commanding the offering on His own behalf, “atoning” for having reduced the moon from its original size. This is one of the mysteries of the Torah.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 7:48:2

A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Nasso 28 on the fact that the tribe of Joseph brought his sacrifice on the seventh day of the week, i.e. the Sabbath. G’d said to Joseph: “by your life, you have fulfilled the commandment of not committing adultery with the wife of Potiphar at a time when I had not yet legislated this commandment in the Torah. In recognition of your self-sacrifice for the concepts contained in that commandment, I will allow your son to override the concept of the Sabbath regulations not to offer private offerings on that day when he will offer the inaugural sacrifice on behalf of your tribe.” Not only this, but there will not be another tribe’s offering separating between the offering of Ephrayim and the offering of Menashe his brother tribe. On the name of the prince of Ephrayim, Elishama, the Midrash sees in this a reminder of Ephrayim’s father Joseph’s great character strength in that אלי שמע, (G’d speaking) “to Me he listened whereas he did not listen to his mistress, the wife of Potiphar.” The words בן עמיהוד are perceived as a reminder of עמי היה הודו, “his glory was with Me,” (and not with the Egyptian nation). The word גמליאל (name of the prince of Menashe) is understood as alluding to גמל א-ל חסדים עמי, “the Lord performed deeds of loving kindness with me.” The word פדהצור (name of Gamliel’s father) is understood as a hint of פדה צור the “Rock” (G’d) redeemed him from his troubles in jail.” Psalms 18,21 reflects such feelings of Joseph at the time when the psalmist writes [though he refers to his own rescue from Shaul by G’d. Ed.] “the Lord rewarded me according to my merit; He requited the cleanness of my hands.” It is normal for man to put his trust in the Lord as long as he is poor (and has nothing or no one else to put his trust in). When he becomes affluent he relies on his wealth to stand by him, no longer making the Lord the focus of his trust. Joseph, by contrast, placed his trust in the Lord both when he was in dire straits and when he had risen to the pinnacle of his career. When he was a slave and a prisoner in the house of Potiphar and subject to the enticements and threats of Potiphar’s wife, he said to her: “how can I possibly commit such a great wrong against G’d?” (Genesis 39,9). When he had been appointed king he continued to revere the Lord as we know from his own lips in Genesis 42,18: “I fear the Lord.” When he had been a mere slave he nevertheless recited a benediction over the food he ate (Bamidbar Rabbah 14,5). When his master saw him whisper with his lips, he asked him what he was doing. Joseph replied that he was giving thanks to the Lord for the food He provided for all of His creatures. His master demanded: “show me this G’d you are talking about.” Joseph replied: “the sun is just one of his servants; seeing that you cannot even look at the sun without becoming blinded, if you were to behold its master you would die.” Nonetheless, G’d revealed Himself on behalf of Joseph. This is the meaning of the verse in Genesis 39,3: “when his master saw that the Lord was with him (Joseph), etc.“ These sentiments are reflected by David in Psalms 60,9: “Gilead and Menashe would be mine; Ephrayim my chief stronghold;” concerning the words לי גלעד, “Gilead is mine,” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “in the event the heretics tell you that G’d is unable to resurrect the dead, there is Elijah the prophet who came from Gilead and who revived the dead. If he could do so, would G’d be unable to do it? If, on the other hand, the same heretics will tell you that G’d does not accept repentant sinners into the fold, King Menashe of Yehudah is proof that G’d does so as that king was a great heretic, and, after having been in captivity and praying to the Lord, becoming a penitent, G’d restored him to his throne in Jerusalem (Chronicles II 33,13). This is why the psalmist speaks of “Menashe is mine.” Concerning the words: “Ephrayim is my stronghold,” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish continued, if an heretic denies G’d’s ability to enable barren women to bear children, consider the case of Elkanah from Ephrayim, whose wife Channah had been unable to become pregnant. After she had appealed to the Lord in Shiloh, He remembered her and granted her children (SamueI 2,21). In the event some heretic will tell you that G'd cannot save someone out of the flames, look at the three men from Yehudah, Chananel, Mishael, and Azaryah, whom G'd rescued from a flaming kiln (Daniel 1,6). This is what David meant when he spoke of יהודה מחוקקי, “Yehudah my scepter," in that same verse. An alternative explanation of this verse in Psalms. The words לי גלעד, לי מנשה, are a reference to Elijah at Mount Carmel. Someone may challenge the fact that prophet Elijah offered sacrifices on a private Altar at a time when the Temple was standing in Jerusalem. He may point out that there is a Biblical prohibition to do so, based on Leviticus 17, 3-4: "any man from the House of Israel who will slaughter a bull, or a goat in the camp or who will slaughter it outside the camp and he has not brought it as an offering to Hashem before the Tabernacle of Hashem- it shall be considered bloodshed for such a man, (i.e. a capital crime).” Tell such a questioner or challenger that whatever the prophet Elijah did he did for the sake of the holy name of G’d and the enhancement of His image among the people; moreover he did it at the behest of G’d. Proof of all this is Kings I 18,36: “it was at the time of the meal-offering, the prophet Elijah came forward and said: “O Lord, G’d of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Israel! Let it be known today that You are G’d in Israel and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your bidding!” This is what the psalmist had in mind when he spoke of “Gilead is mine.” Elijah was a resident of Gilead. As to the words: "Menashe is mine” in the same verse; if someone challenges the conduct of Gideon (Judges 6,25-6) who also had sacrificed an offering on a private altar at a time when the Tabernacle in Shiloh was functional, the same answer applies. Rabbi Abba bar Kahanah said that on the day in question Gideon performed seven actions (normally prohibited). 1) He sacrificed a bull which had been used for idolatrous purposes; 2) he sacrificed a bull intended for idolatrous purposes; 3) he built a private altar; 4) he cut down wood for it from an ashera (a tree which had served as a centre for idolatry). 5) He offered a sacrifice at night; 6) he did all this although he was not a priest (he was from the tribe of Menashe); 7) the bull had belonged to the priests who served the Baal. All of these actions he undertook he had been instructed to do by divine decree. We know all this from Judges 6,25-26): “it was during that night that G’d said to him: ‘take the young bull belonging to your father and another bull seven years old; pull down the altar of Baal which belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred post which is beside it. Then build an altar to the Lord your G’d on the level ground on top of this stronghold. Take the other bull and offer it as a burnt-offering, using the wood of the sacred post that you have cut down. This is the meaning of: “Menashe belongs to me.” If some were to say that David violated a negative commandment of the Torah (when sleeping with Bat Sheva and marrying her) G’d responds to such a statement by saying that David’s action was designed to teach the sinners that repentance is accepted by G’d and the sinners can be rehabilitated. This is what David said in Psalms 51,15: “I will teach transgressors Your ways, that sinners may return to You.” If someone were to challenge the fact that Joshua violated the Sabbath when preparing to attack and capture Jericho (Joshua 6,2-4), answer such a scoffer that Joshua acted on G’d’s instructions as we know from the verse referred to: “The Lord said to Joshua, “See I will deliver Jericho and her king and her warriors into your hands. Let all the troops march around the city and complete one circuit of the city. ....Do this for six days, with seven priests carrying seven ram’s horns preceding the Ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the horns, etc., etc.” How do we know that the seventh day the Book of Joshua speaks of was the Sabbath? There is no sequence of seven days one of which is not the Sabbath. There was something else which Joshua did which he had not been instructed to do. When the walls had collapsed and the city had been captured, Joshua reasoned that seeing the Sabbath is totally sacred, the loot of a city captured on the Sabbath must also be considered sacred, no one using any of it for a private purpose. Hence we read in verse 19 of that chapter that Joshua issued instructions for all the gold, silver, copper objects, and iron to be consecrated to the Temple treasury. Rabbi Berechya the priest said: Joshua treated the city of Jericho according to the rules applied to an עיר הנדחת, (a Jewish city the majority of whose inhabitants had become guilty of practicing idolatry). We know that the contents of such a city are forbidden for use by any other Jew (Deut. 13,17) “you shall burn the town by fire including all its contents, totally.” Rabbi Yehudah Halevi said (Tanchuma Nasso 28):”the reason that the contents of the city of Jericho were consecrated to G’d was that it was the first city in the land of Israel which was captured. We always consecrate the “first” of everything to the Lord, both humans, animals, and crops, etc. In this instance Joshua extended this principle to apply it to inert matters such as gold, silver. G’d responded to this initiative of Joshua (in the future) by permitting the representative of the tribe of Ephrayim (Joshua’s tribe) to offer his individual offering on the Sabbath.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 18:20:1

ויאמר ה' זעקת סדום ועמורה כי רבה, ארדה נא ואראה וגו “G’d said: ‘the outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, let Me descend and investigate, etc.’” These verses (30 & 31) are closely linked to one another. It is as if the Torah had written: “the outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah and their sins which have become great are such that I have to descend and investigate if they are all guilty or not; if not all are guilty I will determine who the guilty ones are.” The word חטאת in verse 20 covers a multitude of sins and negative characteristics. Our sages in Sanhedrin 109 have interpreted the word רעים as referring to sins involving money, i.e. asocial behaviour, based on Deut 15,9 ורעה עיניך באחיך האביון, “and your eye will be mean against your destitute brother,” whereas the word חטאים referred to sins committed by their bodies as illustrated by Genesis 39,9 וחטאתי לאלוקים “and I would commit a sin against G’d;” (Joseph explaining why he could not sleep with Potiphar’s wife) The additional word לה', refers to the sin of blasphemy. The word מאד, “very much,” refers to the sin of murder, bloodshed by indirect means. We know of this word מאד being used elsewhere in the same context from Kings II 21,16 וגם דם נקי שפך מנשה הרבה מאד “and King Menashe was also guilty of shedding much innocent blood.” The sin which sealed the fate of the Sodomites was that they despised charity, i.e. they legislated against people who practiced the virtue of giving charity or being otherwise charitable. They did not even take care of their own needy who were suffering from hunger. The meaning of our verses based on the simple explanation of the text is: “the men of Sodom were very evil and they sinned greatly against G’d, so much so that the echo of their sins reached the ears of G’d.” We find a warning in the Torah concerning the needy and oppressed crying out to G’d complaining about their condition in Deut. 15,9 וקרא עליך והיה בך חטא, “when he cries out about your conduct you will be guilty of a sin.” We find a specific verse about the sins of the Sodomites in Ezekiel 16,49 הנה-זה היה עון סדם אחותך גאון שבעת-לחם ושלות השקט היה לה ולבנותיה ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקו ותגבהינה ותעשינה תועבה לפני ואסיר אתהן כאשר ראיתי. “See! This was the sin of Sodom: pride, surfeit of bread, and undisturbed peace were hers and her daughter’s but the hand of the poor and the needy she did not support. And they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. So I removed them when I perceived it.” They were dealt with so harshly because they persisted in their evil ways more so than anyone else. There is no other nation on earth which does not practice some degree of charity towards its own members. The people of Sodom not only considered such an attitude as pandering to the economically unsuccessful, but they treated the victims with cruelty to boot. Even though the Torah and its social legislation had not been given as yet, the commandment of giving charity belongs to the group of commandments which one’s intellect dictates, and it is something despicable when a human being watches another human being suffering from hunger without trying to relieve his condition. When G’d destroyed the people of Sodom He avenged the poor who had been allowed to die from hunger or whose condition had been deliberately aggravated by those people in order to accelerate their death. This is why our sages in Ruth Rabbah 5,9 stated that “the vengeance of the Gentile nations has been entrusted to the people of Israel whereas the vengeance of Israel has been entrusted to their poor.” They quote Ezekiel 25,14 to support the first part of the statement. The prophet writes: ונתתי את נקמתי באדום ביד ישראל ועשו באדום כאפי וכחמתי. “And I shall take My vengeance from Edom by the hand of My people Israel, and they shall act upon Edom in accordance with My anger and My fury.” They quote Deut. 15,40 in support of the second half of their statement. The Torah writes there: וקרא עליך אל ה' והיה בך חטא, “when he (the helpless) calls out against you to G’d it will be accounted a sin for you.” The lesson to be drawn from all this is that wealth is not something that has been bestowed on the wealthy to do with what he pleases, but it has been given to him to test him if he knows how to handle it, how to employ it most usefully. Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi in that paragraph in Ruth Rabbah adds: “when this poor man appears at your doorstep asking for a handout, G’d Himself stands on his right. If you, i.e. the wealthy man give a donation to the poor, he will bless you; if not, the One standing on his right side will exact payment from you for your insensitivity.” He based this on Psalms 109,31 כי יעמוד לימין אביון, “for He is standing on the right side of the destitute,” and on Proverbs 22,2 עשיר ורש נפגשו עושה כלם ה', “the rich man and the poor man meet; G’d has made them all.” There is another verse (Proverbs 29,13)רש ואיש תככים נפגשו מאיר עיני שניהם ה', “when the poor and the fraudulent meet G’d gives light to the eyes of both.” How can we reconcile these verses? One verse describes a situation when the poor receives a handout, the other when he did not.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 14:2:6

Evil gossip is a greater sin than “mere” murder, idolatry or indulging one’s carnal instincts indiscriminately. Proof that it is worse than murder is deduced from Genesis 4,13 where Kayin describes his sin as too severe to endure its burden. It is more serious than indulging one’s carnal instincts with partners forbidden to one as we know from Joseph (Genesis 39,9) who explained the severity of that sin to the wife of Potiphar. It is more serious than idolatry seeing that when Moses described this sin committed by the Jewish people to G’d when they worshipped the golden calf he said: “indeed the people committed a very great sin.” When describing the sin of לשון הרע on the other hand, (Psalms 12,4) David invokes G’d pleading: “may the Lord cut off all flattering lips, every tongue that speaks גדולות, “arrogance.” The commentators understand the plural of the word גדולות in that psalm as describing the sin of abusing the power of the tongue as a “double” sin, i.e. more severe than a single sin such as worshipping idols, for instance. This is why Solomon said that life and death are at the disposal of one’s tongue. Look at what happened to Miriam who was struck with the disease of tzoraat (Numbers 12,1) because she spoke against Moses. What did she do that was so terrible? She spoke to her own brother (Aaron) privately, not within the hearing of Moses nor of anyone else. She was well-intentioned meaning to reunite Moses with his wife whom he had divorced. The Torah describes G’d’s reaction as fierce, and had Moses not interceded on her behalf she would not have been cured. To this day we recite the lines of Deut. 24,9 in which the Torah demands that we remember what Miriam was guilty of and how G’d punished her. You may apply a little logic to see how serious is the ordinary sin of spreading evil gossip when you reflect on what happened to well-intentioned Miriam who had spoken privately to her brother. How will G’d react to people who deliberately besmirch someone’s reputation by the tales they spread about him? Consider what the Torah wrote immediately prior to the reminder to remember what G’d did to Miriam (Deut. 24,8) The Torah writes: “beware of the tzoraat affliction, be very careful and act according to everything the priests and Levites teach you.” Even Aaron, who was the High Priest, (and had not said a word) was struck with that affliction seeing that the Torah said that G’d was angry “at them,”‘ i.e. not merely at Miriam. Aaron was healed immediately, seeing his was the lesser sin as he had not said anything, had only listened without admonishing Miriam. We know that Aaron must have been cured immediately as the Torah only writes of Miriam having been quarantined outside the camp for seven days delaying the Israelites’ journey during that period (Numbers 12,15). You will also find that the original serpent, the first creature ever to engage in slander against its Creator, was struck with tzoraat as the Torah reports G’d saying to the serpent “because you have done this, etc., you are cursed” (Genesis 3,14). The curse consisted of the serpent being afflicted with tzoraat. Our sages derive this from the expression צרעת ממארת היא in Leviticus 13,52. On these words Rav Hunna quoted a comment by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who said that the scales on the skin of the snake are a form the tzoraat took when it afflicted the serpent (compare Bereshit Rabbah 20,4). This was not the full extent of the serpent’s punishment. We have a tradition that in the world to come (after the resurrection), people who suffered from diverse deformities while on earth the previous time will be resurrected as completely healthy and with unblemished bodies. The snake will be the only exception to this rule. Seeing that Isaiah wrote (Isaiah 35,6): ”then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shall shout aloud,” the prophet prophesies resurrection of the beasts mentioning that domesticated beasts and lions will graze together; however the snake will still have to eat dust as it will never be cured from its affliction (compare Isaiah 11,6). The reason is that the serpent through its use of the tongue dragged man into the dust, (caused his mortality, Tanchuma Metzora 2).

Rambam on Pirkei Avot 1:17:10

The fifth division is the permissible and is the speech about what is specific to a person about his business, his livelihood, his food, his drink, his clothing and the rest of what he needs for himself. And it is permissible - it is not beloved or disgusting. Rather, if he wants, he can speak what he wants of it, and if he wants, he will not speak [it]. And with this division, a person is praiseworthy when he minimizes his speaking of it. And the men of ethics have warned about increasing words in it. But the forbidden and the disgusting does not require a warning nor a commandment, as it is fitting to be completely silent from it. However the commanded and the beloved [speech], if a person could speak in it all of his days, it would be good. However one must be careful about two things: The one is that his deeds match his words, as they said, "Pleasant are the words that come out of the mouth of one who does them." And about this matter did he intend in his saying, "And the exposition [of Torah] is not what is essential, but the action." And the sages say to a righteous one that [specifically] he teach the virtues, in their saying, "Expound, and for you it is fit to expound." And the prophet stated (Psalms 33a), "Rejoice, righteous ones in the Lord; for the straight is praise beautiful." And the other matter is terseness and that he make efforts to maximize content with few words and not that the matter be the opposite. And this is what they said (Pesachim 3a), "A man should teach his students in the brief way." And know that songs, that are composed in any language that it be, must be examined for their contents - if they are following the way of speech that we have divided. And indeed, I have clarified this even though it is clear [already], because I have seen elders and and pious men from the people of our Torah when they are at a wine party like a wedding or something else and a person wants to sing an Arabic song - even if the subject of that song is praise of courage or generosity and that is from the division of the beloved, [as well as] when it is in praise of wine - they push it off with every angle of distancing, and it is not permissible according to them to hear it. And when the lyricist sings one of the Hebrew canticles it is not bad in their eyes if it is from the things that we are warned against or which are disgusting. And this is complete foolishness, as speech is not forbidden or extraneous or beloved or disgusting or commanded in its saying because of the language that it is in, but rather because of its content. As if the content of that song is virtue, he is obligated to say it - in any language that it my be. But if the intention of that song is vice in any language that it should be, it is forbidden to say it [- in any language that it should be]. I also have what to add to this: When there are two canticles and they express the same content of arousing the power of desire and praise for it and to rejoice the soul with it - and it is vice and it is from the division of disgusting speech since it enthuses and arouses a trait of vice, as is clarified in our words in the fourth chapter - but one of the two canticles is in Hebrew and one is in Arabic or vernacular; listening to the Hebrew and speaking it is more disgusting to the Torah due to the level of the language, as it is only right to use it for virtues. All the more so if they require to put into it a verse from the Torah or from the Song of Songs about that matter - as then, it goes from the division of the disgusting to the division of the forbidden and what is warned against. As the Torah forbade to make the words of prophecy types of song for vice and disgusting things. And since we have mentioned evil speech in the division of forbidden speech, I saw [fit] to elucidate it and to mention a little of what is mentioned about it. As people are in great blindness about it and it is the great sin that is always in people - and all the more so about what the sages said (Bava Batra 164b) that a person does not escape from tangential evil speech on any day. And who would give that we escape from evil speech itself! And evil speech is the recounting of the evils of a man and his blemishes and the disgracing of a man of Israel in whatever side of disgrace that it be - and even if the disgraced was lacking as was spoken. As evil speech is not that he lie about a man and attribute to him that which he does not do, as that is called putting out a bad name on his fellow. However evil speech is that when he disgraces the disgraces of a person, even about his actions that he truly does, [such] that the speaker sins and the one who hears him sins. They said (Arakhin 15b), "There are three that evil speech kills: the one who speaks it, the one who listens to it and the one they are speaking about." And they said, "The one who listens to it more than the one who speaks it." And tangential evil speech is the mention of the blemishes of a man without clarification. Shlomo said about this matter that sometimes one who mentions the blemishes of a person without clarification shows that he does not have knowledge of that which is understood from his words and that he did not intend this, but rather intended another matter - as he said (Proverbs 26:18-19), "Like a madman scattering deadly firebrands, arrows, is one who cheats his fellow and says, 'I was only joking.'" And one of the sages from among the wise ones already praised in a large group the writing of a scribe that he showed him; and the rabbi condemned the act of the praiser and said (Mishnah Arakhin 3:5), "Go and stop your evil speech." [He meant] to say that you are causing his disgrace with your praise of him in the large group. As from them is one who loves him and one who hates him, and his enemy will be forced to mention his blemishes and his evils when he hears his praises. And that is an extreme distancing from evil speech. And the language of the Mishnah (Mishnah Arakhin 3:5) is "the judgment against our ancestors in the wilderness was sealed only because of their evil speech" - meaning to say the matter of the scouts about which it was stated (Numbers 13:32), "And they put out slander of the land." And they, peace be upon them, said (Arakhin 15a), "And if these that only put out a bad name on trees and stones become liable for what they became liable, how much more is it so for someone who speaks about the disgrace of his fellow!" And this is the language of the Tosefta (Talmud Yerushalmi Peah 1:1): For three sins is there retribution to a person in this world and he does not have a share in the world to come - idolatry, sexual immorality and murder; and evil speech corresponds to all of them [together]. And they said in the Gemara (Arakhin 15b) [that] with idolatry comes the expression, 'the big' - and that is its stating (Exodus 32:31), "Alas, this people is guilty of a big sin." And with the sin of sexual immorality also comes the expression, 'the big' - and that is its stating (Genesis 39:9), "and how can I do the big evil, this one." And with the sin of murder also comes the expression, 'the big' - and that is its stating (Genesis 4:13), "Is my sin too big to carry?" But with evil speech comes the expression 'the big ones' (plural)." [It] means to say that it corresponds to the three of them [together] - and that is its stating (Psalms 12:4) "tongue speaking big things.'" And they spoke about this unsettling sin very much. And the end of that which is said is that "Anyone who speaks evil speech denies the fundamental [faith], as it is stated (Psalms 12:5), 'They say, "By our tongues we shall prevail; with lips such as ours, who can be our master?"'" Indeed, I have said a little of what they said about this sin; even though I have written at length, in order that a man distance himself from it with all of his ability and make his intention to be quiet - meaning to say from this division of speech.

Ramban on Deuteronomy 6:3:1

AND THOU SHALT OBSERVE TO DO IT ‘ASHER YITAV LECHA’ (WHICH WILL BE WELL WITH THEE). He is thus commanding you that you should take care to do what will benefit you. “A LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY. Although removed from it, this phrase is connected with the expression to possess it [at the end of Verse 1]. Or it may be that the expression [a Land flowing …] lacks the letter beth, [making it equivalent to ba’aretz — ‘in the Land’ flowing with milk and honey, and thus it is not necessary to say that the phrase a Land flowing … refers to Verse 1; instead, the verse before us enjoins Israel to observe the commandments in the Land] just as in the verse, that was found ‘beith’ (House of) the Eternal (II Kings 12:11.) [which lacks a beth, making it b’veith — ‘in the House of’ the Eternal].” This is the language of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. And if so, there is also lacking in the phrase and that ye might increase mightily the word bo (“in it”) [so that its meaning would be “and that ye might increase mightily ‘in it,’” that is, in the Land flowing with milk and honey]; or [the missing part may be the word] ba’avuro (“because of it”). But there is no need [to interpret the verse as if letters and words were missing]. For [the word l’ma’an (so that) from the phrase in the preceding Verse 2] and ‘so that’ thy days be prolonged, should be drawn here [to Verse 3], and its meaning is as follows: “‘so that’ it may be well with thee.” Or it may be that the word asher (which) [‘asher’ yitav lecha] itself serves the same purpose [meaning “so that” or “because of”], as in the verse, And he removed her from being queen ‘asher’ she had made an abominable image (I Kings 15:3.) which means “‘because of’ her having made an abominable image.” Similarly, ‘ba’asher’ thou art his wife (Genesis 39:9.) means “‘because of’ your being his wife.” And so also Scripture states, which I command thee this day ‘asher’ (so that) it may go well with thee etc., and so that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the Land. (Above, 4:40.) And the purport of the verse [here] is as follows: “Hear, therefore, O Israel, and take care to do it so that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the Eternal the G-d of thy fathers hath promised to give unto thee a Land flowing with milk and honey etc.;” that is to say, in order that He may do good to you when He gives you a good and large Land, (Exodus 3:8.) as he said further [in Verse 18], so that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good Land. Similarly, and he gave him a house, and said to him victuals (I Kings 11:18 — Here likewise the phrase as the Eternal, the G-d of thy fathers promised unto thee, a Land flowing with milk and honey, means “promised to give thee.”) [means: “and he said to ‘give’ him victuals”].

Ramban on Leviticus 4:22:1

ASHER’ A PRINCE SINNETH. “The word asher is [here] derived from the expression ashrei (happy). Happy is the generation whose prince brings an offering for atonement [even] for his error. (Our Rashi adds: “How much the more certain is it that he will do penance for any sin he committed wilfully.”) [Torath Kohanim]. (Torath Kohanim, Vayikra Chobah 5:1.) 23. ‘O’ HIS SIN BE KNOWN TO HIM — ‘if’ his sin be known to him. There are many verses where the word o (or) is used in the sense of im (if), and conversely where im is used in the sense of o. Similarly, ‘o’ it be known that the ox was wont to gore (Exodus 21:36.) [means ‘if’ it be known, and the word o which ordinarily means ‘or’ is here used in the sense of ‘im,’ meaning ‘if’].” Thus the language of Rashi. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “The sense of asher nasi yechta is as if the expression were inverted, making it read: asher yechta nasi (if ‘he who sins is the prince’), and it is connected with [the section] above, And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err. (Verse 13.) It is thus as if He had stated here: ‘and if he who sins is the prince [and he knows it of himself], or his sin be made known to him by others.’ Scripture, however, adopts a short form of expression, [omitting to state ‘that he knows the sin himself,’ or that it was made known to him ‘through others’], but the meaning is that either it becomes known to the prince by himself that he sinned, ‘o hoda eilav’ (or it be made known to him) — i.e., that another man who saw him doing it informed him of it. The grammatical form of hoda is then a past causative [like hodi’a — a man ‘informed’ him], this being similar to ‘v’heitzar lecha’ (Deuteronomy 28:25.) [the meaning of which is as if it said ‘v’heitzir lecha’ in the causative, i.e., and he will besiege thee]. The subject, however, is missing [for it should have said here, or ‘another man’ inform him, and there it should have stated, and ‘the enemy’ will besiege thee], just as ‘asher’ bore her to Levi” (Numbers 26:59.) [which should have read ‘asher ishto’ (whose wife) bore her to Levi]. [All these are the words of Ibn Ezra.]. But there is no need for all this, since the uses of the word asher are many. In some cases it indicates time, such as: ‘ka’asher’ (when) Joseph came unto his brethren; (Genesis 37:23.) ‘ka’asher’ (when) they had eaten up the corn, (Ibid., 43:2.) and the like. Similarly, here too [asher is like ka’asher and indicates time]: ‘when’ a prince sinneth, with the kaf of cognizance [which would make it ka’asher — “when”] missing. So also, The blessing, ‘asher’ ye shall hearken unto the commandments of the Eternal, (Deuteronomy 11:27.) means ‘ka’asher’ (when) ye shall hearken. ‘Asher’ ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more, (Exodus 14:13.) means ‘ka’asher’ (when) ye have seen them [today ye shall see them no more]. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread ‘asher’ I commanded thee, (Ibid., 34:18.) means ‘ka’asher’ (when) I commanded thee. At times this word [asher] is missing [not a kaf but] a beth. Thus: And also Maacah his mother he [King Asa of Judah] removed from being queen, ‘asher’ she made an abominable image for an Asherah (I Kings 15:13.) means ‘ba’asher’ she made an abominable image for an Asherah, which denotes “because,” just like, ‘ba’asher’ (because) thou art his wife. (Genesis 39:9.) The expression o hoda eilav [is thus not a causative, as Ibn Ezra would have it, which would make it to mean “or that it was made known to him by another person;” rather, it] refers to the guilt, stating that when a person will do any one of all the things which the Eternal his G-d hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty, (Verse 22 here.) and deserving of punishment, or it be known to him and he will achieve atonement by means of an offering. The sense of the verse is thus: “he will either be guilty [and deserving of punishment], or bring an offering and he will be forgiven.” The reason for the expression: the Eternal his G-d, is to state that even though he is the king, and the lord upon whom there is no fear of mortal man, he is yet to fear the Eternal his G-d, for it is He who is the Lord of lords. (Deuteronomy 10:17.) Similarly, that he (the king) may learn to fear the Eternal his G-d, (Ibid., 17:19.) means that the king is to take to heart [the knowledge] that there is a Supreme One above him, Who is his G-d and in Whose power is his life and kingdom.

Rashi on Genesis 39:6:2

כי אם הלחם SAVE THE BREAD — this means his wife, but Scripture uses here a euphemism (Genesis Rabbah 86:6) (cf. Joseph’s own words in Genesis 39:9).

Tribal Lands, Chapter 12; Yosef 14

After a time, his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said: “Lie with me.” But he refused. He said to his master’s wife: “Look, with me here, my master gives no thought to anything in this house, and all that he owns he has placed in my hands. No one in this house has more authority than I, and he has kept nothing from me but you, because you are his wife. How tĥen can I do this great wickedness? It would be a sin against God!” Genesis 39:7–9

Talmud

Rav Yehuda distinguishes between sins committed with the body and those with money, citing examples like Joseph and Potiphar's wife. The Gemara discusses whether certain sins are exclusively against God or also against man. Forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed are described as great transgressions, with malicious speech being equivalent to all three. The Evil Urge is discussed in relation to a person's development and struggle between good and evil impulses, using examples of Joseph the Righteous, Rabbi Tzadok, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Eliezer the Great.

Arakhin 15b:19

With regard to forbidden sexual relations it is written that when Potiphar’s wife attempted to seduce Joseph he responded: “How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God” (Genesis 39:9). With regard to bloodshed it is written, after Cain murdered his brother: “And Cain said to the Lord: My punishment is greater than I can bear” (Genesis 4:13). The Torah describes each of these three cardinal sins with the word “great” in the singular, whereas malicious speech is described with the plural term “great things,” indicating that it is equivalent to all three of the other transgressions together.

Avot DeRabbi Natan 16:2

The Evil Urge. How so? They say that for the first thirteen years [of a person’s life] the Evil Urge is greater than the Good Urge. There in his mother’s womb, a person’s Evil Urge grows with him. [After he emerges into the world,] he starts breaking the Sabbath, and nothing is there to stop him; [killing people, and nothing is there to stop him; going out to sin, and nothing is there to stop him.] After thirteen years, the Good Urge is born. Then when he breaks the Sabbath, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Exodus 31:14), “One who breaks it will surely die”? When he kills, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Genesis 9:6), “One who spills the blood of a person, his own blood will be spilled”? When he goes out to sin, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Leviticus 20:16), “Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”? When a person heats himself up, and then goes to commit some act of lewdness, all of his limbs will obey him, because the Evil Urge rules over all 248 limbs. When he goes to perform a mitzvah, his limbs begin to grow lazy, because the Evil Urge in his stomach rules over all 248 of a person’s limbs. The Good Urge, meanwhile, is like someone trapped in a prison, as it says (Ecclesiastes 4:14), “From the prison, he comes forth to rule” – that is the Good Urge. Some say, that verse refers to Joseph the Righteous, when that wicked woman came and tortured him with words. She said to him: I will lock you up in prison! He said to her: But God releases the bound. She said to him: I will poke out your eyes! He said: God gives sight to the blind. She said to him: I will bend you down! He said to her: God straightens the bent. (She said to him: I will make you into a wicked man! He said to her: God loves the righteous. She said to him: I will make you an Aramean! He said to her: God protects the strangers. Until finally he said [Genesis 39:9], “How can I do this evil thing?”) And do not be surprised at Joseph the Righteous. For behold, Rabbi Tzadok was the greatest of his generation when he was captured. And a matron took him and presented before him a beautiful maidservant. When he saw her, he turned his eyes to the wall so he would not see her. And he sat and recited his learning the whole night. In the morning, the maidservant left and complained to her mistress: I would rather die than be given to that man! The matron sent for him and said to him: Why didn’t you do with this woman as all people do? He said to her: What can I do? I come from the lineage of the high priest, from a great family! I said to myself, Perhaps I will sleep with her and increase mamzerim in Israel! When she heard this, she commanded he be released with great honor. (And they say:) Do not be surprised at Rabbi Tzadok. For behold, Rabbi Akiva was greater than him! When he went to Rome, informers slandered him to a local prefect, who then presented before him two beautiful women. [The prefect] bathed and anointed them dressed them up like brides, and they fell upon [Rabbi Akiva] the whole night. This one said: Come to me! And that one said: Come to me! But he sat between them and spat, and would not turn to them. They went before the prefect and said to him: We would rather die than be given to that man! He sent for [Rabbi Akiva] and said to him: Why didn’t you do with those women as all people do with women? Weren’t they beautiful? And weren’t they human beings just like you? Didn’t the One who created you create them as well? [Rabbi Akiva] said: What could I do? Their scent was worse to me than carcasses and vermin! And do not be surprised at Rabbi Akiva. For behold, Rabbi Eliezer the Great was greater than him. For he raised his sister’s daughter until she was thirteen, and she slept in bed with him until she began puberty. Then he said to her: Go, and marry a man. She said to him: Am I not your woman? Should I be given as a maidservant to wash the legs of your students? He said to her: My daughter, I am already an old man. Go and marry a young man like yourself. She said to him: Didn’t I already say to you, Am I not your woman? Should I be given as a maidservant to wash the legs of your students? When he heard her words, he got permission from her to marry her, and then had sexual relations with her.

Makkot 9a:11

The Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning that based on the formulation of the verse one concludes that it was a sin exclusively vis-à-vis God, where Joseph says to Potiphar’s wife: “And how can I perform this great evil, and sin to God” (Genesis 39:9), may one also infer that it was a sin vis-à-vis God and not vis-à-vis man? Joseph is referring to adultery, which is punishable by execution according to the Noahide laws as well. Rather, in that case it means that although he performed a sin vis-à-vis God, his judgment is given over to the ruling of man; here too, in the verse about Abimelech, it can be explained that although he performed a sin vis-à-vis God, his judgment is given over to the ruling of man. There is no proof from this verse with regard to the status of one who says that it is permitted to perform a transgression.

Sanhedrin 109a:10

It was taught in a baraita: “Wicked” is referring to sins they committed with their money; “and sinners” is referring to sins they committed with their bodies. “Wicked” is referring to sins they committed with their money, as it is written: “And your eye is wicked against your poor brother and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). “And sinners” is referring to sins they committed with their bodies, as it is written with regard to Joseph and the wife of Potiphar: “And sin against God” (Genesis 39:9). “Before the Lord”; this is referring to blessing, a euphemism for cursing, God. “Exceedingly [meod ]” is referring to bloodshed, as it is stated: “Moreover Manasseh shed very [meod ] much blood” (II Kings 21:16).

Sanhedrin 109a:9

Rav Yehuda says: “Wicked” is referring to sins they committed with their bodies; “and sinners” is referring to sins they committed with their money. “Wicked” is referring to sins they committed with their bodies, as it is written with regard to Joseph and the wife of Potiphar: “And how can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God” (Genesis 39:9). “And sinners” is referring to sins they committed with their money, as it is written: “And your eye is wicked against your poor brother, and you give him nothing…for it shall be reckoned to you as a sin” (Deuteronomy 15:9). “Before the Lord”; this is referring to blessing, a euphemism for cursing, God. “Exceedingly” means that they had intent and sinned and did not sin unwittingly or driven by lust.

Targum

In Genesis 39:9, Onkelos and Targum Jonathan both state that Joseph acknowledges his position of authority in the house of Potiphar, but refuses to sin with his wife because it would be a great evil and a sin against God.

Onkelos Genesis 39:9

No one in this house is greater than me. He has not withheld anything from me other than you, for you are his wife. How can I do such a great evil, and sin against [before] God.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:9

there is none in the house greater than I nor hath he restricted me from anything but thyself, because thou art his wife: and how can I do this great wickedness, and become guilty before the Lord ?

וַיְהִ֕י כְּדַבְּרָ֥הּ אֶל־יוֹסֵ֖ף י֣וֹם ׀ י֑וֹם וְלֹא־שָׁמַ֥ע אֵלֶ֛יהָ לִשְׁכַּ֥ב אֶצְלָ֖הּ לִהְי֥וֹת עִמָּֽהּ׃ 10 J And much as she coaxed Joseph day after day, he did not yield to her request to lie beside her, to be with her.
Various commentators interpret Joseph's refusal to be alone with Potiphar's wife in Genesis 39:10 as a demonstration of his commitment to his religion and conscience, resisting temptation and avoiding inappropriate behavior despite her persistent advances. The Midrash praises Joseph's righteousness and wisdom, highlighting his adherence to the commandments and his ultimate success in Egypt. Rabbi Elazar explains that Joseph's steadfastness in refusing to commit adultery served as a role model for prioritizing Torah study over worldly distractions, avoiding consequences in this world and the World-to-Come.

Commentary

Various commentators interpret the phrase "to lie by her" in Genesis 39:10 as referring to Joseph refusing to be alone with Potiphar's wife, either by merely conversing with her or sitting beside her fully clothed to avoid any temptation towards intimacy. Despite her persistence, Joseph remained steadfast in his refusal, demonstrating his commitment to his religion and conscience. Potiphar's wife continuously tried to seduce Joseph, but he consistently avoided any inappropriate behavior, even when she requested him to lie beside her. Joseph's unwavering resistance to temptation earned him praise for his self-control in the face of considerable pressure.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:10:1

Now, as regards the next verse: (39:10): ‘And it happened, when she spoke to Joseph daily, but he paid no attention to her importunings’, I believe its correct interpretation is as follows: on the first occasion, Joseph did listen to her words, and replied to her, as she was his master’s wife; but subsequently, he became afraid that her continual advances would (ultimately) entice him; for repeated words or deeds can make a huge impression, so as to effect an alteration in a person’s conduct. Consequently, from then onwards, when she used to speak to him every day – our Sages indeed tell us that this went on for twelve months! – he would not listen to what she said, to avoid himself becoming seduced. Now she, as mistress of the house, would sit on the ground – as is customary for ladies of that rank – on a rug made of linen and embroidered wool – and high-ranking officials, when coming to converse with them, would (customarily) lie down on those very rugs to conduct their dialogue. She was accordingly continually urging Joseph to lie down beside her on the rug so that she could speak to him, but he (for his part) had no desire to approach her. This, then, is the (full) purport of the verse (found here) :(39:10): ‘But he paid no heed to her, to lie by her side, to be with her’. On perceiving that she would not accept his efforts to extricate himself (from her clutches), he chose to shut his ears and neither to listen to anything she said, nor, needless to say, to venture close to her in the place where she was seated.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 39:10:1

[TO LIE BY HER.] To just lie next to her, (That is, just to lie next to her, “to lie next to her while both are fully clothed” (Nahmanides).) or to be with her, to converse with her.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:10:1-3

ולא שמע אליה לשכב אצלה, “and he did not listen to her request even to (merely) lie beside her.” The plain meaning of the text is that Joseph refused to have any bodily contact with Mrs. Potiphar even if it did not involve intercourse itself. להיות עמה, “to be intimate with her.” To have sexual intercourse. We have found elsewhere in the Bible that the word להיות may mean sexual intercourse, such as in Ruth 1,12 where Naomi speaks about “being in the company of a man,” i.e. to have intimate relations with him which would result in her becoming pregnant.” The Hebrew word used there for having sexual relations is גם הייתי הלילה לאיש. A Midrashic approach to this verse is found in Tanchuma Vayeshev 8. She said to him: “why do you not listen to me? No one is going to see us.” He replied to her: “we have been forbidden to have sexual relations with you people even when you are not married, how much more so are we forbidden to have such relations with you once you are married to someone?” The best way to illustrate this argument is by means of a parable. A Gentile approached a Jew telling him that he had some delectable dish which he wanted him to taste. When the Jew inquired what precisely this dish consisted of, the Gentile told him that it was the meat from a pig. The Jew replied: “you must really be very foolish. You know that if one of you slaughters an animal we are only not allowed to eat it because it has not been slaughtered by a Jew, how could you imagine that I would eat meat from an animal which I may not eat even if a Jew had slaughtered it?” The words ולא שמע אליה לשכב אצלה, להיות עמה, which appear repetitive, are viewed by the Midrash as referring to life in the present world, and as a result of committing the former sin, life in the hereafter, i.e. in Gehinom, (hell). We are told in that same Midrash that there are three categories of people who may be trusted implicitly: 1) A private householder who sets aside his tithes conscientiously. Such a person is not suspected of shortchanging the Priest by withholding his Terumah (a form of tithe given to the Priests). There is no greater demonstration of a person’s trustworthiness than that we believe him in other matters based on his observing commandments whose performance cannot be checked. Such people enjoy the greatest trust by their peers. 2) Next lower on the rungs of the ladder of trustworthiness is a bachelor who resides in a quarter inhabited by harlots and does not succumb to the temptation which surrounds him. 3) A poor man who has been entrusted with the safekeeping of valuables for others and has demonstrated that he has kept faith with those who gave him the objects to be kept for them. Joseph excelled them all while he was in Egypt, a country of which the prophet (Ezekiel 23,20) writes that “the flesh of the people there could be compared to the flesh of donkeys.” Seeing that Joseph was seventeen years old at the time he was sold to Egypt, and was subjected daily to sexual temptation by his master’s wife without yielding to such alluring prospects, this meant that henceforth he could never be suspected of any sexual misdemeanour. We are told in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 39 that there were three prominent people who demonstrated control over their sexual urges when faced with temptation which was hard to resist. They are Joseph, Boaz, and Palti ben Layish. Our sages in Sanhedrin 19 contrast the active libido of Joseph, a teenager, with the relatively dormant one of Boaz, an aged man. They say that whereas Joseph’s feat was indeed major, by comparison to Boaz’s constraint, it was still only a modest accomplishment. Whereas the temptation Joseph faced was by day, the temptation Boaz faced when Ruth came to him in the barn was at night. Joseph might have been afraid of being observed, a possible consideration enabling him to withstand the urgings of Mrs. Potiphar. Similarly what was considered an act of great restraint by Boaz paled into insignificance when compared to the restraint Palti ben Layish imposed upon himself. He had been given Michal (David’s wife) as a legal wife (Samuel I 25,44) by King Saul, and could have claimed her, but did not ever touch her or even share the same house with her. Palti had been aware that a marriage ceremony is invalid when the woman in question is still the wife of another man, David, who had not divorced Michal. King Saul had forced his daughter into marrying Palti. Seeing Palti was afraid of King Saul, he pretended to accept Michal as his wife although he had no intention of sleeping with her. In fact, after Saul’s death (Samuel II 3,14) David sent word to Ish Boshet, Saul’s son, demanding that his wife Michal be restored to him. Ish Boshet agreed, and a weeping Palti accompanied her up to a place called Bachurim. He wept because he was afraid David would not believe that he had not touched Michal. [At any rate, the thrust of the story in the Talmud is that every feat of sexual restraint must be evaluated on its own. There are features in each of these stories which made the deed especially great; on the other hand each of these situations also contained features which helped the person subject to the temptation to successfully resist it. Ed]

Radak on Genesis 39:10:1

לשכב אצלה להיות עמה, she lowered her demands, even to at least lie down on the same bed beside her, or merely keeping her company. Joseph refused all these suggestions. According to an aggadic interpretation, the apparent repetition of the line לשכב אצלה להיות עמה refers to intimacy in this world on earth, לשכב אצלה, and the spiritual equivalent in the world to come, i.e. להיות עמה. (Sotah 3)

Ramban on Genesis 39:10:1

TO LIE ‘ETZLA’ (BY HER). The meaning of this expression is as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted it: “even to lie near her, each in their garment, or to be with her for general conversation.” This interpretation is correct since we do not find the word etzla (near her) in Scripture in connection with sexual intercourse, only the word ima (with her) or othah (with her), as for example: Lie ‘imi’ (with me); (Verse 12 here.) And if any man lie ‘othah’ (with her); (Leviticus 15:24.) And the women ravished (‘tishachavnah’). (Zechariah 14:2. In tishachavnah, the plural form of othah is implicit.)

Rashbam on Genesis 39:10:1

להיות עמה, Joseph was even careful not to find himself alone with Potiphar’s wife until there came a day when he was forced to be alone with her in the house as all the other members of the household were occupied outside the house. According to Bereshit Rabbah 87,7 all the other people on that day had gone to watch the river Nile flood its banks, an annual event.

Rashi on Genesis 39:10:1

לשכב אצלה TO LIE BY HER — even without sinning (Genesis Rabbah 87:6).

Rashi on Genesis 39:10:2

להיות עמה TO BE WITH HER, in the world to come (Gehinnom) (Genesis Rabbah 87:6).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:10:1

Even without intimacy. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it not written לשכב עמה, as it said before (v. 7), שכבה עמי? You might ask: If he would not lie next to her even without intimacy, why does it then say, “nor to be with her,” which Rashi explains as referring to the World to Come? For what would he be punished? [The answer is:] Perhaps the verse is saying he would not lie next to her even without intimacy because he feared his evil inclination might bring him to intimacy, and he would go to Gehinnom. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:10

Despite Joseph’s refusal, she persisted: It was as she spoke to Joseph day after day, and he did not heed her to lie with her, to be with her. At first, she tried to the best of her ability to seduce Joseph. When he refused, she requested that he lie in her bed beside her. 29 Joseph was torn between temptation and the restraint demanded by his religion and his conscience. Nevertheless, the more she pushed to be with Joseph, the more he took effort to avoid her. 30

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:10:1

לשכב אצלה, “to lie down beside her;” Ibn Ezra understands this as sitting beside one another on the same settee, fully clothed, engaging in idle chatter. The reason for Ibn Ezra’s explanation is that the term לשכב אצלה, is most inappropriate for intimacy involving sex, as the Torah would have used the word עמה, if it wanted to describe such an intimate physical relationship.

Kabbalah

Persistence in Teshuva is necessary to atone for sins, as each sin is counted and written. Failure to remember one's sins results in the Lamed-Yud Angel redeeming them through suffering, with each warm arousal leading to redemption. Teshuva is challenging as one must repent for every instance of emitting semen in vain.

Reshit Chokhmah, Gate of Holiness 17:27

One needs to persist in Teshuva year after year, and never forget how many times he angered his Creator, because all his sins are counted and written. If he does not (remember) then the Lamed-Yud Angel is ready to redeem back the same amount of sins he committed by warming himself up between her thighs—there he will fall and there will be no room until all the evil will be destroyed—since the Creator gives strength to the wicked to suffer their calamities, and for each and every warm arousal they are redeemed anew. The reason is as it says “To lie with her to be with her” (Genesis 39:10), and they say about it: “to lie with her” in this world, “to be with her” in the World To Come until he receives his punishment, as Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai explained his punishment in Pekudei 853, and study it because we will not quote it here. Therefore, his Teshuva is difficult since he needs to do Teshuva for each and every time that he boiled himself by emitting semen in vain.

Midrash

The Midrash discusses various aspects of the story of Joseph, highlighting his righteousness and wisdom. Despite facing temptation, Joseph did not commit adultery with Potifar's wife, demonstrating his observance of the commandments. As a result of his actions, Joseph was rewarded by being placed in a position of authority in Egypt. The Midrash emphasizes Joseph's adherence to the mitzvot and his ability to know the appropriate time and judgment, leading to his ultimate success and recognition.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:6

“On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:54). “On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” – that is what is written: “I keep the king’s directive, [and in regard to the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). If the king will say to you that his fear shall be upon you and you shall observe his decrees, observe his decrees. Likewise, it says: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) – that his fear shall be upon you. And it says: “Any man who will disobey your directive, [and does not heed your words in everything that you command him, will be put to death]” (Joshua 1:18). “I” that is written here is nothing other than fear of the monarchy, just as Pharaoh said to Joseph. That is what is written: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, and without you no man shall lift his hand…” (Genesis 41:44). What is “I am Pharaoh”? This is what Pharaoh said to Joseph: Even though I said to you: “You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:40) – that I made you king over everyone – be careful to treat me with respect and make me king over you. That is why he said: “I am Pharaoh” – in other words, that the fear of my kingship shall be upon you. Similarly, “God spoke to Moses, and He said to him: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:2) – why was it necessary to say here: “I am the Lord”? Rather, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: Even though I set you as a god for Pharaoh, as the verse states: “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1) be careful that my Godliness will be upon you, as I made you a god only over Pharaoh alone. That is, “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is “I” who requires you to “keep the king’s directive” – that his fear shall be upon you. Make certain that you do not flout his commands. Is it, perhaps, even if he tells you to violate the words of the Omnipresent? The verse states: “And in regard to the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – the verse comes to inform you that “and in regard to the word of an oath of God” will be paramount over the command of flesh and blood, as you should nullify the will of flesh and blood before the will of God and fulfill all the commandments that are in the Torah, as you entered into an oath in their regard to fulfill them, just as it says: “To pass you into the covenant of the Lord your God and into His oath…” (Deuteronomy 29:11), and it says: “[Cursed be] who will not uphold the matters of this Torah to perform them; and the entire people shall say: Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:26). Similarly, “each of you shall fear his mother and his father…” (Leviticus 19:3) – is it, perhaps, even if his father said to him: Slaughter for me and cook for me on Shabbat, that he should listen to him? The verse states: “And you shall observe My Shabbatot” (Leviticus 19:3) – all of you are obligated in My honor. Here too, “and the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as above the word of the king observe the word of an oath to God. “Do not be frightened; leave his presence [mipanav]; [do not remain in a bad situation, as he will do what he wills]” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). If [a king of] flesh and blood will become angry at you in order to cause you to violate the statutes of the Torah, do not be frightened by his anger and follow his counsel, just as it says: “Who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalms 1:1). Panav is nothing other than his anger, just as it says: “And the expression on his face [anpohi] was distorted” (Daniel 3:19). That is, “leave his presence”; “do not remain in a bad situation [bedavar]” – do not remain in his path to follow it, just as it says: “And did not remain in the path of sinners” (Psalms 1:1). What is “bedavar” (Ecclesiastes 8:3)? It is that you should not fear that evil matter, that he will say to you that he will burn you, kill you, or subject you to harsh suffering if you do not fulfill his decree, and he will threaten you that there is no God in the world who will be able to rescue you from his hand. That is what is written thereafter: “As he will do what he wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). Just as Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya: “At that time you will be cast into the burning fiery furnace; who is the god who will save you from my hands?” (Daniel 3:15). “Since authority is by the king’s word, [who will say to him: What are you doing?]” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). If you devote yourself to the mitzvot to fulfill the decree of the Holy One blessed be He and to nullify the decrees of flesh and blood, what is your reward? When the Holy One blessed be He issues a decree to bring calamity to the world – as he is the King of the world and Ruler of everything, to do everything that He desires and no one can impede him: “He is of one mind, and who can respond to Him? His soul desires, and He does” (Job 23:13) – you will stand and ask for mercy regarding the decree to abrogate it. The Holy One blessed be He will show forbearance to you, and He will nullify it because you nullified the decree of flesh and blood in order to fulfill His decree. That is why it is stated: “Since authority is by the king’s word” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, when He says to bring something to the world to inform of his authority in the world, just as it says: “God caused that they would experience fear before Him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). Know, who can impede His decree and say to Him: ‘Why are You doing so’? It is one who observes mitzvot. That is why it is stated: “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” Who can say to Him: ‘Why are You doing this to Your creations? Descend to them with the attribute of mercy’? That is one who observes His mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva [will know no evil matter]” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5)? It is measure for measure; he did not remain in a bad situation, therefore, “he will know no evil matter.” “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – as there is a wise man who considers the consequences and reckons the loss from a mitzva against its reward and the loss from a transgression against its reward. He considers in his heart: If I transgress His mitzvot, and I have an opportunity to do what I want and there is no one who can impede me, tomorrow, the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him (Referring to himself.) because he violated His Torah. Likewise it says: “The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool [walks in darkness]” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). And it says: “The heart of the wise inclines to his right, [and the heart of a fool inclines to his left]” (Ecclesiastes 10:2). “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” – one whose heart is wise knows that if he transgresses the mitzvot, that the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him, and he refrains from the transgression. That is what is written thereafter: “For there is a time and a judgment for every matter…” (Ecclesiastes 8:6) – regarding every situation where a person performs his will and nullifies the will of the Omnipresent, it should be known to him that he is destined to be judged. Even though retribution is not exacted from him immediately, let him not think that the Holy One blessed be He would overlook his iniquity for him, but rather, He is slow to anger and collects what is due to Him. When does He exact retribution from him? It is when the hin is filled. Likewise it says: “With the filling of his quota, he will be troubled; [the hand of all travail will come upon him]” (Job 20:22). That is why it is stated: “As the evil of man overwhelms him” (Ecclesiastes 8:6); just as He did with the generation of the Flood, as He gave them an extension but ultimately exacted retribution from them, just as it says: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…” (Genesis 6:5). What is written thereafter? “The Lord said: I will obliterate man…” (Genesis 6:7). “For he does not know what will be, [for whenever it will be, who will have told him]?” (Ecclesiastes 8:7). The verse comes to teach you that anyone who does not repent from a transgression that he committed and does not fear the Day of Judgment, when it will arrive they will not show him forbearance. Were he to come and say that he be given an extension so he could repent, they will not listen to him. That is, for whenever punishment “will be, who will have told him” so he would repent and be accepted. It is to say to you that prior to the sentence they listen to him; after the sentence they do not listen to him. That is why it is stated: “For whenever it will be, who will have told him?” “There is no man who rules the spirit [to retain the spirit, and there is no rule on the day of death, and there is no sending a proxy in war, and wickedness will not rescue its owner]” (Ecclesiastes 8:8) – because we found that the Holy One blessed be He decreed four court-imposed death penalties for performers of transgressions. That is why four matters are written here, corresponding to them, where the living lack the ability to be rescued from them after their sentence. These are: “There is no man who rules the spirit [ruaḥ] to retain the spirit” – this is death by strangulation and the like, as a person dies from it only due to breath [ruaḥ], as he has no place from which to breathe. That is, “there is no man who rules the spirit” to exhale it when the day comes that the breath will be constricted in his body. “And there is no rule on the day of death” – this is death by stoning and the like, just as it says: “You shall stone him with stones, and he will die” (Deuteronomy 13:11). “There is no sending a proxy in war” – this is death by decapitation by sword and the like, just as it says: “Go out and wage war with Amalek” (Exodus 17:9), and it is written: “Joshua weakened [Amalek and its people by sword]” (Exodus 17:13). “And wickedness will not rescue its owner” – this is death by burning and the like, just as it says: “All the criminals and all the doers of wickedness will be straw; the day that is coming will burn them…” (Malachi 3:19). These are the four court-imposed death penalties mentioned in this verse. Even though the Sanhedrin ceased and the four court-imposed death penalties were abrogated, the sentence of the four court-imposed death penalties were not abrogated, as the Holy One blessed be He judges the living to die of them with harsh punishments corresponding to them. One who incurs liability to be strangled either drowns in the river, dies of diphtheria, or is delivered into the hands of idol worshippers who strangle him. One who incurs liability to be stoned either falls off the roof, or a beast tramples him, or idol worshippers stone him. One who incurs liability to be beheaded, robbers come upon him and behead him. One who incurs liability to be burned either falls into the fire or a snake bites him. You learned that a person cannot escape the judgment of the Holy One blessed be He that He will not punish him measure for measure. That is why it is stated: “There is no man who rules the spirit….” (Ecclesiastes 8:8). Another matter: “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is speaking of Joseph the righteous, who observed the “I” that Pharaoh had said to him, just as it says: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, [and without you no man shall lift his hand]” (Genesis 41:44), as he never flouted his command. “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as even though he entered into that prominence, he did not throw the yoke of Heaven from upon him and he feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “[I fear] God” (Genesis 42:18). That is why “God” is stated. (According to the Etz Yosef, the midrash is explaining that this is an allusion to the verse, “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2).) He was very cautious regarding the oath, as he did not take an oath “as the Lord lives,” but rather, “as Pharaoh lives, that you will not depart from here” (Genesis 42:15). That is, “an oath.” What is “the word of [divrat]”? It is because he separated himself from lasciviousness, just as it says: “He shall not see a lascivious matter [davar] in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it says: The young woman, because [al devar] she did not cry out in the city…” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Likewise it says: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). What is written there? “He refused, and he said to his master’s wife: Behold, my master…” (Genesis 39:8). That is why it is stated: “The word of [divrat],” just as it says: “It was, as she spoke [kedabra] to Joseph day after day, and he did not heed her…” (Genesis 39:10). “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence” – when he entered the house to perform his labor, and the house was vacant and there was no person who could see him, just as it is written: “It was, on a certain day he went into the house to perform his labor, and there was no one [of the people of the household there in the house]” (Genesis 39:11), she came and seized his garment so that he would lie with her. Nevertheless, he was not frightened by her actions, and he went outside, just as it says: “He left his garment in her hand, fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). That is why it is stated: “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence.” He was not frightened by the house being vacant, but rather he fled and left, even though she said to him that if he would not lie with her, she would say to her husband that he sought to rape her, and her husband will kill him, and there would be no one to impede him, because he is his slave. Nevertheless, he did not allow her to fulfill her desire because of that evil matter that she threatened to do to him. That is why it says: “Do not remain in a bad situation, as God will do what He wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). From where do you derive that she threatened him in that manner? It is from the end of the matter. When she saw that her actions were to no avail, look at what she did: “She called to the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying.… It was, when he heard.… She placed his garment [beside her, until his master’s arrival home]. She spoke to him…[saying: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to me to mock me]. It was, as I raised my voice [and cried out, that he left his garment with me, and fled outside]” (Genesis 39:14–18). “Since authority is by the king’s word…” (Ecclesiastes 8:4) – what reward did the Holy One blessed be He give him for this? He placed him in a position of authority in the land of Egypt. That is what is written: “Since [authority is] by the king’s word…,” just as it says: “Pharaoh spoke to Joseph: In my dream, behold, I am…” (Genesis 41:17). “Authority” – just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4), just as it says: “Go to Joseph; what he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). Why to that extent? It is because he observed the mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter”? It is this evil matter that the butler said, just as it says: “There with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief executioner…” (Genesis 41:12). He said three matters here in Joseph’s regard: “Lad” – that he was a fool, just as it says: “Folly is bound in the heart of a lad” (Proverbs 22:15); “Hebrew” – an enemy; “slave” – that he is not worthy of kingship. Nevertheless, Joseph knew no evil matter. In other words, the matter did not affect him, as he ruled. “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this was Joseph, who was called wise, just as it says: “There is no one as wise and understanding as you” (Genesis 41:39). He knew that he would be held accountable had he touched Potifar’s wife; that is why he withdrew from her. That is what is written: “He did not heed her [to lie with her, to be with her]” (Genesis 39:10); “to lie with her” in this world; “to be with her” in the World to Come. Another matter: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this is the Holy One blessed be He, in whose regard it is written: “Wise of heart and mighty of power” (Job 9:4). He brought about a time to reward Joseph on the basis of measure for measure. How so? He ruled over his inclination and did not touch her; therefore, he became a ruler, just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). He did not heed her, just as it says: “He did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10); therefore, the Holy One blessed be He crowned him as king over Egypt in its entirety, and everyone heeded his words, just as it says: “What he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). His mouth [piv] did not kiss [nashak] in transgression; therefore, “at your directive [pikha] my entire people will be sustained [yishak]” (Genesis 41:40). He said: “There is no one greater in this house than I…” (Genesis 39:9) in order to rebuff her; therefore, “you will be in charge of my house” (Genesis 41:40). He did not seize her, but she seized him with her hands, just as it says: “She seized him by his garment…” (Genesis 39:12); therefore, “Pharaoh removed his signet ring from upon his hand, and he placed it upon Joseph’s hand” (Genesis 41:42). He left his garment in her hand; therefore, “he dressed him in linen garments” (Genesis 41:42). He did not bend his neck toward her; therefore, “he placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42). He did not mount [rakhav] her; therefore, “he had him ride [vayarkev] in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43). She called the people of her household in this regard, just as it says: “She called the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14); therefore, “they called before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43). He was relegated to the prison for this, just as it says: “He relegated him [vayitenehu] to the prison” (Genesis 39:20); therefore, “he appointed him [venaton oto] over the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:43). He did not direct his glance toward her, and not toward the Egyptian women when he ruled, just as it says: “Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful bough alongside a spring [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22), as he averted his eye [she’ilem eino] from Potifar’s wife and from the Egyptian women. “Branches [banot] (Banot can also mean women.) ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22). Therefore, alei shur. Rabbi Reuven said: What is alei shur? The Holy One blessed be He said: It is incumbent upon me to pay a reward for that eye. How so? The Rabbis taught that in the Temple they would eat offerings of lesser sanctity within the wall, within the wall of Jerusalem. But in Shilo, which was in the portion of Joseph, they would eat it within eyeshot. (Within eyeshot of the Tabernacle (Rambam, Mishna Zevaḥim 14:6).) That is alei shur, just as it says: “The eye of one who sees me will not behold me [teshureni]” (Job 7:8). Rabbi Azarya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Joseph: You observed the mitzva of: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), which is the seventh of the Commandments, and you did not commit adultery with Potifar’s wife. And you observed the mitzva of: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), which is the eighth of the Commandments, as you did not steal Potifar’s property and you did not “steal” his wife, just as it says: “The eye of the adulterer observes the night, saying: No eye will behold [teshureni] me…” (Job 24:15). The time will come when I will repay you for them. Tomorrow, when the princes come to bring [offerings] for the dedication of the altar, the princes of your two sons, one will present his offering on the seventh day, and the second on the eighth day. And no other tribe will interpose between your two sons, just as you did not interpose (Namely, you did not differentiate between them. You observed both of them. As a reward, Benjamin did not interpose between Ephraim and Manasseh.) between “you shall not commit adultery” and “you shall not steal,” as it is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim.… On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh…” (Numbers 7:48–54) That is why it is written: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:7

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:55). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]…” – do not read it as kaarat, but rather as akart, corresponding to Jacob, who extracted [akar] the birthright (The birthright refers to the extra portion of the inheritance that the eldest son received.) from Reuben and gave it to Joseph: “I have given you one portion more than your brothers…” (Genesis 48:22). “Silver” – just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20), just as he (Silver alludes to the statement made by Jacob, who was righteous.) said: “Ephraim and Manasseh will be for me like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – when Jacob descended to Egypt on account of Joseph, he was one hundred and thirty years old, as it is stated: “Jacob said to Pharaoh: The days of the years of my residence are one hundred and thirty years” (Genesis 47:9). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – corresponding to Joseph, who was cast [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “Silver” – after: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20) – what he said to his father (Silver alludes to the statement made by Joseph, who was righteous.) : “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn; place your right hand upon his head” (Genesis 48:18). “Seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” – as it was through him that seventy people descended to Egypt. “Both of them full…” – Jacob and Joseph, both of them were full-fledged righteous men and both produced tribes. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:56). “One gold ladle of ten shekels…” – corresponding to the ten districts of Manasseh, as it is stated: “Ten districts fell to Manasseh” (Joshua 17:5). “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:57). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:58). “One young bull, one ram [one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering]; one goat…” – these (This is a reference to the three burnt offerings.) are three corresponding to the three generations that Joseph saw from Manasseh that received a portion in the land, (This is a reference to the fact that there were three major families named after the three generations following Manasseh, in addition to the family which was named after Manasseh himself. Therefore, the phrase “the sons of Makhir” refers to Makhir himself, Gilad, and Iezer.) as it is stated: “The children of Makhir son of Manasseh, too, were born at Joseph’s knees” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise, it says: “The sons of Manasseh: For Makhir, the family of the Makhirites, and Makhir begot Gilad.… These are the sons of Gilad: Of Iezer…” (Numbers 26:29–30). Makhir, Gilad, and Iezer – these are three generations that were patrilineal houses that were attributed to Joseph, as Manasseh is attributed to Jacob, just as it says: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before my coming to you to Egypt, they are mine” (Genesis 48:5). The fourth, this was Ya’ir son of Manasseh, who received a portion in the land, just as it says: “Ya’ir son of Manasseh went and captured their villages [ḥavot], and he called them Ḥavot Ya’ir” (Numbers 32:41). The three species of burnt offerings corresponded to the sons of Makhir son of Manasseh. (This is referring to what was mentioned above, and is mentioned again since the midrash now also explains what the sin offering signifies.) The goat sin offering corresponded to Ya’ir, who did not bequeath his portion to his sons, because he did not have sons. That is why he called them (The villages.) by his name, because he did not have any remnant, and the sons of his brother Makhir inherited his portion. “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:59). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the tribe of Manasseh, which split into two and received two portions in the land, half of it on the east bank of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan. “Five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year” – these are three species, corresponding to three things that Joseph did on behalf of Manasseh, whom he sought to elevate over his brother Ephraim. The first: “Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim in his right hand to the left of Israel, and Manasseh in his left hand to the right of Israel” (Genesis 48:13). The second: “He supported his father’s hand, to remove it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh” (Genesis 48:17). The third: “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn…” (Genesis 48:18). Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five women from the tribe of Manasseh who took a portion in the land. These were Tzelofḥad’s five daughters, just as it says: “Tzelofḥad’s daughters speak justly; give them a holding for inheritance…” (Numbers 27:7). They were five, as it is stated: “These are the names of his daughters: Maḥla, Noa, Ḥogla, Milka, and Tirtza” (Numbers 27:1). Likewise, Jacob mentioned them in the blessing of Joseph, as it is stated: “Branches [banot] ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22); these are Tzelofḥad’s daughters [banot], who received a portion in the land. Alternatively, why were they five each? It corresponds to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “May they proliferate like fish in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16), and fish were created on the fifth day. “This was the offering of Gamliel…” – since the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented the offering in this order, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Gamliel…”

Bereshit Rabbah 86:3

“[Potiphar...an Egyptian man,] purchased him [from the Ishmaelites]” – those who were acquired were acquiring. (The Ishmaelites descend from Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant, and the Egyptians descend from Ḥam, of whom it is stated: “A slave of slaves he shall be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25), and they were the ones purchasing and selling Joseph.) All slaves damage the household of their masters. But this one – “the Lord blessed the house of the Egyptian for Joseph’s sake” (Genesis 39:5). All slaves are suspected of robbery, but this one: “Joseph collected all the silver…[Joseph brought the silver to Pharoah’s house]” (Genesis 47:14). All slaves are suspected of licentiousness, but this one: “But he did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10). Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: All slaves, their master feeds teruma to their slaves, but this one fed his master teruma, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Elazar took a wife from the daughters of Joseph. (Joseph was married to Potiphar’s daughter, so Potiphar’s granddaughter married Elazar, the son of Aaron, and ate teruma.) Potiphar is “Potifera” (Genesis 41:45). Potiphar – because he would fatten [mefatem] calves for idol worship. Potifera – because he would defecate [pore’a atzmo] for idol worship. (Defacation in front of the idol of Baal Peor was a form of its worship (see Sanhedrin 60b). ) When the bull [par] (Joseph, who was likened to a bull; see Deuteronomy 33:17.) descended there, [Potiphar] became wealthy. (Translation follows Matnot Kehuna. Alternatively, he became an officer, or a eunuch. ) “The official of [seris] Pharaoh” – he was castrated [nistares]. This teaches that [Potiphar] purchased [Joseph] only for intercourse, but the Holy One blessed be He castrated him. This is analogous to a she-bear that was killing its master’s children. He said: ‘Break its teeth.’ So, it teaches that [Potiphar] purchased him only for intercourse, and the Holy One blessed be He castrated him. That is what is written: “For the Lord loves justice [and does not forsake] His pious ones [ḥasidav]” (Psalms 37:28). Ḥasido is written. (The word ḥasidav is written with only one vav, such that it can be read ḥasido, “His pious one,” in singular. It should be noted however that the Masoretic text of Psalms actually has the word ḥasidav with two vavs. The midrash here cites a different tradition. Alternatively, in Midrash Shmuel the version of the text cites I Samuel 2:9 rather than Psalms, and in that verse the word in fact appears as ḥasido, with one vav (Etz Yosef). ) Who is that? It is Joseph. “They are guarded forever, while the seed of the wicked is cut off” (Psalms 37:28) – this teaches that [Potiphar] purchased him only for intercourse, and the Holy One blessed be He castrated him. “Potiphar…an Egyptian man, purchased him [from [miyad] the Ishmaelites]” – a clever man. What was his cleverness? He said: In every place, a German sells a Cushite, (A white man sells a man of dark complexion (Matnot Kehuna). ) but here, a Cushite is selling a German? This is no slave. He said to them: ‘Bring me a guarantor,’ as the term “from [miyad]” is nothing other than a guarantor, just as it says: “I will guarantee him, [from me [miyadi] you can demand him]” (Genesis 43:9). That is why it says: “From [miyad] the Ishmaelites.” Rabbi Levi said: A slave purchased, the son of a maidservant sold, and a free man was a slave to both of them. (Potiphar, the Egyptian, was a descendant of Canaan, who was cursed by Noah to be a slave (see Genesis 9:25). The Ishmaelites were sons of Hagar, described as a maidservant to Sarah (see Genesis 16:2). Joseph was, by birth, a free man. )

Bereshit Rabbah 87:6

“It was as she spoke to Joseph, day after day, and he did not heed her to lie with her, to be with her” (Genesis 39:10). “It was as she spoke to Joseph, day after day” – Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Binyamin: Rachel’s children, (The reference is to Joseph and to Mordekhai, who was a descendant of Benjamin. ) their ordeal was equal and their greatness was equal. Their ordeal was equal – “it was as she spoke to Joseph, day after day”; “it was, as they spoke to him, day after day” (Esther 3:4). Their greatness was equal – “Pharaoh removed his ring” (Genesis 41:42); “the king removed his ring” (Esther 8:2). “And he placed it upon Joseph's hand” (Genesis 41:42); “and he gave it to Mordekhai” (Esther 8:2). “He dressed him in garments of linen” (Genesis 41:42); “and place the garments and the horse…Haman took [the garments and horse and dressed Mordekhai]” (Esther 6:9–11). “He placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42); “Esther placed Mordekhai over the house of Haman” (Esther 8:2). “He had him ride in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43); “he had him ride the horse through the city square” (see Esther 6:11). “They cried before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43); “he cried before him: So [shall be done to the man whose honor the king desires]” (Esther 6:11). “And he did not heed her to lie with her” – in this world, “to be with her” – to be with her in Gehenna in the future. Another matter, “he did not heed her” – even for lying [with her] without intercourse. A noblewoman asked Rabbi Yosei, she said to him: ‘Is it possible that Joseph, seventeen years old, at the height of his passion, could conduct himself in such a manner?’ (Is it really possible that he withstood the temptation? ) He took out for her the book of Genesis and began reading before her the incident of Reuben and Bilha, (Genesis 35:22.) the incident of Judah and Tamar. (Genesis 38:18.) He said to her: ‘If these two, who were adults and in their father’s domain, the verse did not cover up their actions, this one who is young and on his own, all the more so.’

Bereshit Rabbah 88:6

“The chief baker saw that he interpreted well, and he said to Joseph: I too, in my dream, behold, three wicker baskets were on my head” (Genesis 40:16). “And in the uppermost basket there was all manner of food for Pharaoh, baked products, and the birds were eating them from the basket above my head” (Genesis 40:17). “Joseph answered and said: This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days” (Genesis 40:18). “In three more days Pharaoh shall lift your head from upon you, and shall hang you on a tree, and the birds shall eat your flesh from upon you” (Genesis 40:19). “The chief baker saw…[and he said to Joseph: I too [af]…]” – Rav Ḥama said: They are four who began with af and were eradicated with wrath [af]. (The serpent, the chief baker, the congregation of Koraḥ, and Haman, as explained in Bereshit Rabba 19:2.) “Behold, three wicker baskets” – these are the first three kingdoms. (The first three of the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel and many other peoples: Babylon, Media, and Greece.) “And in the uppermost basket” – this is the fourth kingdom, (Rome.) which imposes taxes upon all the nations of the world. “The birds were eating them” – after they ate [the contents of] the uppermost one, they then ate [the contents of] the lower one. [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me bad tidings; (The baker’s dream alluded to the nations that would subjugate Israel. ) I, too, will give you bad tidings: “In three more days…”’ “It was on the third day, Pharaoh's birthday, he made a feast for all his servants and raised the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants” (Genesis 40:20). “It was on the third day” – the day of Pharaoh’s birthday celebration. “He restored the chief butler to his butlership, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:21). “And he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph interpreted for them” (Genesis 40:22). “He made a feast…he restored the chief butler…and…the chief baker” – it befell this one what was stated to him and to that one what was stated to him.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Avodah Zarah 1:11

R. Samuel b. Nachmeni said in the name of R. Jonathan: "A meritorious act performed in this world, precedes a person in the world to come, as it is said (Is. 58, 8) And before thee shall go thy righteousness, the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward. And a crime committed in this world, clings to the person and goes before him on the day of judgment, as it is said (Job 6, 18) It will cling to him the paths of their way." R. Elazar said: "It clings unto him like a dog clings unto his master, as it is said (Gen. 39, 10) And he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her, i.e., to lie by her, in this world, or to be with her, in the future world."

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 1:5

R. Samuel b. Nachmeni said in the name of R. Jonathan: "Whoever performs a merthe world to come, as it is said (Is. 58, 8) And before thee shall go thy righteousness, the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward. And whoever commits a crime in this world, it clings to him and goes before him on the day of judgment, as it is said (Job. 6, 18) "It will cling to him the paths of their ways." R. Elazar said: "It clings unto him like a dog does cling unto his master, as it is said (Gen. 39, 10) And he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her; i.e., to lie by her, in this world; or to be with her, in the world to come.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Yoma 3:5

(Fol. 35b) Our Rabbis were taught: When the poor, the rich or the wicked man shall appear before the Divine Judgment, the poor man will be asked: "Why hast thou not studied the Law?" If he answers: "He was poor and had to earn his maintenance [and therefore had no time to study], he will be answered, "Wast thou then poorer than Hillel the Elder?" Concerning Hillel the Elder it was said that every day he went to work and earned a Tarpeik, of which one-half he gave away to the porter of the college [for admission], and by the other half he and his family lived. Once it happened that he did not earn anything, and the porter would not admit him. He ascended the roof and swung himself over to an opening where he sat down so that he might listen to the words of the living God, from the mouth of Shemaia and Abtalian. It was added that this happened on Friday, during the season of Tebeth (winter) and he was besnowed. When it dawned, Shemaia said to Abtalian: "Brother, why is it that every day light is visible in the academy at this time, and now it is yet dark? Is it such a cloudy day?" They raised their eyes, and saw the figure of a man above the window. When they went up, they found on him a layer of snow three cubits thick. After removing the snow, they took him down, washed him, dressed him with oil, placed him before a fire, remarking: "Such a man deserves that even the Sabbath should be violated for his sake." When the rich man is asked: "Why hast thou not studied the Law?" if he answers: "Because he was a rich man with many estates and had no time to study," they will answer him: "Wert thou then richer than R. Elazar b. Charsum?" Of R. Elazar b. Charsum it was said that his father had bequeathed to him a thousand towns of laud, and a thousand ships on the sea, and he himself used to put a bundle [containing his necessities] on his shoulder, and travel from town to town and from land to land to study the Law. Once his own servants found him, and put him to hard labor. He said to them: "I pray you, let me go to study the Torah." They replied: "We swear, by R. Elazar b. Charsum's life that we will not let you go before you work." He went and paid them a big sum of money in order that they should let him study, for he never saw his servants, but studied the Torah by day and by night. When the wicked man is asked: "Why hast thou not studied the Law?" if he replies that he was handsome, and was troubled by his inclinations, they will answer him and ask whether he was more troubled by his inclinations than Joseph the Righteous? It was said of Joseph, the Righteous, that every day Potiphar's wife used to try to seduce him by her talk. The clothes she used to put on in the morning [to attract his attention] she did not put on in the evening, and vice versa. "Listen to me; do what I ask of you," she pleaded with him, to which he answered, "No!" "I will imprison thee," she threatened him, and he replied (Ps. 146, 7), "The Lord looseneth the prisoners." "I will bend your loftiness," she warned him, his reply was (Ib.) "The Lord raiseth up those who are bowed down." She said to him: "I will blind you." He answered (Ib. 8) "The Lord causeth the blind to see." She gave him a thousand talents of silver, but he was averse to her. Consequently Hillel will cause the conviction of the poor; R. Eliezer b. Charsum, the conviction of the rich, and Joseph, the conviction of the wicked man.

Esther Rabbah 7:7

“When they [the king’s servants] spoke to him [Mordekhai] daily and he did not heed them, they told Haman, to see whether Mordekhai’s words would prevail; for he had told to them that he was a Jew” (Esther 3:4). “When they spoke to him daily” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Binyamin bar Rabbi Levi: The children of Rachel, their miracles are equal and their ascent to greatness is equal. Their miracles are equal; that is what is written: “It was when she spoke to Joseph day after day” (Genesis 39:10). Here it written: “When they spoke to him daily and he did not heed them,” and there it is written: “And he did not heed her to lie with her, to be with her” (Genesis 39:10). And their ascent to greatness is equal; that is what is written: “Pharaoh removed his ring from his hand and he gave it to Joseph, and he garbed him in garments of linen” (Genesis 41:42). Here it is written: “The king removed the ring that he had taken from Haman, and he gave it to Mordekhai” (Esther 8:2). There it is written: “He had him ride in his second chariot, and they cried before him: ‘Avrekh’” (The meaning of avrekh is unclear. One opinion, based on the ancient Egyptian, is that it means “pay attention.”) (Genesis 41:43); here, it is written: “And let the garments and the horse be placed…and they will proclaim before him: So shall be done to the man whose honoring the king desires” (Esther 6:9).

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 8:6

“Why will you not listen to me?” she pleaded. “Since I am the wife of another man, no one will know that there is anything between us.” He replied: “Your virgins are forbidden to us, how much more so is the wife of a man,” as it is said: Neither shall thou make marriages with them (Deut. 7:3). That is why he would not listen to her. R. Judah the son of Nahman explained: This may be compared to an idolater who tells an Israelite: “I have some delicious food for you.” “What kind of food do you have?” he asks. “The meat of a pig,” he replies. Whereupon the Israelite retorts: “You fool! If the flesh of a pure animal that you kill is forbidden to us, how much more so is the flesh of a pig.” Similarly, Joseph told her: “If your virgins are forbidden to us, how much more so another man’s wife.” He harkened not to her, to lie by her, or to be with her (Gen. 39:10). To lie by her signifies in this world, and to be with her refers to Gehenna. From the fact that Scripture states to be with her, you learn that anyone who has relations with an idolatrous woman becomes chained to her like a dog. Others conclude from this verse” The paths of their way do wind, they go up into the waste, and are lost (Job 6:18), for she clings to him and will lead him to the netherworld.

Midrash Tehillim 20:1

A Psalm of David. May the Lord answer you on a day of trouble. This is what the verse (Psalms 50:15) means: "Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me." When Israel is in distress and they seek me out, and they honor me in that hour, I answer them, as it is said: "He will call upon me, and I will answer him" (Psalms 91:15). The analogy is made of a woman who is angry with her mother, and her mother responds by screaming at her from above. During the woman's labor pains, she hears her mother's voice from above and screams back at her, even though she is angry with her. The neighbors ask her why she is screaming when she is giving birth with her mother. She replies that even though she is angry with her, she cannot bear her mother's screams because it is her house that is in distress. Similarly, when the Temple was destroyed and gave a cry of lamentation to the world, it is written: "The Lord of Hosts called in that day for weeping and for mourning" (Isaiah 22:12). The angels said to God, "Master of the Universe, you have 'majesty and splendor before Him' (1 Chronicles 16:27), why are you crying?" God replied, "My Temple is destroyed, and my children are in captivity and pain." Thus, it is written: "With him I am in distress" (Psalms 91:15). Rabbi Joshua the Priest said there are nine verses in this psalm that correspond to the nine months of a woman's pregnancy. What does she say? "He will answer your cries" (Psalms 91:15). Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said that you can find the 18 psalms in the book, beginning with the phrase "Happy is the man," through this verse. They correspond to the 18 blessings that a person recites every day in prayer, and one should recite Psalms 91:15 after reciting these 18 psalms. They said to David, "May the Lord answer you." Another explanation is on what day? On a day that everyone acknowledges as a day of trouble for both the upper and lower worlds. And the Holy One, blessed be He, says to the nations of the world: "Come and judge with the children of Israel," as it is said (Isaiah 41:21), "Present your case, says the Lord." And they say, "Master of the Universe, who creates the chaos of your children?" And He says to them, "I am the One who gives strength and might to the people," as it is said (Psalms 68:36), "He gives power and strength to His people." And the ministers of the nations of the world say, "Master of the Universe, is there no distinction in these matters? Some reveal forbidden relationships and others reveal forbidden relationships. These spill blood, and those spill blood. These serve foreign gods, and those serve foreign gods. Why do these go down to Gehenna and those do not?" At that moment, the advocate of Israel becomes silent, as it is said (Daniel 12:1), "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise." And the one who stands becomes silent, as it is said (Job 32:15), "They are dismayed and no longer answer." The advocate wanted to teach the heavenly court about Israel, but when he became silent, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Michael has become silent, and you are not teaching merit and advocacy for my children. I am speaking on their behalf, for I am speaking of their righteousness and their salvation," as it is said (Isaiah 45:21), "I speak the truth; I declare what is right." And in what righteousness? Rabbi Pinchas, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Yochanan said, one of them said, "In the righteousness that you did with me and received the Torah, for if not for it, I would have destroyed you," and one said, "In the reward that you did and received the Torah, for if not for it, I would have destroyed the world and returned it to chaos and emptiness," as it is said (Jeremiah 33:25), "If not for My covenant day and night." (Daniel 12:1) "And at that time shall your people escape, every one that shall be found written in the book. By whose merit? By the merit of Joseph. Why does God look at them all and not see Joseph? Because Joseph did not listen to his mistress, as it is said (Genesis 39:9) "How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" And how do we know that they are called after Joseph? As it is said (Amos 5:15) "Perhaps the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph." Rabbi Samuel bar Nahmani said that it is because of their relationship to him, as it is said (Isaiah 43:7) "Everyone who is called by My name." Rabbi Levi said it is because of the word [used in the text], as it is written here (Daniel 12:1) "And at that time shall your people escape" and it is written there (Joshua 5:9) "And the Lord said to Joshua: 'This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you'"

Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 145:17

“…that he did not obey her…” (Bereshit 39:10) Rebbe said: he listened to her but the Holy One brought the likeness of his father and he was embarrassed and fled. The second time he went in (to her) the Holy One lifted up the foundation stone and said to him, ‘if you touch her, behold I will throw it down and destroy the world!’ This is what is written, “…and his arms were gilded from the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob; from there he sustained the rock of Israel.” (Bereshit 49:24) R’ Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of R’ Yochanan: anyone who does one commandment in this world, it precedes him and goes before home in the World to Come as it says, “…and your righteousness shall go before you…” (Isaiah 58:8) and anyone who transgresses one transgression in this world it clings to him and goes before him to the Day of Judgement as it says, “The paths of their way are held [by them]; they go up in waste and are lost.” (Job 6:18)

Musar

Joseph did not listen to Potiphar's wife's advances and was rewarded by becoming ruler over all the land. Committing transgressions creates accusers in the afterlife, as seen when Joseph refused to lie with her in this world and be with her in the World to Come. Joseph showed gratitude to the Egyptian clergy who saved him by repaying them when he became ruler.

Kav HaYashar 14:7

The converse is also true, Heaven forbid. If a person commits a single transgression one accuser is created. If he commits two transgressions two accusers are created. Then, after he dies, those transgressions take on the form of a woman and lead him to Gehinnom. Thus the Torah tells us that Yosef refused to listen to Potiphar’s wife “to lie with her, to be with her” (Bereishis 39:8-10). The Sages explain, “ ‘To lie with her’ — in this world; ‘to be with her’ — in the World to Come” (Sotah 3b).

Orchot Tzadikim 13:10

Now there is one who does not listen and is rewarded and this would be Joseph. For it is said "that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her" (Gen. 39:10). And what was his reward? "And Joseph was the ruler over all the land" (Gen. 42:6).

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Derekh Chayim, Vayigash 5

רק אדמת הכהנים לא קנה . Gratitude is a virtue which must be practiced even with pagans. The Egyptian clergy had saved Joseph when he was brought to trial before them accused of the attempted rape of Potiphar's wife. When these clergymen realized that the tear in the garment Joseph left behind was in the front, they realized that Joseph was innocent [based on ספר הישר Ed.] As a result, Joseph now repaid them in kind.

Quoting Commentary

Sforno explains that the phrase "each morning" in Exodus 16:21 is similar to other instances in the Torah where daily actions are described. Or HaChaim connects the term "the Midianite" in Numbers 25 to the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, suggesting that Zimri's death prevented him from being with her in the afterlife. Chizkuni highlights that Joseph's land was blessed as a reward for resisting temptation, contrasting with the cursed land of Adam after his sin.

Chizkuni, Deuteronomy 33:13:1

וליוסף אמר מבורכת ה' ארצו, “and of Joseph he said: “blessed by the Lord be his land;” When Adam, the first human being, had sinned by allowing himself to be seduced by his wife, the land on which he lived afterwards was cursed as a result, and his livelihood became one that required hard toil. Joseph, who had withstood the deduction by the wife of Potiphar, was rewarded in that the land his descendants dwelled on was especially blessed.

Or HaChaim on Numbers 25:14:6

The Torah also alludes to another point when writing את המדינית. When the Torah describes how the wife of Potiphar tried to seduce Joseph (Genesis 39,10), we read that Joseph refused לשכב אצלה, להיות עמה "to sleep beside her and to be with her." Our sages in Yuma 35 comment that the words לשכב אצלה refer to Joseph sharing her life in this world, whereas the words להיות עמה refer to Joseph's refusal to be her companion in the world to come. If we take this comment as our cue, we can understand the words הכה את המדינית as telling us that the Israelite's being smitten meant that he would not be with that woman in the hereafter. We must assume that Zimri died before becoming a penitent as Pinchas stabbed him while he was engaged in the act. This answers the question why the word: "he was struck" was repeated in the Torah's description of events. It also explains why the word איש ישראל had to precede the report of his being struck to teach us that the name, i.e. the soul had been struck before the body was killed. When the Torah got around to mentioning the name of the Midianite woman, the fact that she was struck is mentioned only once, as she did not have a soul rooted in holy domains that she could be deprived of. She was also not especially mentioned prior to what happened to her as she was considered as dead already while she was fully alive; essentially what happened to her was nothing new, except that her death became manifest. We have mentioned on repeated occasions that the names of the various cults which the pagans practice are the names of spiritually negative forces, קליפות.

Sforno on Exodus 16:21:1

בבקר בבקר, each morning; the syntax is similar to that in Genesis 39,10 where the words כדברה אל יוסף יום יום mean: “when she spoke to him (thus) each and every day.” We also have a similar line in Exodus 30,7 when the Torah speaks about the daily procedure of cleaning the candelabra, writing בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות, “every morning when he would clean out the lamps, etc.”

Talmud

Rabbi Elazar explains that by refusing to commit adultery with Potiphar's wife, Joseph avoided the consequences of being tied to the sin in this world and the World-to-Come. Despite facing threats and temptation, Joseph remained steadfast in his refusal, serving as a role model for different categories of people to prioritize Torah study over worldly distractions.

Avodah Zarah 5a:5

Rabbi Elazar says: The transgression is tied to him like a dog and does not leave him, as it is stated with regard to Joseph and Potiphar’s wife: “And he did not listen to her, to lie by her, or to be with her” (Genesis 39:10). This teaches that Joseph refused “to lie by her” in this world, which would have meant that he would have had “to be with her” in the World-to-Come.

Sotah 3b:14

Rabbi Elazar says: The transgression is chained to him and accompanies him like a dog, as it is stated concerning Joseph’s refusal to commit adultery with the wife of Potiphar: “That he listened not to her, to lie by her, or to be with her” (Genesis 39:10), which is understood to mean: If he would agree “to lie by her” in this world, the result would be that he would have “to be with her” forever, as the transgression would accompany him to the World-to-Come.

Yoma 35b:12

One day she said to him: Submit to me and have relations with me. He said to her: No. She said to him: I will incarcerate you in the prison. He said to her: I do not fear you, as it is stated: “God releases prisoners” (Psalms 146:7). She said to him: I will cause you to be bent over with suffering. He said: “God straightens those who are bent over” (Psalms 146:8). She said I will blind your eyes. He said to her “God opens the eyes of the blind” (Psalms 146:8). She gave him a thousand talents of silver to submit to her, “to lie with her and be with her” (Genesis 39:10), and he refused.

Yoma 35b:13

The Gemara elaborates: Had he submitted to her to lie with her in this world, it would have been decreed in Heaven that he would be with her in the World-to-Come. Therefore, he refused. Consequently, Hillel obligates the poor to study Torah, Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum obligates the wealthy, and Joseph obligates the wicked. For each category of people, there is a role model who overcame his preoccupations and temptations to study Torah.

Targum

Yoseif refused to listen to Potiphar's wife and lie with her, fearing judgment in the world to come.

Onkelos Genesis 39:10

Even though she spoke to Yoseif every day, he would not listen to [obey] her, to lie next to her, [nor] to be with her.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:10

And it was when she spake with Joseph this day and the next, and be hearkened not to her to lie with her, lest with her be should be condemned in the day of the great judgment of the world to come;

וַיְהִי֙ כְּהַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה וַיָּבֹ֥א הַבַּ֖יְתָה לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת מְלַאכְתּ֑וֹ וְאֵ֨ין אִ֜ישׁ מֵאַנְשֵׁ֥י הַבַּ֛יִת שָׁ֖ם בַּבָּֽיִת׃ 11 J One such day, he came into the house to do his work. None of the household being there inside,
Chasidut emphasizes the importance of vigilance in serving God, as illustrated by Joseph's resistance to temptation through seeing his father's image. The Commentary praises Joseph's righteousness for resisting Potiphar's wife's advances, with different interpretations suggesting he was either inspired by his father's image or found himself impotent. The Midrash compares Joseph's righteousness to that of Mordekhai and highlights his observance of the commandments, leading to eventual rewards from God. The Zohar interprets "to do his work" as studying Torah and performing mitzvot to resist the evil urge. In the Talmud, there is a discussion on whether Joseph's actions should be counted among the prohibited work on Shabbat, with explanations on the circumstances of his encounter with Potiphar's wife. The Targum simply states that Joseph found no one else in the house on the specific day he came to examine his accounts.

Chasidut

The Sages explain that Joseph was saved from sin by seeing the image of his father, illustrating how the Evil Inclination constantly tries to tempt man in various ways. This highlights the importance of being vigilant in one's service to God, as different circumstances may require different responses.

Peri HaAretz, Vayeshev 1

Our sages stated on the verse "And Joseph came home to do his work" - that is to fulfill his [sexual] needs [with her], but [instead] he saw the image of his father in the window. For at first blush the statement of the Sages of blessed memory is confusing that "Joseph obligates the wicked" - inasmuch as he did not sin. [But] he did not [in fact] prevent himself from the sin, rather on account of his seeing the image of his father [was he saved from sin] - perhaps if all the wicked were to see such a thing they'd prevent from sin [as well]! However the matter is understood in the statement of the Sages of blessed memory: "The clothing which she wore in the morning, [and which] she did not wear in the evening]" in order to beautify herself for Joseph to find favor in his eyes. And this is per the manner of the beauty of physicality: The way by which the Evil Inclinations constantly tempts man while he wrestles him - and when [the Evil Inclination] sees that he is unable [to cause him to stumble] this way, then he garbs himself in a different idea, and if his traps to not entrap him in this way he will garb himself in another manner, [on and on] all ways he can find [in order] to cause him to stumble - through happiness or sadness or fear. And through this is the idea of a man's service of his Creator all the days of his life: For not all times are equal - [there is] "a time to love and a time to hate". For this every

Commentary

Potiphar's wife attempted to seduce Joseph on a specific day, possibly a year later, while he was performing his regular chores. Different commentaries suggest that Joseph either refrained from sinning due to his father's image appearing to him, or because he found himself impotent. Joseph's righteousness is praised for resisting temptation on a day when no one else was in the house, despite Potiphar's wife's brazen advances.

Chizkuni, Genesis 39:11:1

ויהי כהיום, “it was on a day no different from any other day;” this short phrase has been inserted here as in praise of Joseph, the righteous person, and as condemnation of the cursed person. In a cultured society, marital intercourse is an activity reserved for the night, to be performed in darkness; the wife of Potiphar demanded from Joseph that he engage not only in infidelity to his master and to G-d, but that he do so in broad daylight. Seeing that Joseph could not have foreseen such a demand by his mistress, he can certainly not be faulted to have gone about his daily routine on that day just as on any other day. Regardless of this, she tried to disrobe him. According to Rabbi Yishmael, (Pessikta zutrata) that day was the day on which the Nile used to flood its banks to irrigate the fields; that day was a kind of joyous festival, everyone participating in the festivities. Mrs Potiphar and Joseph chose not to participate in those activities.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 39:11:1

AND IT CAME TO PASS ON A CERTAIN DAY. On the same day that she had first asked him to lay with her. (The Hebrew literally reads: And a day like this came to pass, i.e., a day like the one described above, that is, the day that she said, “lie with me.”) It was on this same day a week later, or a month later or a full year later. The latter appears correct to me.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 39:11:2

TO DO HIS WORK. To supervise the housework or to oversee his master’s wealth, for Joseph was in charge of everything. The Midrash pertaining to and there was none of the men (The Hebrew literally reads: and there was no man. According to Tanchuma, Va-yeshev, 9, Joseph wanted to have intercourse with Potiphar’s wife but found himself impotent (Weiser and Krinsky according to one interpretation). Or the reference may be to Soteh 36b, that he wanted to have intercourse with Potiphar’s wife but his father’s image appeared before him and as a result Joseph refrained from sinning. Thus and there was none of the men of the house there within but his father’s image was there.) is an individual opinion. (Hence it is not binding.)

Radak on Genesis 39:11:1

ויהי כהיום הזה, a day, quite similar to this day, when she insistently urged him to sleep with her, occurred. Now a different day occurred when the house was empty of all its other occupants

Radak on Genesis 39:11:2

לעשות מלאכתו, to perform specific chores which were part of his regular routine assigned to him, as explained by Onkelos.

Rashi on Genesis 39:11:1

ויהי כהיום הזה AND IT CAME TO PASS ON A CERTAIN DAY — This means as much as “and it came to pass when a certain distinguished day arrived” — a day of merriment, a day of their sacred feast when they all went to the temple of their idols, — she said), “I shall find no day fitting to associate with Joseph as this day”. She therefore told her attendants I am sick and cannot go to the temple (Sotah 36b).

Rashi on Genesis 39:11:2

לעשות מלאכתו TO DO HIS WORK — Rab and Samuel differ as to what this means. One holds that it means, his actual house-work; the other that it means to associate with her, but a vision of his father’s face appeared to him and he resisted temptation and did not sin as is stated in Treatise Sotah 36b.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:11:1

Das כהיום הזה ist dunkel. היום הזה und כיום הזה bezieht sich gewöhnlich auf die Gegenwart des Erzählers oder Lesers und beides ist hier nicht möglich. Bezieht man es auf die Zeit der Geschichte, so heißt es vielleicht: an einem solchen Tage, und bezieht sich auf das vorhergehende יום יום. Sie hatte bereits an diesem Tage ihre Verführungskunst an Josef versucht und dennoch wagte sich Josef "an einem solchen Tage" in ihre Nähe, obgleich kein Mann sonst im Hause war. Es läge dann ein Vorwurf für Josef darin, den er schwer genug gebüßt hat. Es soll niemand zu sehr auf seine sittliche Standhaftigkeit bauen.

Sforno on Genesis 39:11:1

כהיום הזה, when she raised her eyes to him in lust.

Sforno on Genesis 39:11:2

ויבא הביתה, he entered a room, unaware that she was in that room at the time.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:11:1

Rav and Shmuel: One says, literally, his work... Tosafos explain in Sotah 36b [that the second explanation is] because it says ויבא הביתה, which is the same word as ביאה (relations). The verse could have [omitted this phrase and] said: “It was on such a day, and no man of the household was there...”

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:11:2

But, his father’s image appeared to him... [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “No man of the household was there in the house,” implying another man was there. (Tosafos ibid, citing R. Moshe Hadarshan) Perforce it was Yaakov, as Rashi comments on 49:24.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:11

It was on a certain day, a festive occasion, 31 that he, Joseph, went into the house to perform his labor, and none of the people of the household were there in the house. Perhaps everyone went to partake in whatever celebrations were taking place on that day. 32 Joseph, as a faithful servant, remained in the house. Potifar’s wife also remained, as she had plans of her own:

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:11:1

ויהי כהיום, “A certain day arrived, etc.” It was as clear as day(light) that Joseph had only arrived to perform his regular work.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:11:2

ואין איש מאנשי הבית בבית, ”and no one of the normally present people in the house was in the house on that occasion.” The unusual phrasing מאנשי הבית, meaning “of the men normally assigned to the house,” prompted the sages to say that another person was present, referring to the image of Yaakov, Joseph’s father, whose image reminded him not to fall victim to the lure of this woman.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 106-107

“One such day, he came into the house to do his work” [39:11]. Hizkuni writes. The verse tells us about the piety of Joseph. He did not have the desire to sleep with her, since it was daytime. The custom is that one does not have sexual relations with one’s wife, and especially not with someone else’s wife. However, his master’s wife was brazen and wanted to sleep with him, even during the day. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 39:11.) Rashi writes. It was a big holiday and his master’s wife said that she was sick and could not go to the temple. She thought this up. She said to Joseph. Now is a time that you can sleep with me. There is nobody in the house. Some sages say that Joseph did want to sleep with her. His inclination overcame him, but the image of Jacob appeared to Joseph and Joseph separated himself from her. (Rashi, Genesis, 39:11.)

Midrash

The Midrash discusses the righteousness of Joseph in resisting Potifar's wife's advances, comparing his actions to those of Mordekhai, and the subsequent rewards he received from God for his actions. Joseph's wisdom and observance of the commandments are highlighted, and his eventual reward is shown through the dedication of the altar by his sons on the seventh and eighth days.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:6

“On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:54). “On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” – that is what is written: “I keep the king’s directive, [and in regard to the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). If the king will say to you that his fear shall be upon you and you shall observe his decrees, observe his decrees. Likewise, it says: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) – that his fear shall be upon you. And it says: “Any man who will disobey your directive, [and does not heed your words in everything that you command him, will be put to death]” (Joshua 1:18). “I” that is written here is nothing other than fear of the monarchy, just as Pharaoh said to Joseph. That is what is written: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, and without you no man shall lift his hand…” (Genesis 41:44). What is “I am Pharaoh”? This is what Pharaoh said to Joseph: Even though I said to you: “You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:40) – that I made you king over everyone – be careful to treat me with respect and make me king over you. That is why he said: “I am Pharaoh” – in other words, that the fear of my kingship shall be upon you. Similarly, “God spoke to Moses, and He said to him: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:2) – why was it necessary to say here: “I am the Lord”? Rather, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: Even though I set you as a god for Pharaoh, as the verse states: “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1) be careful that my Godliness will be upon you, as I made you a god only over Pharaoh alone. That is, “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is “I” who requires you to “keep the king’s directive” – that his fear shall be upon you. Make certain that you do not flout his commands. Is it, perhaps, even if he tells you to violate the words of the Omnipresent? The verse states: “And in regard to the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – the verse comes to inform you that “and in regard to the word of an oath of God” will be paramount over the command of flesh and blood, as you should nullify the will of flesh and blood before the will of God and fulfill all the commandments that are in the Torah, as you entered into an oath in their regard to fulfill them, just as it says: “To pass you into the covenant of the Lord your God and into His oath…” (Deuteronomy 29:11), and it says: “[Cursed be] who will not uphold the matters of this Torah to perform them; and the entire people shall say: Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:26). Similarly, “each of you shall fear his mother and his father…” (Leviticus 19:3) – is it, perhaps, even if his father said to him: Slaughter for me and cook for me on Shabbat, that he should listen to him? The verse states: “And you shall observe My Shabbatot” (Leviticus 19:3) – all of you are obligated in My honor. Here too, “and the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as above the word of the king observe the word of an oath to God. “Do not be frightened; leave his presence [mipanav]; [do not remain in a bad situation, as he will do what he wills]” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). If [a king of] flesh and blood will become angry at you in order to cause you to violate the statutes of the Torah, do not be frightened by his anger and follow his counsel, just as it says: “Who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalms 1:1). Panav is nothing other than his anger, just as it says: “And the expression on his face [anpohi] was distorted” (Daniel 3:19). That is, “leave his presence”; “do not remain in a bad situation [bedavar]” – do not remain in his path to follow it, just as it says: “And did not remain in the path of sinners” (Psalms 1:1). What is “bedavar” (Ecclesiastes 8:3)? It is that you should not fear that evil matter, that he will say to you that he will burn you, kill you, or subject you to harsh suffering if you do not fulfill his decree, and he will threaten you that there is no God in the world who will be able to rescue you from his hand. That is what is written thereafter: “As he will do what he wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). Just as Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya: “At that time you will be cast into the burning fiery furnace; who is the god who will save you from my hands?” (Daniel 3:15). “Since authority is by the king’s word, [who will say to him: What are you doing?]” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). If you devote yourself to the mitzvot to fulfill the decree of the Holy One blessed be He and to nullify the decrees of flesh and blood, what is your reward? When the Holy One blessed be He issues a decree to bring calamity to the world – as he is the King of the world and Ruler of everything, to do everything that He desires and no one can impede him: “He is of one mind, and who can respond to Him? His soul desires, and He does” (Job 23:13) – you will stand and ask for mercy regarding the decree to abrogate it. The Holy One blessed be He will show forbearance to you, and He will nullify it because you nullified the decree of flesh and blood in order to fulfill His decree. That is why it is stated: “Since authority is by the king’s word” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, when He says to bring something to the world to inform of his authority in the world, just as it says: “God caused that they would experience fear before Him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). Know, who can impede His decree and say to Him: ‘Why are You doing so’? It is one who observes mitzvot. That is why it is stated: “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” Who can say to Him: ‘Why are You doing this to Your creations? Descend to them with the attribute of mercy’? That is one who observes His mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva [will know no evil matter]” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5)? It is measure for measure; he did not remain in a bad situation, therefore, “he will know no evil matter.” “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – as there is a wise man who considers the consequences and reckons the loss from a mitzva against its reward and the loss from a transgression against its reward. He considers in his heart: If I transgress His mitzvot, and I have an opportunity to do what I want and there is no one who can impede me, tomorrow, the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him (Referring to himself.) because he violated His Torah. Likewise it says: “The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool [walks in darkness]” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). And it says: “The heart of the wise inclines to his right, [and the heart of a fool inclines to his left]” (Ecclesiastes 10:2). “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” – one whose heart is wise knows that if he transgresses the mitzvot, that the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him, and he refrains from the transgression. That is what is written thereafter: “For there is a time and a judgment for every matter…” (Ecclesiastes 8:6) – regarding every situation where a person performs his will and nullifies the will of the Omnipresent, it should be known to him that he is destined to be judged. Even though retribution is not exacted from him immediately, let him not think that the Holy One blessed be He would overlook his iniquity for him, but rather, He is slow to anger and collects what is due to Him. When does He exact retribution from him? It is when the hin is filled. Likewise it says: “With the filling of his quota, he will be troubled; [the hand of all travail will come upon him]” (Job 20:22). That is why it is stated: “As the evil of man overwhelms him” (Ecclesiastes 8:6); just as He did with the generation of the Flood, as He gave them an extension but ultimately exacted retribution from them, just as it says: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…” (Genesis 6:5). What is written thereafter? “The Lord said: I will obliterate man…” (Genesis 6:7). “For he does not know what will be, [for whenever it will be, who will have told him]?” (Ecclesiastes 8:7). The verse comes to teach you that anyone who does not repent from a transgression that he committed and does not fear the Day of Judgment, when it will arrive they will not show him forbearance. Were he to come and say that he be given an extension so he could repent, they will not listen to him. That is, for whenever punishment “will be, who will have told him” so he would repent and be accepted. It is to say to you that prior to the sentence they listen to him; after the sentence they do not listen to him. That is why it is stated: “For whenever it will be, who will have told him?” “There is no man who rules the spirit [to retain the spirit, and there is no rule on the day of death, and there is no sending a proxy in war, and wickedness will not rescue its owner]” (Ecclesiastes 8:8) – because we found that the Holy One blessed be He decreed four court-imposed death penalties for performers of transgressions. That is why four matters are written here, corresponding to them, where the living lack the ability to be rescued from them after their sentence. These are: “There is no man who rules the spirit [ruaḥ] to retain the spirit” – this is death by strangulation and the like, as a person dies from it only due to breath [ruaḥ], as he has no place from which to breathe. That is, “there is no man who rules the spirit” to exhale it when the day comes that the breath will be constricted in his body. “And there is no rule on the day of death” – this is death by stoning and the like, just as it says: “You shall stone him with stones, and he will die” (Deuteronomy 13:11). “There is no sending a proxy in war” – this is death by decapitation by sword and the like, just as it says: “Go out and wage war with Amalek” (Exodus 17:9), and it is written: “Joshua weakened [Amalek and its people by sword]” (Exodus 17:13). “And wickedness will not rescue its owner” – this is death by burning and the like, just as it says: “All the criminals and all the doers of wickedness will be straw; the day that is coming will burn them…” (Malachi 3:19). These are the four court-imposed death penalties mentioned in this verse. Even though the Sanhedrin ceased and the four court-imposed death penalties were abrogated, the sentence of the four court-imposed death penalties were not abrogated, as the Holy One blessed be He judges the living to die of them with harsh punishments corresponding to them. One who incurs liability to be strangled either drowns in the river, dies of diphtheria, or is delivered into the hands of idol worshippers who strangle him. One who incurs liability to be stoned either falls off the roof, or a beast tramples him, or idol worshippers stone him. One who incurs liability to be beheaded, robbers come upon him and behead him. One who incurs liability to be burned either falls into the fire or a snake bites him. You learned that a person cannot escape the judgment of the Holy One blessed be He that He will not punish him measure for measure. That is why it is stated: “There is no man who rules the spirit….” (Ecclesiastes 8:8). Another matter: “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is speaking of Joseph the righteous, who observed the “I” that Pharaoh had said to him, just as it says: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, [and without you no man shall lift his hand]” (Genesis 41:44), as he never flouted his command. “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as even though he entered into that prominence, he did not throw the yoke of Heaven from upon him and he feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “[I fear] God” (Genesis 42:18). That is why “God” is stated. (According to the Etz Yosef, the midrash is explaining that this is an allusion to the verse, “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2).) He was very cautious regarding the oath, as he did not take an oath “as the Lord lives,” but rather, “as Pharaoh lives, that you will not depart from here” (Genesis 42:15). That is, “an oath.” What is “the word of [divrat]”? It is because he separated himself from lasciviousness, just as it says: “He shall not see a lascivious matter [davar] in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it says: The young woman, because [al devar] she did not cry out in the city…” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Likewise it says: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). What is written there? “He refused, and he said to his master’s wife: Behold, my master…” (Genesis 39:8). That is why it is stated: “The word of [divrat],” just as it says: “It was, as she spoke [kedabra] to Joseph day after day, and he did not heed her…” (Genesis 39:10). “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence” – when he entered the house to perform his labor, and the house was vacant and there was no person who could see him, just as it is written: “It was, on a certain day he went into the house to perform his labor, and there was no one [of the people of the household there in the house]” (Genesis 39:11), she came and seized his garment so that he would lie with her. Nevertheless, he was not frightened by her actions, and he went outside, just as it says: “He left his garment in her hand, fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). That is why it is stated: “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence.” He was not frightened by the house being vacant, but rather he fled and left, even though she said to him that if he would not lie with her, she would say to her husband that he sought to rape her, and her husband will kill him, and there would be no one to impede him, because he is his slave. Nevertheless, he did not allow her to fulfill her desire because of that evil matter that she threatened to do to him. That is why it says: “Do not remain in a bad situation, as God will do what He wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). From where do you derive that she threatened him in that manner? It is from the end of the matter. When she saw that her actions were to no avail, look at what she did: “She called to the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying.… It was, when he heard.… She placed his garment [beside her, until his master’s arrival home]. She spoke to him…[saying: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to me to mock me]. It was, as I raised my voice [and cried out, that he left his garment with me, and fled outside]” (Genesis 39:14–18). “Since authority is by the king’s word…” (Ecclesiastes 8:4) – what reward did the Holy One blessed be He give him for this? He placed him in a position of authority in the land of Egypt. That is what is written: “Since [authority is] by the king’s word…,” just as it says: “Pharaoh spoke to Joseph: In my dream, behold, I am…” (Genesis 41:17). “Authority” – just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4), just as it says: “Go to Joseph; what he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). Why to that extent? It is because he observed the mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter”? It is this evil matter that the butler said, just as it says: “There with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief executioner…” (Genesis 41:12). He said three matters here in Joseph’s regard: “Lad” – that he was a fool, just as it says: “Folly is bound in the heart of a lad” (Proverbs 22:15); “Hebrew” – an enemy; “slave” – that he is not worthy of kingship. Nevertheless, Joseph knew no evil matter. In other words, the matter did not affect him, as he ruled. “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this was Joseph, who was called wise, just as it says: “There is no one as wise and understanding as you” (Genesis 41:39). He knew that he would be held accountable had he touched Potifar’s wife; that is why he withdrew from her. That is what is written: “He did not heed her [to lie with her, to be with her]” (Genesis 39:10); “to lie with her” in this world; “to be with her” in the World to Come. Another matter: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this is the Holy One blessed be He, in whose regard it is written: “Wise of heart and mighty of power” (Job 9:4). He brought about a time to reward Joseph on the basis of measure for measure. How so? He ruled over his inclination and did not touch her; therefore, he became a ruler, just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). He did not heed her, just as it says: “He did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10); therefore, the Holy One blessed be He crowned him as king over Egypt in its entirety, and everyone heeded his words, just as it says: “What he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). His mouth [piv] did not kiss [nashak] in transgression; therefore, “at your directive [pikha] my entire people will be sustained [yishak]” (Genesis 41:40). He said: “There is no one greater in this house than I…” (Genesis 39:9) in order to rebuff her; therefore, “you will be in charge of my house” (Genesis 41:40). He did not seize her, but she seized him with her hands, just as it says: “She seized him by his garment…” (Genesis 39:12); therefore, “Pharaoh removed his signet ring from upon his hand, and he placed it upon Joseph’s hand” (Genesis 41:42). He left his garment in her hand; therefore, “he dressed him in linen garments” (Genesis 41:42). He did not bend his neck toward her; therefore, “he placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42). He did not mount [rakhav] her; therefore, “he had him ride [vayarkev] in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43). She called the people of her household in this regard, just as it says: “She called the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14); therefore, “they called before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43). He was relegated to the prison for this, just as it says: “He relegated him [vayitenehu] to the prison” (Genesis 39:20); therefore, “he appointed him [venaton oto] over the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:43). He did not direct his glance toward her, and not toward the Egyptian women when he ruled, just as it says: “Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful bough alongside a spring [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22), as he averted his eye [she’ilem eino] from Potifar’s wife and from the Egyptian women. “Branches [banot] (Banot can also mean women.) ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22). Therefore, alei shur. Rabbi Reuven said: What is alei shur? The Holy One blessed be He said: It is incumbent upon me to pay a reward for that eye. How so? The Rabbis taught that in the Temple they would eat offerings of lesser sanctity within the wall, within the wall of Jerusalem. But in Shilo, which was in the portion of Joseph, they would eat it within eyeshot. (Within eyeshot of the Tabernacle (Rambam, Mishna Zevaḥim 14:6).) That is alei shur, just as it says: “The eye of one who sees me will not behold me [teshureni]” (Job 7:8). Rabbi Azarya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Joseph: You observed the mitzva of: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), which is the seventh of the Commandments, and you did not commit adultery with Potifar’s wife. And you observed the mitzva of: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), which is the eighth of the Commandments, as you did not steal Potifar’s property and you did not “steal” his wife, just as it says: “The eye of the adulterer observes the night, saying: No eye will behold [teshureni] me…” (Job 24:15). The time will come when I will repay you for them. Tomorrow, when the princes come to bring [offerings] for the dedication of the altar, the princes of your two sons, one will present his offering on the seventh day, and the second on the eighth day. And no other tribe will interpose between your two sons, just as you did not interpose (Namely, you did not differentiate between them. You observed both of them. As a reward, Benjamin did not interpose between Ephraim and Manasseh.) between “you shall not commit adultery” and “you shall not steal,” as it is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim.… On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh…” (Numbers 7:48–54) That is why it is written: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:7

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:55). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]…” – do not read it as kaarat, but rather as akart, corresponding to Jacob, who extracted [akar] the birthright (The birthright refers to the extra portion of the inheritance that the eldest son received.) from Reuben and gave it to Joseph: “I have given you one portion more than your brothers…” (Genesis 48:22). “Silver” – just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20), just as he (Silver alludes to the statement made by Jacob, who was righteous.) said: “Ephraim and Manasseh will be for me like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – when Jacob descended to Egypt on account of Joseph, he was one hundred and thirty years old, as it is stated: “Jacob said to Pharaoh: The days of the years of my residence are one hundred and thirty years” (Genesis 47:9). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – corresponding to Joseph, who was cast [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “Silver” – after: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20) – what he said to his father (Silver alludes to the statement made by Joseph, who was righteous.) : “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn; place your right hand upon his head” (Genesis 48:18). “Seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” – as it was through him that seventy people descended to Egypt. “Both of them full…” – Jacob and Joseph, both of them were full-fledged righteous men and both produced tribes. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:56). “One gold ladle of ten shekels…” – corresponding to the ten districts of Manasseh, as it is stated: “Ten districts fell to Manasseh” (Joshua 17:5). “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:57). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:58). “One young bull, one ram [one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering]; one goat…” – these (This is a reference to the three burnt offerings.) are three corresponding to the three generations that Joseph saw from Manasseh that received a portion in the land, (This is a reference to the fact that there were three major families named after the three generations following Manasseh, in addition to the family which was named after Manasseh himself. Therefore, the phrase “the sons of Makhir” refers to Makhir himself, Gilad, and Iezer.) as it is stated: “The children of Makhir son of Manasseh, too, were born at Joseph’s knees” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise, it says: “The sons of Manasseh: For Makhir, the family of the Makhirites, and Makhir begot Gilad.… These are the sons of Gilad: Of Iezer…” (Numbers 26:29–30). Makhir, Gilad, and Iezer – these are three generations that were patrilineal houses that were attributed to Joseph, as Manasseh is attributed to Jacob, just as it says: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before my coming to you to Egypt, they are mine” (Genesis 48:5). The fourth, this was Ya’ir son of Manasseh, who received a portion in the land, just as it says: “Ya’ir son of Manasseh went and captured their villages [ḥavot], and he called them Ḥavot Ya’ir” (Numbers 32:41). The three species of burnt offerings corresponded to the sons of Makhir son of Manasseh. (This is referring to what was mentioned above, and is mentioned again since the midrash now also explains what the sin offering signifies.) The goat sin offering corresponded to Ya’ir, who did not bequeath his portion to his sons, because he did not have sons. That is why he called them (The villages.) by his name, because he did not have any remnant, and the sons of his brother Makhir inherited his portion. “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:59). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the tribe of Manasseh, which split into two and received two portions in the land, half of it on the east bank of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan. “Five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year” – these are three species, corresponding to three things that Joseph did on behalf of Manasseh, whom he sought to elevate over his brother Ephraim. The first: “Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim in his right hand to the left of Israel, and Manasseh in his left hand to the right of Israel” (Genesis 48:13). The second: “He supported his father’s hand, to remove it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh” (Genesis 48:17). The third: “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn…” (Genesis 48:18). Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five women from the tribe of Manasseh who took a portion in the land. These were Tzelofḥad’s five daughters, just as it says: “Tzelofḥad’s daughters speak justly; give them a holding for inheritance…” (Numbers 27:7). They were five, as it is stated: “These are the names of his daughters: Maḥla, Noa, Ḥogla, Milka, and Tirtza” (Numbers 27:1). Likewise, Jacob mentioned them in the blessing of Joseph, as it is stated: “Branches [banot] ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22); these are Tzelofḥad’s daughters [banot], who received a portion in the land. Alternatively, why were they five each? It corresponds to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “May they proliferate like fish in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16), and fish were created on the fifth day. “This was the offering of Gamliel…” – since the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented the offering in this order, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Gamliel…”

Bereshit Rabbah 87:6

“It was as she spoke to Joseph, day after day, and he did not heed her to lie with her, to be with her” (Genesis 39:10). “It was as she spoke to Joseph, day after day” – Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Binyamin: Rachel’s children, (The reference is to Joseph and to Mordekhai, who was a descendant of Benjamin. ) their ordeal was equal and their greatness was equal. Their ordeal was equal – “it was as she spoke to Joseph, day after day”; “it was, as they spoke to him, day after day” (Esther 3:4). Their greatness was equal – “Pharaoh removed his ring” (Genesis 41:42); “the king removed his ring” (Esther 8:2). “And he placed it upon Joseph's hand” (Genesis 41:42); “and he gave it to Mordekhai” (Esther 8:2). “He dressed him in garments of linen” (Genesis 41:42); “and place the garments and the horse…Haman took [the garments and horse and dressed Mordekhai]” (Esther 6:9–11). “He placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42); “Esther placed Mordekhai over the house of Haman” (Esther 8:2). “He had him ride in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43); “he had him ride the horse through the city square” (see Esther 6:11). “They cried before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43); “he cried before him: So [shall be done to the man whose honor the king desires]” (Esther 6:11). “And he did not heed her to lie with her” – in this world, “to be with her” – to be with her in Gehenna in the future. Another matter, “he did not heed her” – even for lying [with her] without intercourse. A noblewoman asked Rabbi Yosei, she said to him: ‘Is it possible that Joseph, seventeen years old, at the height of his passion, could conduct himself in such a manner?’ (Is it really possible that he withstood the temptation? ) He took out for her the book of Genesis and began reading before her the incident of Reuben and Bilha, (Genesis 35:22.) the incident of Judah and Tamar. (Genesis 38:18.) He said to her: ‘If these two, who were adults and in their father’s domain, the verse did not cover up their actions, this one who is young and on his own, all the more so.’

Bereshit Rabbah 87:7

“It was on a certain day, he came into the house to perform his labor, and there was no one of the people of the household there in the house” (Genesis 39:11). “It was on a certain day, he came… and there was no one of the people of the household” – is it possible that this man’s house remained without anyone [inside]? Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya, Rabbi Yehuda says: It was the day of the celebration of the Nile. (The midrash employs the term nibul, literally, disgrace, to refer to this event, because it was an idolatrous practice (Matnot Kehuna; see also Etz Yosef). ) Everyone went to see, but he did not go. Rabbi Neḥemya said: It was the day of the theater. Everyone went to see it, but he did not go. Instead, “he came into the house to perform his labor” – to calculate his master’s accounts. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: “to perform his labor” indeed. (He went to submit to the demands of Potiphar’s wife.) However, “there was no one [ish]” – he examined himself and did not find himself to be a man [ish]. (He was afflicted with impotence. Alternatively, he realized that if he were to commit this act he would be comparable to an animal and not a man (Yefeh To’ar). ) Another matter, the bow was drawn, and was restored. (This is a euphemism meaning that he experienced sexual arousal and then returned to a state of relaxation. ) That is what is written: “His bow sat firm [vateshev be’eitan kashto]” (This is expounded as vatashav – it returned to its original state [le’eitano].) (Genesis 49:24) – his firmness [kashyuto]. (His male organ, metaphorically referred to as a bow, was firm, but returned [vatashav] to its former state [eitano] as he conquered his desire. ) Rabbi Yitzḥak said: His semen dispersed and emerged through his fingernails, as it is stated: “And the arms of his hand were gilded [vayafozu]” (This is expounded as though it was vayafutzu – they were dispersed. The midrash asserts that Joseph dug his fingernails into the ground (Sota 36b) so that the discomfort would help his desire dissipate (Etz Yosef).) (Genesis 49:24). Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Matna: He saw the image of his father and his blood cooled, as it is written: “From the shepherd of the stone of Israel” (Genesis 49:24). Who did so? (Who enabled Joseph to conquer his desire? ) “From the God of your father, and He will help you…blessings of breasts and of womb” (Genesis 49:25) – the blessings of your father and your mother.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:7

“And the chief butler did not remember Joseph, but forgot him” (Genesis 40:23). “And the chief butler did not remember…” – each day, he would stipulate conditions, and an angel would come and reverse them. (He would stipulate to himself that when something would happen, that would be a reminder to him to mention Joseph to Pharoah. The angel would ensure that it would not happen.) He would tie knots (He would tie knots in his garments, as a reminder to tell Pharaoh.) and an angel would come and untie them. The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You forget him, but I will not forget him.’ (God did not want Joseph’s salvation to come about through the butler. ) That is what is written: “And the chief butler did not remember.” Another matter, the chief butler forgot you, but I will not forget you. Who was expecting Abraham and Sarah, who were old, to have a son born to them? Who was expecting Jacob, who crossed the Jordan with [but] his staff, to expand and become wealthy? Who was expecting Joseph, who experienced all these troubles, to become king? Who was expecting Moses, who was cast into the Nile, to become what he became? Who was expecting Ruth, who was a proselyte, to return to the kingdom of Israel? (She returned with Naomi to the Land of Israel and became the mother of kings of Israel. ) Who was expecting David to become king until the end of the generations? Who was expecting Yehoyakhin to leave prison? Who was expecting Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya to emerge from the fire? Who was expecting, in the days of Haman, that the Holy One blessed be He would save Israel? Who expects the exiles to achieve renown and glory? Who expects the Holy One blessed be He to raise the fallen booth of David, as it is stated: “On that day, I will raise the fallen booth of David” (Amos 9:11). [Who expects] that the whole world will become one group, as it is stated: “For then I will convert all the peoples to a pure language, for all of them to call in the name of the Lord, to serve Him with a common effort” (Zephaniah 3:9).

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Sotah 7:19

(Fol. 36) GEMARA: How is the word (Josh. 8, 33) V'hachetzyo (and the other half of them) to be explained? Said R. Cahana: "This means that just as they were divided here at Mts. Gerizim and Ebal so were they also divided in the same manner upon the stones of the Ephod. An objection was raised from the following Baraitha: Two precious stones were fixed upon the shoulders of the High-priest, one stone on one shoulder and the other stone on the other shoulder. The names of the twelve tribes were inscribed, thereon, six on one stones and six on the other stone, as it is said (Ex. 28, 10) Six of the names on one stone and the remaining six names on the other stone, according to their birth. This means that the second stone was according to their birth, but the first stone was not according to their birth, because Juda preceded the others. Fifty letters were there altogether, of them twenty-five were on one stone and twenty-five on the other. R. Chanina b. Gamliel says (Ib. b) "They were placed upon the Ephod not in accordance with their division mentioned (Num. 1, 5), but they were placed in an Ephod in accordance with their division mentioned in (Ex. 1, 1-5). How so? The children of Leah were placed in accordance with their age. Then came the children of Rachel, one on one stone, and the other on the other stone. The children of the hand-maids were placed in the middle. As to the question how can the passage, According In their order of birth, be upheld? We must explain it that it was inscribed with the names as they were called by their father and not with the names they were called by Moses — Reuben but not Reubeni, Shimon but not Shimoni, Dan but not Dani, Gad but not 'Gadi.' Hence this will refute the above statement of R. Cahana, [because none of the above opinions is in accordance with the arrangements of the Ephod]. The refutation is indeed sustained. If so, then what is the meaning of V'hachezyo? We are taught in a Baraitha that the half that was placed opposite Mt. Gerizim was more than the half placed opposite Mt. Ebal, for, the Levites were below the hill. On the contrary, since the Levites were below the hill, hence the number of tribes facing Mt. Gerizim was less? We must therefore say; Although the tribe of Levi were below the hill, nevertheless the sons of Joseph were with thim, and completed the amount, as it is said (Josh. 17, 14) And the children of Joseph spoke unto Joshua, saying 'Why hast thou given me, but one lot ... ... ... and Joshua said unto them, if thou art a numerous people, then get up to the wood country, etc. He said to them, "Go and hide yourselves in the forest so that no covetous eye may afflict you." Whereupon they answered him, "We are the descendants of Joseph whom a covetous eye cannot afflict, as it is written (Gen. 29, 22) Joseph is a fruitful bough by a spring, and R. Abahu explains thus: "Do not read Aleh Ayin (by a spring), but read it Ole Ayin (above the covetous eye.'" R. Jose b. Chanina said: "From this it may be inferred that Joseph's children are not subject to the affliction of a covetous eye, (Ib., 48, 16) And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. This [the word grow used by Jacob which has the derivation of Dog (fish) is to mean that just as the fishes in the sea because of their being covered by water, no eye can afflict them, so also are the children of Joseph not subject to the affliction of a covetous eye." But how do you say above that there were fifty letters in the inscription of the Ephod. Behold there were only fifty letters less one? Said R. Isaac: "The fiftieth letter was used as an extra letter to the name of Joseph, as it is said (Ps. 81, 6) He appointed it in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out over the land of Egypt." R. Nachman b. Isaac raised an objection: "The passage says that it was in accordance with the names of birth, and this is not so." We must therefore say that the extra letter was inserted in the name of Benjamin, which is spelled in the entire Torah with only one Yud, but here in the Ephod, Benjamin, is spelled with two Yuds, as it is written (Ex. 25, 18) But his father called him Benjamin [with two Yuds]. R. Chama b. Bizna said, in the name of R. Simon the pious: "Joseph, who sanctified Heaven's name in secret was rewarded with only one additional letter of the name of the Holy One, praised be He, but Juda, who sanctified Heaven's name publicly was rewarded so that his entire name was equal to that of the Holy One, praised be He." What happened with Joseph? as written (Gen. 39, 11). And it came to pass on a certain day ... ... ... We are taught in a Baraitha, Joseph was destined to produce twelve tribes, just as they were by his father Jacob, as it is said (Gen. 37, 2) These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph, however, they were produced through his brother, Benjamin. They were nevertheless called after the name of Joseph, as it is said (Ib. 46, 21) And the sons of Benjamin, Bela, Mecher, Ashbel, Gera, Na'aman, Achi, V'rosh, Muppim, Chuppim and Ard; i.e., Bela because Joseph was swallowed (lost) among the other nations; Mechcr, because he was the first born of his mother; Ashbel, because he was captured with the consent of God; Gera, because he lived in inns (having no settled home); Na'aman because he was very sweet Achi V'rosh, because he was my brother and leader; and Chuppim, because he did not see my wedding canopy nor did I see his; and Ard, according to some because he was driven among idolatrous nations, and according to others because his face was like a rose.

Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Ben Yochai 35:2

Six days shall work be done - This is consistent with Rabbi Ishmael's statement. One verse says, "Six days shall work be done", and another says (Ex. 20:9), "Six days you shall labor and do all your work". How can both these verses be upheld? When Israel does God's will, their work is done by others, as it says (Isa. 61:5), "Strangers shall stand and pasture your flocks". But when Israel doesn't do God's will, not only do they do their own work, but they also do the work of others, as it says (Deut. 28:48), "You shall serve your enemies whom the Lord will send against you". But the seventh day shall be holy to you - Why is this said? So that the priests won't say, "Since we are permitted [to do work] in the Temple, we are also permitted outside [in the rest of the country].” The Scripture says, "But the seventh day shall be holy to you" - it is holy for you, but secular for the Temple. A sabbath of complete rest for the LORD - It is entrusted to God, not to the court. Anyone who does any work on it shall be put to death - Not on this [Sabbath] and another [such as Yom Kippur]. Suppose someone wrote two letters, one on the Sabbath and one on Yom Kippur, or wove two threads, one on the Sabbath and one on Yom Kippur. Would he be liable for each individually? The Scripture says, "Anyone who does any work on it shall be put to death", meaning not on this [Sabbath] and another. Just as [the laws of] Sabbath and Yom Kippur are before him and he did work during twilight, could he be liable? The Scripture says, "Anyone who does any work on it" [meaning] until the day is established. I only know about the primary forms of prohibited work and their derivatives. How do I know to also prohibit rabbinic decrees? The Scripture says (Ex. 20:10), "any work". Could one be liable for a sin offering for violating a rabbinic decree? The Scripture says "work", referring to the specific work for which one is liable, and not for violating a rabbinic decree. How do I know [that the prohibition includes] buying and selling, lending, and deposits, which are called "work"? The Scripture says (Ex. 22:7), "If he did not lay hands on his neighbor's property". How about legal cases, claims, appeals, and all matters of the court, which are termed "work"? The Scripture says (1 Chronicles 26:29), "Beniniah and his sons were in charge of the external affairs over Israel, for officers and judges". How about betrothals and divorces, which are called "work"? The Scripture says (Ezra 10:13), "But there are many people, and it is the rainy season; we cannot stand outside, and the work cannot be done in a day or two". What about calculations, which are termed "work"? It is written (Genesis 39:11), "He entered the house to do his work".

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vaera 17:1

(Exod. 9:13:) GO EARLY IN THE MORNING. This text is related (to Prov. 22:29): DO YOU SEE SOMEONE DILIGENT AT HIS WORK?… (Exod. R. 11:1; PR 6:2.) Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah disagree. R. Judah says: It is speaking about Joseph. When he was sold into Egypt, he was diligent in his work (according to Gen. 39:11): AND HE CAME INTO THE HOUSE (of Potiphar) TO DO HIS WORK. (Prov. 22:29, cont.:) HE SHALL STAND BEFORE KINGS. This is Joseph. What is written about him (in Gen. 41:46)? Now Joseph was thirty years old [when he stood before Pharaoh, the king of Egypt]. (Prov. 22:29, cont.:) HE SHALL NOT STAND BEFORE THE OBSCURE. This refers to Potiphar's wife. (Cf. Cant. R. 1:1:1, according to which the obscure (literally: darkened) one is Potiphar, whose eyes the Holy One darkened by making him a eunuch. See Gen. 37:36, part of which can be translated, POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH.)

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 9:1

And it came to pass on a certain day, when he went into the house to do his work (Gen. 39:11). Our sages disagreed over the meaning of this verse. Some held that he went into the house to gratify his sexual desires, but that when he attempted to have intercourse with her, he found that he could not do so, as is said: And there was not a man (ibid.). Others assert that he went into the house to perform his household duties.

Pesikta Rabbati 6:1

... Another explanation. “And all the work that king Solomon had wrought in the house of the Lord was finished.” (Melachim I 7:51) What does ‘all the work’ mean? It was built by itself, rising and floating up – thus it does not say when the house was built, but rather “And the house, when it was in building…” (Melachim I 6:7) “…was built of stone finished at the quarry (masa)…” (ibid.) What does ‘finished at the quarry’ (masa nivne) mean? R’ Brechia said: the stone picked itself up (nosah atzma), rose up and was built by itself. This is what Shlomo said in his song “I have surely built You a house to dwell in…” (Melachim I 8:13) He says ‘I have surely built’, meaning ‘I built a building and the stones rose up and flew into place themselves’. If you are shocked that the Holy One would do such a thing for a single righteous person, “And a stone was brought and placed on the mouth of the pit…” (Daniel 6:18) And where did they get a rock in Bavel? Our Rabbis said that it rolled all the way from the land of Israel and came in an instant. So if the Holy One did such a thing for flesh and blood, are you surprised that He would do so for the building of a house to the Holy One?

Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:1:1

“The Song of Songs that is Solomon’s” (Song of Songs 1:1). Prologue of the Sages. “The Song of Songs,” that is what [the verse] written by Solomon states: “Have you seen a man diligent in his labor? He will stand before kings, he will not stand before dark ones” (Proverbs 22:29). “Have you seen a man diligent in his labor” – This is Joseph, in whose regard it is written: “He came into the house to perform his labor [and none of the men of the house were there, in the house]” (Genesis 39:11). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya, Rabbi Yehuda says: It was a day of disgrace and manure, (The midrash is referring here to Egyptian ritual worship, and uses these words to describe it in order to demean such idolatry.) and a day of theater. Rabbi Neḥemya says it was a day of theater in honor of the Nile. Everyone went to see, and he entered to perform his labor to calculate the accounts of his master. Rabbi Pinḥas says in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Abba: Anyone who serves his master properly is set free. From where do we derive this? From Joseph. Because he served his master properly, he was set free. Therefore, “he will stand before kings,” this is Pharaoh, as it is stated: “Pharaoh sent and summoned Joseph, and they rushed him from the dungeon” (Genesis 41:14). “He will not stand before dark ones,” this is Potiphar, as the Holy One blessed be He blinded his eyes and castrated him.

Musar

The Zohar interprets "to do his work" as studying Torah and performing mitzvot, which are one's purpose in this world. When the Torah says "and there was no man in the house," it refers to the evil urge taking advantage of the absence of opposition to tempt the potential sinner. One must resist the evil urge and battle it in order to be saved from its attacks.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Derekh Chayim, Vayeshev 16

ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו . The Zohar understands the words "to do his work," as referring to the study of Torah and performing of מצות, activities which make up one's מלאכתו in this world. One should take firm hold of these activities as does an איש. When the Torah continues by saying: ואין איש בבית, the reference is to the evil urge observing that there was no one to oppose him; he immediately grabs the potential sinner by his garment, i.e. ותתפשהו בבגדו, and demands that one join him. If someone is righteous, he holds on to his garment, i.e. ומתחזק בבגדו, and one battles the evil urge, i.e. וינס החוצה. Only then can one be saved from the attack of the evil urge.

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that the extra "hey" in the word "death" in Psalms 116:15 is unnecessary, citing a similar example from Genesis 39:11, 12. Chizkuni discusses the town of Kiryat Arba, suggesting it was built by Adam and providing alternative explanations for its name, including changing ownership four times. He also explains that the term "Avraham arrived" does not necessarily imply a long distance traveled, citing an example from Genesis 39:11.

Chizkuni, Genesis 23:2:3

בקרית ארבע, this was a town that had been built already by Adam, as we know from Joshua 14,15: קרית ארבע שם חברון לפנים, האדם הגדול בענקים, “the name of Chevron in former times was Kiryat Arba, the greatest of all the giants.”A different version found in midrashim, is that the name of that town is due to it changing ownership four times one after another. First it belonged to the tribe of Yehudah; then it became the private property of Calev of that tribe; subsequently it became a city of priests, and eventually one of the cities of refuge. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 58,4) This is why only its outskirts were given to Calev as is apparent from the wording in Joshua 21,12. Compare also in Baba Batra 122. ויבא אברהם, “Avraham arrived.” Some scholars claim that the term: ויבא, need not imply that the subject came from afar, even if he only came from the outside of the house this term is used as we know from Joseph’s entering Potiphar’s house where the Torah wrote: ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו, “he entered the house in order to perform his tasks.” (Genesis 39,11)

Rashi on Psalms 116:15:2

the death המותה, the death (המות), [the final “hey” being superfluous] like (Gen. 39:11, 12): “into the house (הביתה)...outside (החוצה).”

Second Temple

The soul is engaged in spiritual warfare when it renounces the physical body and focuses on activities that belong to the soul, as seen in the allegorical interpretation of Genesis 39:11.

Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III 85:1

[238] And now he is merely skirmishing, but before long he is stoutly fighting it out, when the soul has entered into her own house, and falling back on her own energies has renounced all that is regulated by the body, and has set to work at business properly belonging to her inasmuch as they are activities of the soul. He goes neither into Joseph’s house nor into that of Potiphar, but “into the house.” He does not go on to say whose house, that you may think and interpret. He simply adds, “to do his business” (Gen. 39:11).

Talmud

Rav Yosef questions if the term "his labor" in reference to Joseph should be counted among the thirty-nine instances of work prohibited on Shabbat. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains that Joseph entered the house to fulfill a matter of sin with Potiphar's wife, who lied about being sick to be alone with him. The Jerusalem Talmud explains that there are exactly thirty-nine categories of work prohibited on Shabbat, corresponding to the thirty-nine occurrences of the word "work" in the Torah.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 7:2:2

HALAKHAH: “The categories of work are 39.” From where that the categories (A hint that exactly 39 categories of work should be forbidden on the Sabbath (i. e., that a maximum of 39 sacrifices would be required for unintentional violations of the Sabbath rest.)) of work are from the Torah? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the thirty-nine occurrences of מלאכה in the Torah (The count works out if one counts all occurrences of מְלָאכָה together with its suffixed forms מְלַאכְתּוֹ, etc., but omitting all construct states מְלֶאכֶת.) . They asked before Rebbi Aḥa, everywhere where מלאכות is written it should count for two! Rebbi Ashian said, Rebbi Aḥa checked by eye the entire Torah and did not find this word written (The plural מְלָאכוֹת is not found in the Pentateuch. Therefore each occurrence of the word counts as one.) . The following is necessary: He came into the house to do his work (Gen. 39:11. It must be counted even though the word is in suffixed form and does not refer to the Sabbath.) is with them. God completed on the Seventh Day His work which He did (Gen. 2:2.) , is with them. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Six days you shall eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day you should not do work (Deut. 16:8, the last occurrence of the word in the Torah.) comes to complete the 39 “works” written in the Torah.

Shabbat 49b:8

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: The term his labor is written with regard to Joseph: “And it came to pass about this time, that he came into the house to do his labor; and there was none of the men of the house there within” (Genesis 39:11). Is it included in the count of the thirty-nine instances or not? Abaye said to him: And let us bring a Torah scroll and count the instances of the word labor and thereby determine whether or not there are thirty-nine instances without that one. Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in a case of similar uncertainty: They did not move from there until they brought a Torah scroll and counted them?

Sotah 36b:11

The Gemara explains: What is the situation where Joseph sanctified God’s name in private? As it is written: “And it came to pass on a certain day, when he went into the house to do his work” (Genesis 39:11). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This teaches that both Joseph and Potiphar’s wife stayed in the house, as they intended to perform a matter of sin. With regard to the phrase “when he went into the house to do his work,” Rav and Shmuel engage in a dispute with regard to its meaning. One says: It means that he went into the house to do his work, literally. And one says: He entered the house in order to fulfill his sexual needs with her.

Sotah 36b:12

The verse continues: “And there was none of the men of the house there within” (Genesis 39:11). The Gemara asks: Is it possible that in such a large and important house like the house of that wicked man that no one was in there? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: That day was their festival day and they all went to their house of idol worship; and she told them that she was sick and could not go, as she said to herself: I have no day on which Joseph will attend to me like this day.

Targum

On a specific day, Joseph came to the house to examine his accounts and found no one else there.

Onkelos Genesis 39:11

It was on such a day, that he came to the house to do his work [examine the recordings of his accounts]. No man of the household was there in the house.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:11

it was on a certain day that he entered the house to examine the tablets of his accounts, and there was no man of the house within;

וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂ֧הוּ בְּבִגְד֛וֹ לֵאמֹ֖ר שִׁכְבָ֣ה עִמִּ֑י וַיַּעֲזֹ֤ב בִּגְדוֹ֙ בְּיָדָ֔הּ וַיָּ֖נׇס וַיֵּצֵ֥א הַחֽוּצָה׃ 12 J she caught hold of him by his garment and said, “Lie with me!” But he left his garment in her hand and got away and fled outside.
In the Kedushat Levi commentary, Yaakov's love for Rachel and Joseph's resistance to Potiphar's wife are connected to the attribute of Tiferet. Joseph's actions in fleeing from temptation are praised in various commentaries and liturgical texts, reflecting his commitment to chastity and righteousness. The Talmud and Midrash also highlight Joseph's wise actions and rewards for his righteousness, while the Targum recounts the story of Joseph fleeing from Potiphar's wife in Genesis 39:12.

Chasidut

In the Kedushat Levi commentary on Genesis, it is explained that Yaakov's love for Rachel was not based on physical attraction, but rather on her spiritual attributes connected to the attribute of harmony, known as Tiferet. When Joseph resisted Potiphar's wife's advances, he also used this attribute to avoid sin, and had a vision of his father, who embodied this attribute. In the Likutei Moharan commentary, it is noted that the Jews praised God after crossing the Sea because the aspect of the brit, or covenant, was revealed, connecting it to Joseph's escape from sin through the attribute of Tiferet.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayetzei 23

Genesis 29,11. “Yaakov gave Rachel a kiss, etc;” ‎‎[note that the Torah does not refer to Rachel’s physical ‎appearance until verse 17 after Yaakov had already worked for ‎him for over a month. Ed.]‎ Genesis 29,17. “and Rachel was shapely and ‎beautiful.” At first glance it is surprising that the Torah ‎appears to link Yaakov’s falling in love with Rachel in verse 18, ‎ויאהב יעקב את רחל‎, “Yaakov loved Rachel,” to the description ‎of her physical assets in verse 17. Is it possible that Yaakov, the ‎most highly admired of our patriarchs, was attracted by Rachel’s ‎physical features, and that this is why the Torah reports matters ‎in this sequence? Our sages called our attention to Yaakov’s ‎message to his brother Esau in Genesis 32,4 where he told him ‎עם ‏לבן גרתי‎, ”I have remained a stranger while with Lavan, etc.” The ‎numerical value of the letters in the word ‎גרתי‎, equals 613, the ‎number of commandments in the Torah. Yaakov reminded his ‎brother that during the entire period that he spent in Charan he ‎had observed the Torah, and therefore had little to fear. A man ‎who could make such a statement certainly did not marry Rachel ‎because he was smitten by lust to possess her shapely body. ‎Anyone who observes the 613 commandments is well aware of ‎the statement by Solomon in Proverbs 31,30 that ‎שקר החן והבך ‏היופי‎, that external attributes such as physical beauty or even a ‎graceful walk, etc., are deceptive and offer no clue to the owner’s ‎character.‎ We must look further for the reason why the Torah made a ‎point of mentioning Rachel’s physical attributes. I have heard ‎from my revered teacher the Maggid of Mezeritch Dov Baer, of ‎sainted memory, that we must understand this as follows. We ‎know that the principal attribute used by Yaakov in serving the ‎Lord is the attribute known as ‎תפארת‎, harmony, located in the ‎center of diagrams of the 10 emanations, ‎ספירות‎. Any physical ‎matter on earth, containing a “spark” from this emanation, is ‎spiritually elevated by the presence of this spark, regardless of ‎how secular it is by nature. Through this spark of the attribute of ‎תפארת‎, its host is brought closer to its roots in the celestial ‎regions, and engages in some degree of service to the Lord.‎ We must look further for the reason why the Torah made a ‎point of mentioning Rachel’s physical attributes. I have heard ‎from my revered teacher the Maggid of Mezeritch Dov Baer, of ‎sainted memory, that we must understand this as follows. We ‎know that the principal attribute used by Yaakov in serving the ‎Lord is the attribute known as ‎תפארת‎, harmony, located in the ‎center of diagrams of the 10 emanations, ‎ספירות‎. Any physical ‎matter on earth, containing a “spark” from this emanation, is ‎spiritually elevated by the presence of this spark, regardless of ‎how secular it is by nature. Through this spark of the attribute of ‎תפארת‎, its host is brought closer to its roots in the celestial ‎regions, and engages in some degree of service to the Lord.‎ When the Torah (Genesis 39,13) reports that Joseph ‎וינס ויצא ‏החוצה‎, “fled and went “outside,” to escape the efforts of ‎Potiphar’s wife to seduce him, he did so because he realized that ‎that woman had used her mode of dress to lure him into a sinful ‎relationship (Yuma 35). She had employed whatever holy ‎spark she possessed in a reverse manner, instead of a means to ‎come closer to her Creator. When Joseph escaped from her ‎presence he took with him this “holy spark” thereby serving his ‎Creator and paving the way for this “spark” that had escaped ‎from the Shechinah to find its way back to its roots.‎ It is known that Joseph, though, of course also serving the ‎Lord, did not do so by using principally the attribute of harmony ‎as his father was in the habit of doing. However, at this critical ‎juncture, in his fateful seclusion with the wife of his master ‎Potiphar, he resorted to the attribute of ‎תפארת‎ as the means to ‎avoid sinning.‎ It is also known that every tzaddik who serves the Lord, ‎regardless of which of the attributes in the diagram of the ‎emanations he uses as his primary model, will be granted a vision ‎of the tzaddik who had made that attribute his primary role ‎model in serving the Lord. When the Talmud Sotah 36 ‎relates that at the critical moment before the seduction, Joseph ‎had a vision of his father, it is a vision of the emanation of ‎תפארת‎ ‎that the Talmud refers to as having been seen by Joseph.‎

Likutei Moharan 27:6:3

This is what our Sages taught: When the Jews ascended from the Sea, they raised their eyes to offer songs of praise (Sotah 30b). This is because at the Sea, the aspect of the brit was revealed. As our Sages said (Bereishit Rabbah 87:8): “The Sea saw and fled” (Psalms 114:3)— “and fled and went outside” (Genesis 39:12).

Commentary

Joseph left his garment with Potiphar's wife out of respect, allowing her to falsely accuse him of attempted seduction. He fled outside to avoid succumbing to her advances, demonstrating his commitment to chastity despite her persistent attempts to seduce him.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:12:1

Accordingly, when the power of her love overwhelmed her, and he was no longer paying any attention to her words, she seized him by his robe, reasoning that, once she had been so bold as to grab hold of it, he would be ashamed to despise her and tell her (outright): ‘I do not desire you!’ He, for his part, for fear that he would let himself be seduced by her advances and her conduct, fled away from her presence, and went outside, not even tarrying to extricate his robe from her hand so that she would not seize and kiss him. This is what Scripture intends to convey by (the expression) ‘he fled’ (39:12). He also did not wish to extract his garment from her hand by superior force because she was, after all, his mistress, so that she was able to detach it from him; as it was a robe in which he would envelop himself, like a cloak, as Nahmanides has stated (in his commentary on this passage).

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 39:12:1

ותתפשהו בבגדו, “she grabbed him by his outer garment.” According to Kohelet Rabbah on Kohelet 7,26, where the author describes a woman’s hands as having been artificially restrained, אסורים, the kind of woman described by Solomon there would grab men in the street and try and seduce them. Even the relatively chaste women are described there as aggressive in that respect. During the 12 months that Joseph was in Potiphar’s house, he was exposed to those tactics by Potiphar’s wife on a daily basis. When the Torah speaks of these ongoing attempts at seduction (verse 10) as occurring יום יום, “every day,” this must be considered as if Joseph had withstood a year’s temptation. The word is used as meaning “year” as in Esther 3,7. He would literally have to take evasive action, such as covering his face, practically shrinking to the ground. She would use instruments in order to force him to resume his normal posture. She would use the argument that she was not really married to Potiphar; he was a homosexual and had never consummated the “marriage.” He had to explain to her that the Hebrews were not allowed to have sexual relations with Egyptian women even if the latter were unmarried. She would threaten him with having him consigned to jail. Joseph would reply that his G–d had means of freeing him from jail. She would threaten to have him blinded, to which he replied that his G–d could make the blind see. Eventually, if it had not been for the priests who testified hat the drops of semen she produced as evidence that he had tried to rape her were in fact not from a human being, he might have been sentenced to death. This eventually became the reason why he dealt so extraordinarily generously with the Egyptian priests during the years of the famine. (Tanchuma, section 8)

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 39:12:2

וינס ויוצא החוצה, “he fled, leaving the house.” As a reward for Joseph’s fleeing the presence of his master’s wife on that occasion, G–d told him that He would reward him when the sea of reeds fled at the approach of Joseph’s coffin when the Israelites were facing the sea with the Egyptians threatening them from behind. (Tanchuma on parshat Nasso, section 30, interprets Psalms: 114,3: הים ראה וינוס, “the sea saw and fled” as meaning just that.)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:12:1

ותתפשהו בבגדו, She grabbed hold of his garment, etc. The Torah reveals Mrs Potiphar's intention when she grabbed Joseph's garment by stating לאמור. This word needs to be translated here: "as if to say." She did not say a word. Her actions spoke louder than any words.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:12:1

ויעזוב בגדו אצלה, “he left his garment with her.” This is another example of Joseph’s chastity; he did not want to struggle for his garment with her and thereby involve himself in physical contact with her. He respected her dignity in not demonstrating his superior male power.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:12:2-3

וינס החוצה, “he fled outside.” He left the house in order that she should give up hope to entrap him, so that she would cease her efforts in this regard. Or, he fled outside in order to regain his emotional equilibrium. He had been aroused by the encounter with Mrs. Potiphar. According to a Midrash the meaning of the words וינס, ויצא החוצה, is G’d said to him: ”today you fled, there will come a day when the sea will flee before your coffin.” This is the meaning of Exodus Psalms 114,3 “the sea saw (it) and fled.” What did the sea see? It saw the coffin containing the body of Joseph.

Ramban on Genesis 39:12:1

AND HE LEFT HIS GARMENT IN HER HAND. Out of respect for his mistress he did not wish to take the garment from her hand with his superior strength, and he removed it from upon himself, as it was a garment which one wears as a robe and headdress. But when she saw that he left his garment in her hands she feared lest he expose her to the people of the household or his master, and so she preceded him to them, saying that he had removed his garment to lie with her, but “when he saw that I screamed he fled in confusion.” This is the meaning of the verse, And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand. (Verse 13 here.) This is also why she did not say, “And he left his garment in my hand,” but she instead told the men of her house and her husband, And he left his garment ‘etzli’ (with me). (The word etzli (with me) indicates that he himself had removed his garment, as explained above.)

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:12:1

Schon Siporno macht aufmerksam darauf, wie besonnen und rücksichtsvoll Josef selbst in einer solchen Stellung einem solchen Weibe gegenüber gewesen. — וינס ויצא החוצה, er floh — jedoch draußen stürzte er nicht, machte kein Aussehen, sondern: draußen ging er. Sie vermutete diese Rücksicht nicht, sonst hätte sie nicht geschrien. Bei ihr heißt es: כראתה וגי וינס החוצה, sie sah ihn hinauseilen, deshalb rief sie. In ihrer Erzählung freilich sagt sie: וינס וצא החוצה er floh und "schlich" hinaus. Sie will ihn ja eben als den Verbrecher zeichnen.

Sforno on Genesis 39:12:1

And fled. So that he would not be overcome by desire.

Sforno on Genesis 39:12:2

And he went outside. As soon as he left the room he slowed down so that no one would ask questions. She, however, assumed that he continued running and that people would soon know what happened; therefore she called to the men of the household.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:12

She seized him by his garment, saying: Lie with me. He left his garment in her hand. At that time, people wore robes that wrapped around their bodies. Accordingly, when she grabbed Joseph’s garment, he was able to unravel himself from it, leaving it in her hand. Joseph fled, and went outside.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:12:1

ויעזב בגדו בידה, “he left his outer garment in her hand.” Out of deference for her position as his mistress, he did not wrest the garment from her hands, although he was physically powerful enough to have done this.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 108

“He left his garment in her hand” [39:12]. The woman was holding his garment and she said, you must sleep with me. Joseph left her the garment. Bahya writes here that it was an act of righteousness for Joseph. He did not want to tussle with his mistress, so he honored her by leaving his garment with her. (Bahya, Genesis, 39:12.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 109

“He fled outside” [39:12]. Joseph ran out so that his inclination should not overcome him to sleep with her, since Joseph’s inclination was afire. She almost convinced him, particularly in the room when they were alone. (Ibid.)

Kabbalah

In Tikkunei Zohar 42b:20, it is discussed how Joseph fled from the advances of Potiphar's wife, leaving his garment behind. In Tikkunei Zohar 42b:24, it is emphasized that even if a snake is around his heel, one should not interrupt prayer, as stopping would result in the withdrawal of the tip of the letter Dalet, leaving behind a wounded snake. However, if faced with a scorpion, one should stop, as Joseph did in the story.

Tikkunei Zohar 42b:20

But due to a scorpion it is removed, and he does interrupt, and he flees from it. It is this that is written: (Gen. 39:12) ... and he abandoned his garment in her hand, and he escaped and went outside.

Tikkunei Zohar 42b:24

[ms. Var. And, because of this: ‘Even if a snake is wound around his heel, he should not interrupt his prayer’, even if it surrounds that point of the letter Dalet (ד) , he should not stop, for if he stops, then because of him is withdrawn the tip of Dalet (ד) of EḤaD (One) , and there remains AḤeR (‘another’) , which is the wound-up snake. Because of the snake he should not stop – and it is not withdrawn – unlike when he stops and flees from it. But for a scorpion he should stop, as did the righteous Joseph. It is this that is written: (Gen. 39:12) ... and he left his garment with her and he escaped... etc.

Liturgy

The text from Selichot Nusach Lita Linear and Selichot Nusach Ashkenaz Lita both reference the story of Joseph escaping imprisonment, asking for freedom and favor in God's eyes during the Ten Days of Penitence.

Selichot Nusach Ashkenaz Lita, Fourth Day of the Ten Days of Penitence 5:16

Shine Your countenance [upon us]; let us find favor in Your eyes. Free us from imprisonment and let us run after You [to serve You]. As in years gone by, may Your nation depart [their imprisonment]. [As is written:] And he ran away and escaped. (V. Genesis 39:12.)

Selichot Nusach Lita Linear, Fourth Day of the Ten Days of Penitence 5:106

and escaped. (V. Genesis 39:12.)

Midrash

Judah rebuked his brothers and merited leadership, Nachshon ben Aminadav sanctified God's name at the sea, Joseph's bones caused the sea to split, and Joseph's righteousness was rewarded with kingship in Egypt. Joseph's wise actions led to his promotion and his observance of God's commandments was rewarded with his sons being honored during the dedication of the altar. Joseph's righteousness and wisdom were reflected in his actions and the rewards he received from the Holy One.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:6

“On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:54). “On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” – that is what is written: “I keep the king’s directive, [and in regard to the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). If the king will say to you that his fear shall be upon you and you shall observe his decrees, observe his decrees. Likewise, it says: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) – that his fear shall be upon you. And it says: “Any man who will disobey your directive, [and does not heed your words in everything that you command him, will be put to death]” (Joshua 1:18). “I” that is written here is nothing other than fear of the monarchy, just as Pharaoh said to Joseph. That is what is written: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, and without you no man shall lift his hand…” (Genesis 41:44). What is “I am Pharaoh”? This is what Pharaoh said to Joseph: Even though I said to you: “You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:40) – that I made you king over everyone – be careful to treat me with respect and make me king over you. That is why he said: “I am Pharaoh” – in other words, that the fear of my kingship shall be upon you. Similarly, “God spoke to Moses, and He said to him: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:2) – why was it necessary to say here: “I am the Lord”? Rather, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: Even though I set you as a god for Pharaoh, as the verse states: “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1) be careful that my Godliness will be upon you, as I made you a god only over Pharaoh alone. That is, “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is “I” who requires you to “keep the king’s directive” – that his fear shall be upon you. Make certain that you do not flout his commands. Is it, perhaps, even if he tells you to violate the words of the Omnipresent? The verse states: “And in regard to the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – the verse comes to inform you that “and in regard to the word of an oath of God” will be paramount over the command of flesh and blood, as you should nullify the will of flesh and blood before the will of God and fulfill all the commandments that are in the Torah, as you entered into an oath in their regard to fulfill them, just as it says: “To pass you into the covenant of the Lord your God and into His oath…” (Deuteronomy 29:11), and it says: “[Cursed be] who will not uphold the matters of this Torah to perform them; and the entire people shall say: Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:26). Similarly, “each of you shall fear his mother and his father…” (Leviticus 19:3) – is it, perhaps, even if his father said to him: Slaughter for me and cook for me on Shabbat, that he should listen to him? The verse states: “And you shall observe My Shabbatot” (Leviticus 19:3) – all of you are obligated in My honor. Here too, “and the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as above the word of the king observe the word of an oath to God. “Do not be frightened; leave his presence [mipanav]; [do not remain in a bad situation, as he will do what he wills]” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). If [a king of] flesh and blood will become angry at you in order to cause you to violate the statutes of the Torah, do not be frightened by his anger and follow his counsel, just as it says: “Who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalms 1:1). Panav is nothing other than his anger, just as it says: “And the expression on his face [anpohi] was distorted” (Daniel 3:19). That is, “leave his presence”; “do not remain in a bad situation [bedavar]” – do not remain in his path to follow it, just as it says: “And did not remain in the path of sinners” (Psalms 1:1). What is “bedavar” (Ecclesiastes 8:3)? It is that you should not fear that evil matter, that he will say to you that he will burn you, kill you, or subject you to harsh suffering if you do not fulfill his decree, and he will threaten you that there is no God in the world who will be able to rescue you from his hand. That is what is written thereafter: “As he will do what he wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). Just as Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya: “At that time you will be cast into the burning fiery furnace; who is the god who will save you from my hands?” (Daniel 3:15). “Since authority is by the king’s word, [who will say to him: What are you doing?]” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). If you devote yourself to the mitzvot to fulfill the decree of the Holy One blessed be He and to nullify the decrees of flesh and blood, what is your reward? When the Holy One blessed be He issues a decree to bring calamity to the world – as he is the King of the world and Ruler of everything, to do everything that He desires and no one can impede him: “He is of one mind, and who can respond to Him? His soul desires, and He does” (Job 23:13) – you will stand and ask for mercy regarding the decree to abrogate it. The Holy One blessed be He will show forbearance to you, and He will nullify it because you nullified the decree of flesh and blood in order to fulfill His decree. That is why it is stated: “Since authority is by the king’s word” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, when He says to bring something to the world to inform of his authority in the world, just as it says: “God caused that they would experience fear before Him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). Know, who can impede His decree and say to Him: ‘Why are You doing so’? It is one who observes mitzvot. That is why it is stated: “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” Who can say to Him: ‘Why are You doing this to Your creations? Descend to them with the attribute of mercy’? That is one who observes His mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva [will know no evil matter]” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5)? It is measure for measure; he did not remain in a bad situation, therefore, “he will know no evil matter.” “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – as there is a wise man who considers the consequences and reckons the loss from a mitzva against its reward and the loss from a transgression against its reward. He considers in his heart: If I transgress His mitzvot, and I have an opportunity to do what I want and there is no one who can impede me, tomorrow, the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him (Referring to himself.) because he violated His Torah. Likewise it says: “The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool [walks in darkness]” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). And it says: “The heart of the wise inclines to his right, [and the heart of a fool inclines to his left]” (Ecclesiastes 10:2). “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” – one whose heart is wise knows that if he transgresses the mitzvot, that the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him, and he refrains from the transgression. That is what is written thereafter: “For there is a time and a judgment for every matter…” (Ecclesiastes 8:6) – regarding every situation where a person performs his will and nullifies the will of the Omnipresent, it should be known to him that he is destined to be judged. Even though retribution is not exacted from him immediately, let him not think that the Holy One blessed be He would overlook his iniquity for him, but rather, He is slow to anger and collects what is due to Him. When does He exact retribution from him? It is when the hin is filled. Likewise it says: “With the filling of his quota, he will be troubled; [the hand of all travail will come upon him]” (Job 20:22). That is why it is stated: “As the evil of man overwhelms him” (Ecclesiastes 8:6); just as He did with the generation of the Flood, as He gave them an extension but ultimately exacted retribution from them, just as it says: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…” (Genesis 6:5). What is written thereafter? “The Lord said: I will obliterate man…” (Genesis 6:7). “For he does not know what will be, [for whenever it will be, who will have told him]?” (Ecclesiastes 8:7). The verse comes to teach you that anyone who does not repent from a transgression that he committed and does not fear the Day of Judgment, when it will arrive they will not show him forbearance. Were he to come and say that he be given an extension so he could repent, they will not listen to him. That is, for whenever punishment “will be, who will have told him” so he would repent and be accepted. It is to say to you that prior to the sentence they listen to him; after the sentence they do not listen to him. That is why it is stated: “For whenever it will be, who will have told him?” “There is no man who rules the spirit [to retain the spirit, and there is no rule on the day of death, and there is no sending a proxy in war, and wickedness will not rescue its owner]” (Ecclesiastes 8:8) – because we found that the Holy One blessed be He decreed four court-imposed death penalties for performers of transgressions. That is why four matters are written here, corresponding to them, where the living lack the ability to be rescued from them after their sentence. These are: “There is no man who rules the spirit [ruaḥ] to retain the spirit” – this is death by strangulation and the like, as a person dies from it only due to breath [ruaḥ], as he has no place from which to breathe. That is, “there is no man who rules the spirit” to exhale it when the day comes that the breath will be constricted in his body. “And there is no rule on the day of death” – this is death by stoning and the like, just as it says: “You shall stone him with stones, and he will die” (Deuteronomy 13:11). “There is no sending a proxy in war” – this is death by decapitation by sword and the like, just as it says: “Go out and wage war with Amalek” (Exodus 17:9), and it is written: “Joshua weakened [Amalek and its people by sword]” (Exodus 17:13). “And wickedness will not rescue its owner” – this is death by burning and the like, just as it says: “All the criminals and all the doers of wickedness will be straw; the day that is coming will burn them…” (Malachi 3:19). These are the four court-imposed death penalties mentioned in this verse. Even though the Sanhedrin ceased and the four court-imposed death penalties were abrogated, the sentence of the four court-imposed death penalties were not abrogated, as the Holy One blessed be He judges the living to die of them with harsh punishments corresponding to them. One who incurs liability to be strangled either drowns in the river, dies of diphtheria, or is delivered into the hands of idol worshippers who strangle him. One who incurs liability to be stoned either falls off the roof, or a beast tramples him, or idol worshippers stone him. One who incurs liability to be beheaded, robbers come upon him and behead him. One who incurs liability to be burned either falls into the fire or a snake bites him. You learned that a person cannot escape the judgment of the Holy One blessed be He that He will not punish him measure for measure. That is why it is stated: “There is no man who rules the spirit….” (Ecclesiastes 8:8). Another matter: “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is speaking of Joseph the righteous, who observed the “I” that Pharaoh had said to him, just as it says: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, [and without you no man shall lift his hand]” (Genesis 41:44), as he never flouted his command. “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as even though he entered into that prominence, he did not throw the yoke of Heaven from upon him and he feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “[I fear] God” (Genesis 42:18). That is why “God” is stated. (According to the Etz Yosef, the midrash is explaining that this is an allusion to the verse, “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2).) He was very cautious regarding the oath, as he did not take an oath “as the Lord lives,” but rather, “as Pharaoh lives, that you will not depart from here” (Genesis 42:15). That is, “an oath.” What is “the word of [divrat]”? It is because he separated himself from lasciviousness, just as it says: “He shall not see a lascivious matter [davar] in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it says: The young woman, because [al devar] she did not cry out in the city…” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Likewise it says: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). What is written there? “He refused, and he said to his master’s wife: Behold, my master…” (Genesis 39:8). That is why it is stated: “The word of [divrat],” just as it says: “It was, as she spoke [kedabra] to Joseph day after day, and he did not heed her…” (Genesis 39:10). “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence” – when he entered the house to perform his labor, and the house was vacant and there was no person who could see him, just as it is written: “It was, on a certain day he went into the house to perform his labor, and there was no one [of the people of the household there in the house]” (Genesis 39:11), she came and seized his garment so that he would lie with her. Nevertheless, he was not frightened by her actions, and he went outside, just as it says: “He left his garment in her hand, fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). That is why it is stated: “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence.” He was not frightened by the house being vacant, but rather he fled and left, even though she said to him that if he would not lie with her, she would say to her husband that he sought to rape her, and her husband will kill him, and there would be no one to impede him, because he is his slave. Nevertheless, he did not allow her to fulfill her desire because of that evil matter that she threatened to do to him. That is why it says: “Do not remain in a bad situation, as God will do what He wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). From where do you derive that she threatened him in that manner? It is from the end of the matter. When she saw that her actions were to no avail, look at what she did: “She called to the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying.… It was, when he heard.… She placed his garment [beside her, until his master’s arrival home]. She spoke to him…[saying: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to me to mock me]. It was, as I raised my voice [and cried out, that he left his garment with me, and fled outside]” (Genesis 39:14–18). “Since authority is by the king’s word…” (Ecclesiastes 8:4) – what reward did the Holy One blessed be He give him for this? He placed him in a position of authority in the land of Egypt. That is what is written: “Since [authority is] by the king’s word…,” just as it says: “Pharaoh spoke to Joseph: In my dream, behold, I am…” (Genesis 41:17). “Authority” – just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4), just as it says: “Go to Joseph; what he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). Why to that extent? It is because he observed the mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter”? It is this evil matter that the butler said, just as it says: “There with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief executioner…” (Genesis 41:12). He said three matters here in Joseph’s regard: “Lad” – that he was a fool, just as it says: “Folly is bound in the heart of a lad” (Proverbs 22:15); “Hebrew” – an enemy; “slave” – that he is not worthy of kingship. Nevertheless, Joseph knew no evil matter. In other words, the matter did not affect him, as he ruled. “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this was Joseph, who was called wise, just as it says: “There is no one as wise and understanding as you” (Genesis 41:39). He knew that he would be held accountable had he touched Potifar’s wife; that is why he withdrew from her. That is what is written: “He did not heed her [to lie with her, to be with her]” (Genesis 39:10); “to lie with her” in this world; “to be with her” in the World to Come. Another matter: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this is the Holy One blessed be He, in whose regard it is written: “Wise of heart and mighty of power” (Job 9:4). He brought about a time to reward Joseph on the basis of measure for measure. How so? He ruled over his inclination and did not touch her; therefore, he became a ruler, just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). He did not heed her, just as it says: “He did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10); therefore, the Holy One blessed be He crowned him as king over Egypt in its entirety, and everyone heeded his words, just as it says: “What he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). His mouth [piv] did not kiss [nashak] in transgression; therefore, “at your directive [pikha] my entire people will be sustained [yishak]” (Genesis 41:40). He said: “There is no one greater in this house than I…” (Genesis 39:9) in order to rebuff her; therefore, “you will be in charge of my house” (Genesis 41:40). He did not seize her, but she seized him with her hands, just as it says: “She seized him by his garment…” (Genesis 39:12); therefore, “Pharaoh removed his signet ring from upon his hand, and he placed it upon Joseph’s hand” (Genesis 41:42). He left his garment in her hand; therefore, “he dressed him in linen garments” (Genesis 41:42). He did not bend his neck toward her; therefore, “he placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42). He did not mount [rakhav] her; therefore, “he had him ride [vayarkev] in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43). She called the people of her household in this regard, just as it says: “She called the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14); therefore, “they called before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43). He was relegated to the prison for this, just as it says: “He relegated him [vayitenehu] to the prison” (Genesis 39:20); therefore, “he appointed him [venaton oto] over the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:43). He did not direct his glance toward her, and not toward the Egyptian women when he ruled, just as it says: “Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful bough alongside a spring [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22), as he averted his eye [she’ilem eino] from Potifar’s wife and from the Egyptian women. “Branches [banot] (Banot can also mean women.) ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22). Therefore, alei shur. Rabbi Reuven said: What is alei shur? The Holy One blessed be He said: It is incumbent upon me to pay a reward for that eye. How so? The Rabbis taught that in the Temple they would eat offerings of lesser sanctity within the wall, within the wall of Jerusalem. But in Shilo, which was in the portion of Joseph, they would eat it within eyeshot. (Within eyeshot of the Tabernacle (Rambam, Mishna Zevaḥim 14:6).) That is alei shur, just as it says: “The eye of one who sees me will not behold me [teshureni]” (Job 7:8). Rabbi Azarya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Joseph: You observed the mitzva of: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), which is the seventh of the Commandments, and you did not commit adultery with Potifar’s wife. And you observed the mitzva of: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), which is the eighth of the Commandments, as you did not steal Potifar’s property and you did not “steal” his wife, just as it says: “The eye of the adulterer observes the night, saying: No eye will behold [teshureni] me…” (Job 24:15). The time will come when I will repay you for them. Tomorrow, when the princes come to bring [offerings] for the dedication of the altar, the princes of your two sons, one will present his offering on the seventh day, and the second on the eighth day. And no other tribe will interpose between your two sons, just as you did not interpose (Namely, you did not differentiate between them. You observed both of them. As a reward, Benjamin did not interpose between Ephraim and Manasseh.) between “you shall not commit adultery” and “you shall not steal,” as it is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim.… On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh…” (Numbers 7:48–54) That is why it is written: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:7

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:55). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]…” – do not read it as kaarat, but rather as akart, corresponding to Jacob, who extracted [akar] the birthright (The birthright refers to the extra portion of the inheritance that the eldest son received.) from Reuben and gave it to Joseph: “I have given you one portion more than your brothers…” (Genesis 48:22). “Silver” – just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20), just as he (Silver alludes to the statement made by Jacob, who was righteous.) said: “Ephraim and Manasseh will be for me like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – when Jacob descended to Egypt on account of Joseph, he was one hundred and thirty years old, as it is stated: “Jacob said to Pharaoh: The days of the years of my residence are one hundred and thirty years” (Genesis 47:9). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – corresponding to Joseph, who was cast [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “Silver” – after: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20) – what he said to his father (Silver alludes to the statement made by Joseph, who was righteous.) : “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn; place your right hand upon his head” (Genesis 48:18). “Seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” – as it was through him that seventy people descended to Egypt. “Both of them full…” – Jacob and Joseph, both of them were full-fledged righteous men and both produced tribes. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:56). “One gold ladle of ten shekels…” – corresponding to the ten districts of Manasseh, as it is stated: “Ten districts fell to Manasseh” (Joshua 17:5). “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:57). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:58). “One young bull, one ram [one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering]; one goat…” – these (This is a reference to the three burnt offerings.) are three corresponding to the three generations that Joseph saw from Manasseh that received a portion in the land, (This is a reference to the fact that there were three major families named after the three generations following Manasseh, in addition to the family which was named after Manasseh himself. Therefore, the phrase “the sons of Makhir” refers to Makhir himself, Gilad, and Iezer.) as it is stated: “The children of Makhir son of Manasseh, too, were born at Joseph’s knees” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise, it says: “The sons of Manasseh: For Makhir, the family of the Makhirites, and Makhir begot Gilad.… These are the sons of Gilad: Of Iezer…” (Numbers 26:29–30). Makhir, Gilad, and Iezer – these are three generations that were patrilineal houses that were attributed to Joseph, as Manasseh is attributed to Jacob, just as it says: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before my coming to you to Egypt, they are mine” (Genesis 48:5). The fourth, this was Ya’ir son of Manasseh, who received a portion in the land, just as it says: “Ya’ir son of Manasseh went and captured their villages [ḥavot], and he called them Ḥavot Ya’ir” (Numbers 32:41). The three species of burnt offerings corresponded to the sons of Makhir son of Manasseh. (This is referring to what was mentioned above, and is mentioned again since the midrash now also explains what the sin offering signifies.) The goat sin offering corresponded to Ya’ir, who did not bequeath his portion to his sons, because he did not have sons. That is why he called them (The villages.) by his name, because he did not have any remnant, and the sons of his brother Makhir inherited his portion. “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:59). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the tribe of Manasseh, which split into two and received two portions in the land, half of it on the east bank of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan. “Five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year” – these are three species, corresponding to three things that Joseph did on behalf of Manasseh, whom he sought to elevate over his brother Ephraim. The first: “Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim in his right hand to the left of Israel, and Manasseh in his left hand to the right of Israel” (Genesis 48:13). The second: “He supported his father’s hand, to remove it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh” (Genesis 48:17). The third: “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn…” (Genesis 48:18). Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five women from the tribe of Manasseh who took a portion in the land. These were Tzelofḥad’s five daughters, just as it says: “Tzelofḥad’s daughters speak justly; give them a holding for inheritance…” (Numbers 27:7). They were five, as it is stated: “These are the names of his daughters: Maḥla, Noa, Ḥogla, Milka, and Tirtza” (Numbers 27:1). Likewise, Jacob mentioned them in the blessing of Joseph, as it is stated: “Branches [banot] ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22); these are Tzelofḥad’s daughters [banot], who received a portion in the land. Alternatively, why were they five each? It corresponds to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “May they proliferate like fish in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16), and fish were created on the fifth day. “This was the offering of Gamliel…” – since the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented the offering in this order, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Gamliel…”

Bereshit Rabbah 87:1

“It was after these matters that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). “It was after these matters.” “I saw among the naïve [bapetayim]” (Proverbs 7:7) – these are the tribes. Rabbi Levi said: In Arabia, they call children patya. “Discerned among the youths a lad” (Proverbs 7:7) – this is Joseph. He was “devoid of understanding” (Proverbs 7:7), as he would speak slander about his brothers. Is there anyone more devoid of understanding? From that, their descent to Egypt developed. “And behold, there is a woman to meet him” (Proverbs 7:10) – this is Potiphar’s wife, who confronted Joseph. “Dressed like a harlot” (Proverbs 7:10) – for Joseph. “And wily of heart” (Proverbs 7:10) – for Egypt. (Her public persona was modest.) “She is turbulent and rebellious” (Proverbs 7:11) – muttering and confused. (Due to her lust.) “Her feet do not abide in her house” (Proverbs 7:11) – but rather, “sometimes in the street, [sometimes in the squares, she lurks at every corner]” (Proverbs 7:12) – she would ask and say: ‘Have you seen Joseph?’ “She seized him and kissed him” (Proverbs 7:13) – “she seized him by his garment” (Genesis 39:12). “She was brazen and said to him” (Proverbs 7:13) – “lie with me” (Genesis 39:12).

Bereshit Rabbah 87:8

“She seized him by his garment, saying: Lie with me. He left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). “She seized him by his garment…and went outside” – he leapt by the merit of the patriarchs, just as it says: “He took him outside” (Genesis 15:5). (God took Abraham outside and promised him that he would have many descendants, like the many stars in the sky. ) Shimon of Kitron said: By the merit of Joseph’s bones, the sea was split for Israel. That is what is written: “The sea saw and fled” (Psalms 114:3), by the merit of: “He left his garment in her hand and fled.” “She called the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying: See, he brought us a Hebrew man to ridicule us; he came to me to lie with me, and I cried out in a loud voice” (Genesis 39:14). “She called the people of her household” – she placed it into the mouths of all of them. (She coached them to tell her husband that Joseph had propositioned them as well (Etz Yosef).) “She placed his garment beside her, until his master’s arrival to his home” (Genesis 39:16). “She placed his garment beside her” – Rabbi Ami said: She hugged it and kissed it.

Kohelet Rabbah 7:26:3

“Whose [heart] is snares and nets” – as she traps in the sea and on dry land. “Her hands, shackles,” Rabbi Elazar said: Had he not written in her regard: “Her hands, shackles,” she would seize a man in the marketplace and say: ‘Have relations with me.’ (The midrash interprets the verse to mean that the woman’s hands are shackled, meaning that she is too inhibited to demand relations outright. Instead, her “heart is snares and nets” – in her heart she desires relations, and she finds ways to entice men.) This is analogous to a biting dog whose owner holds it on a chain; even though it is tied, it would grasp onto a person in the marketplace by his clothes. So, had he not written in her regard: “Her hands, shackles,” she would abduct a person in the marketplace. See what is written: “She seized him by his garments, saying: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:12). “One who is good before God will escape from her” – this is Joseph; “but the sinner will be captured by her” – this is Potifar. Alternatively, “good” – this is Pinḥas, “but the sinner” – this is Zimri. Alternatively, “good” – this is Palti, “but the sinner” – this is Amnon. Rabbi Isi of Caesarea interpreted the verse regarding heresy. “Good” – this is Rabbi Elazar, “but a sinner” – this is Yaakov of the village of Nevurya. (He was a heretic.) Alternatively, “good” – this is Elazar ben Dama, “but a sinner” – this is Yaakov of the village of Sama. (See Kohelet Rabba 1:8 for a story pertaining to Elazar ben Dama and Yaakov of Sikhanya, who some commentaries equate with the Yaakov of Sama mentioned here. The midrash there also mentions the other individuals identified here as good or as heretics.) Alternatively, “good” – this is Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, “but a sinner” – these are the residents of the village of Naḥum. (These heretics employed sorcery to apprehend Ḥananya, but Rabbi Yehoshua rescued him; see Kohelet Rabba 1:8.) Alternatively, “good” – this is Yehuda ben Nekosa, “but a sinner” – these are the heretics. Alternatively, “good” – this is Rabbi Natan, “but a sinner” – this is his disciple. (He went and joined the heretics.) Alternatively, “good” – this is Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, “but a sinner” – this is Elisha. (Elisha ben Avuya, who ultimately adopted a sinful path.)

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Vayehi Beshalach 4:19

Shimon of Kitron says: In the merit of the bones of Joseph I will split the sea for them, viz. (Genesis 39:12) "And he left his garment in her hand and he fled." And it is written (Psalms 114:3) "The sea saw and it fled, etc."

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Nasso 34:1

R. Abbin [Berabbi] the Levite said: As Joseph was offering his praise, his master saw him murmuring with his mouth. (Tanh., Numb. 2:30; Numb. R. 14:3.) He said to him: Joseph, what are you saying. Then he answered and said to him: I am offering praise to the Holy One. He said to him: I want to see your God. Joseph said to him: Consider Helios, one of his several attendants. (In an unvowelled Hebrew text “sun” (shemesh) and “attendant” (shammash) would have the same spelling, i.e., ShMSh.) If you cannot look at , how much the less his own glory. (See above. Exod. 8:6; below, Numb. 3:15.) The Holy One said to him: Because of you I am appearing to him. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 39:3): WHEN HIS MASTER SAW THAT THE LORD WAS WITH HIM…. R. Abbin Berabbi the Levite said: What is the meaning of {(Ps. 24:8 or 10): WHO IS THIS ?} [(Ps. 24:9:) AND THE KING OF GLORY SHALL COME IT]? The one who shares some of his glory with those who fear him, i.e., the Holy One. (Above, Exod. 2:7, and the other parallels listed there.) In the case of a king of flesh and blood, no one uses his scepter, but the Holy One gave his scepter to Moses, as stated (in Exod. 4:20): AND MOSES TOOK THE ROD OF GOD IN HIS HAND. Moreover, no one sits on his throne, [but the Holy One had Solomon sit on his throne], as written (in I Chron. 29:23): THEN SOLOMON SAT UPON THE THRONE OF THE LORD AS KING. No one rides on his horse, [but the Holy One had Elijah ride on his horse]. Now which horse belongs to the Holy One? Storm and whirlwind. Thus it is stated (in Nahum 1:33): THE LORD IS IN THE WHIRLWIND, AND THE STORM IS HIS ROAD. So it is written (in II Kings 2:11): AND ELIJAH WENT UP IN A WHIRLWIND INTO THE HEAVENS. Ergo: The Holy One shares his glory with those who fear him. He has also given his attire to the Messianic King, as stated (in Ps. 21:6 [5]): HONOR AND MAJESTY YOU BESTOW UPON HIM; for the attire of the Holy One is HONOR AND MAJESTY, [as stated] (in Ps. 104:1): YOU HAVE PUT ON [HONOR AND MAJESTY]. What is written about the Holy One (in Jer. 51:56)? [FOR THE LORD IS A GOD] OF RECOMPENSE; (Biblical translations commonly render “RECOMPENSE” (gemulot) as “THEIR DEEDS.”) HE SHALL REPAY IN FULL,] for he repays the good according to their good and the evil according to their evil . What is written about Joseph (in Gen. 49:22)? JOSEPH IS A FRUITFUL SON. (So literally. Biblical translations usually render “son” (ben) by a word like “bough” or “vine.”) The Holy One said to him: Joseph, there shall be peace upon the eye which closed and did not look at any of the Egyptian women. (Cf. Gen. R. 98(99):18.) Thus it is stated (ibid., cont.): DAUGHTERS (Again English versions generally read “boughs” or the like.) STEP UPON THE WALL (i.e., to gaze). R. Reuben said: what is the meaning of UPON THE WALL ('LY SHwr)? (Numb. R. 14:6.) The Holy One said: It is for me ('LY) to pay a reward (SKR) for that eye. Our Masters have taught (in Zev. 14:4, 5, 6, 7, 8) that they would eat in the sanctuary inside the hangings, but in Shiloh (which lay in Ephraimite territory) as far away as the eye could see. (See Zev. 118b.) Whatever Joseph did, the Holy One rewarded him. What is written (in Gen. 39:12)? AND HE LEFT HIS CLOAK {WITH HER} [IN HER HAND], FLED, AND WENT OUTSIDE]. The Holy One said ot him: [By your life,] when the children of Israel go out from Egypt, the sea is going to see your coffin and flee. (See Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Beshallah, 4; Gen. R. 84:5; M. Pss. 114:9.) It is so stated (in Ps. 114:3): THE SEA SAW AND FLED. What did it see? [It saw] that Joseph had kept all of the Ten Commandments. Simeon, the man of Kitron, says: It saw the bones of Joseph. (Gen. R. 87:8).) And in addition, when Joseph's coffin (aron) proceeded before the ark (aron), the peoples of the world saw it and said: What is the nature of this ark which is proceeding along with the ark of the Torah? Then Israel answered them and said: This confirms what is written in this . And what was in the ark? The Ten Commandments. Now Joseph fulfilled all of them before they were given from Sinai. The Holy One said to Joseph: Joseph, although I have rewarded you with a little reward in this world, the main fund remains for you in the world to come, when Israel is redeemed with an everlasting redemption. Through the merit of Jacob and through your merit, they will be redeemed, a stated (in Ps. 77:16 [15]): WITH YOUR MIGHTY ARM YOU REDEEMED YOUR PEOPLE, THE DESCENDANTS OF JACOB AND JOSEPH. SELAH.

Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 30:1

(Numbers 7:54:) "On the eighth day, the prince of the Children of Manasseh." R. Abbin Berabbi the Levite said, “As Joseph was offering his praise, his master saw him murmuring with his mouth. (Numb. R. 14:3.) He said to him, ‘What are you saying.’ Then he answered and said to him, ‘I am offering praise to the Holy One, blessed be He.’ He said to him, ‘I want to see Him.’ Joseph said to him, ‘Consider the sun, [who is merely] one of His several attendants. (In an unvowelled Hebrew text “sun” (shemesh) and “attendant” (shammash) would have the same spelling, i.e., ShMSh.) [Since] you cannot look at [His attendant], how much the less [can you look at] His own glory.’ (See above. Exod. 8:6; below, Numb. 3:15.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘By your life, because of you I am appearing to him.’ Thus it is stated (in Gen. 39:3), ‘When his master saw that the Lord was with him.’” R. Chaninah said, “What is the meaning of (Ps. 24:10), ‘Who is this King of glory]?’ [It is] since He shares His glory with those who fear Him. (Above, Exod. 2:7, and the other parallels listed there.) In the case of a king of flesh and blood, no one [else] uses his scepter; but the Holy One, blessed be He, gave his scepter to Moses, as stated (in Exod. 4:20), ‘and Moses took the rod of God in his hand.’ In the case of a king of flesh and blood, no one [else] sits on his throne; but it is written about Solomon (in I Chron. 29:23), ‘Then Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord.’ In the case of a king of flesh and blood, no one [else] rides on his horse; but Elijah ride on the horse of the Holy One, blessed be He. Now which horse belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He? Storm and whirlwind. Thus it is stated (in Nahum 1:3), ‘the Lord is in the whirlwind, and the storm is His road.’ And He gave it to Elijah. So it is written (in II Kings 2:11), ‘and Elijah went up in a whirlwind into the heavens.’ In the case of a king of flesh and blood, no one [else] wears his attire; but the Holy One, blessed be He has put his attire on the messianic king. And what is the attire of the Holy One, blessed be He? Honor and majesty, as stated (in Ps. 104:1), ‘You have put on honor and majesty.’ And it is written (in Ps. 21:6), ‘honor and majesty do You bestow upon him.’” What is written about the Holy One, blessed be He (in Is. 59:18)? “According to their deeds, so shall He repay.” (Biblical translations commonly render “RECOMPENSE” (gemulot) as “THEIR DEEDS.”) What is the meaning of “[He] shall repay […] He shall repay” (twice)? That He repays the good according to their good [deeds] and the evil according to their evil [deeds]. What is written about Joseph (in Gen. 49:22)? “Joseph is a fruitful son.” (So literally. Biblical translations usually render “son” (ben) by a word like “bough” or “vine.”) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Joseph, there shall be peace upon the eye which you closed and did not look at any of the Egyptian women.” (Cf. Gen. R. 98(99):18.) Thus it is stated (ibid., cont.), “daughters (Again English versions generally read “boughs” or the like.) step upon the wall (i.e., to gaze).” R. Abbin said, “What is the meaning of ‘upon the wall ('ly shwr)’? (Numb. R. 14:6.) The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘It is for me ('ly) to pay a reward (skr) for that eye.’” Our masters have taught (in Zev. 14:4, 5, 6, 7, 8) that they would eat in the Temple within the curtains, but in Shiloh (which lay in Ephraimite territory) [they would eat outside the sanctuary as far away as the eye could see, (See Zev. 118b.) as] the Holy One, blessed be He, rewarded Joseph for what he did. What is written [about Joseph (in Gen. 39:12)? “And he left his cloak [in her hand].” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “By your life, when the Children of Israel go out from Egypt in the future, the sea is going to see your coffin and flee.” (See Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Beshallah, 4; Gen. R. 84:5; M. Pss. 114:9.) It is so stated (in Ps. 114:3), “The sea saw and fled […].” What did it see? It saw that Joseph had kept all of the Ten Commandments. Simeon, the man of Kitron, says, “It saw the bones of Joseph.” (Gen. R. 87:8).) And in addition, Joseph's coffin (aron) proceeded before the ark (aron). And the peoples of the world saw it and said, “What is the nature of this ark which is proceeding before the ark of the Torah?” Then Israel said, “This is a coffin of a dead man that is proceeding before the ark of the Torah, since this [man] fulfilled everything that was written in this [Torah], before the Torah was given. And therefore he merited to proceed with it.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joseph, “Joseph, although I have rewarded you with a little reward in this world, the main fund remains for you in the world to come, when Israel is redeemed with an everlasting redemption. Through the merit of Jacob and through your merit, they will be redeemed, as stated (in Ps. 77:16), “With Your mighty arm You redeemed Your people, the Children of Jacob and Joseph. Selah.”

Midrash Tehillim 114:4

"Judah became holy. When Israel arrived at the sea, they fought with each other. One tribe went down to the sea first, and the sea did not dry up until they entered it. They continued to descend until they reached the bottom of the sea, as it is said: "Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck" (Psalm 69:2). It is also written: "And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground" (Exodus 14:22). Benjamin the Righteous went first into the sea, as it is said: "There is little Benjamin, their ruler, in the lead" (Psalm 68:28). Do not read "in the lead" [in Hebrew: "ro'dem"], but rather "into the sea" [in Hebrew: "yored yam"]. What did Nachshon ben Aminadav do? He jumped into the waves of the sea and sanctified the name of the Lord before all, and rebuked Benjamin, as it is said: "The leaders of Judah were shouting, and the rulers were with them" (Psalm 68:28). And it was under the leadership of Nachshon ben Yehudah that Israel crossed. And because he rebuked his brothers, he merited the purple robe, as it is written: "And they clothed Daniel with purple" (Daniel 5:29). God said to him, "You rebuked your brother to sanctify My name. You shall be a ruler over your brothers." Judah truly became holy through his leadership. The sea saw that Israel was fighting each other over the sanctity of God's name. The sea said, "What am I standing here for?" and immediately fled, as it is said: "The sea saw and fled" (Psalm 114:3). Another interpretation: The sea saw that Joseph's coffin was being lowered into it and said, "I will flee before him," as it is said: "And the sea fled before them" (Genesis 33:10). Just as the sea was a miracle for them, it shall be a miracle for you. Be like the sea and flee. Another interpretation: The sea did not want to split because the people were rebelling. It said, "They rebel, and I will split before them," as it is said: "They were rebellious at the sea, at the Red Sea" (Psalm 106:7). And just as the sea was punished for rebelling, God rebuked it, as it is said: "He rebuked the Red Sea also, and it dried up" (Psalm 106:9). As soon as the sea saw this, it fled, as it is said: "Be ashamed, O Sidon, for the sea speaks, the stronghold of the sea, saying: I have not been in labor or given birth, I have not raised young men or brought up young women." The sea said: I am afraid of Him because I have no protection other than Him. You, on the other hand, have raised numerous young men and brought up countless young women, yet you are not afraid of Him. (Exodus 14:29).

Ruth Rabbah 6:1

“He said: Blessed are you of the Lord, my daughter; you have shown more kindness at the end than at the beginning, not to follow the youths, whether poor or wealthy” (Ruth 3:10). “At midnight I will rise to thank You because of Your righteous ordinances” (Psalms 119:62). Rabbi Pinḥas in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: A harp and a lyre were placed alongside David’s head and when midnight would arrive he would rise and play them. Rabbi Levi said: A harp was suspended… (A north wind would blow and play the harp at midnight, awakening David, who would then arise and study Torah until morning (Eikha Rabba 2; Berakhot 3b).) “Because of Your righteous ordinances [mishpetei tzidkekha]” – the punishments [shefatim] that you brought upon Pharaoh, as it is stated: “The Lord afflicted Pharaoh with great afflictions” (Genesis 12:17), and the kindnesses [tzedakot] that You performed for Abraham and Sarah. Alternatively, “because of Your righteous ordinances” – the punishments that You brought upon the Egyptians, and the kindnesses that You performed with our ancestors in Egypt. They had no mitzvot in whose performance they could engage so they could be redeemed, and You gave them two mitzvot in which they could engage and be redeemed, and they are: The blood of the paschal offering and the blood of circumcision. Rabbi Levi said: On that night the blood of the paschal offering was mixed with the blood of circumcision, [and this allowed the Israelites to be redeemed,] as it is stated: “I passed by you, and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you: In your blood, live; I said to you: In your blood, live” (Ezekiel 16:6). Alternatively, “because of Your righteous ordinances” – the punishments that You brought upon the Ammonites and Moavites, and the kindnesses that You performed with my grandfather and grandmother, (The verse in Psalms was stated by David, a descendant of Boaz and Ruth.) as had he [Boaz] quickly uttered one curse to her, from where would I have descended? But You inspired him to bless her, as it is stated: “Blessed are you of the Lord, my daughter.” “The trembling of man brings a snare; but one who trusts in the Lord will be exalted” (Proverbs 29:25). Rabbi Akiva was departing to Rome, [and] he said to a member of his household: ‘Go purchase for me an item that is equally appreciated by all.’ He went and brought him birds. [Rabbi Akiva] said to him: ‘Why did you take so long? [Did it take a long time] to trap them?’ He said: ‘It is because they cause people to tremble.’ [Rabbi Akiva] read this verse in his regard: “The trembling of [ḥerdat] man brings a snare.” The trembling that Jacob induced in Isaac, as it is written: “Isaac trembled [vayeḥerad] a great trembling…” (Genesis 27:33), and by right, he should have cursed him. “But one who trusts in the Lord will be exalted” – You inspired him to bless him, as it is stated: “And he shall be blessed” (Genesis 27:33). The trembling that Ruth induced in Boaz, as it is stated: “The man trembled and flinched” (Ruth 3:8), and by right, he should have cursed her. “But, one who trusts in the Lord will be exalted” – You inspired him to bless her, as it is stated: “Blessed are you of the Lord, my daughter.” “And flinched,” she embraced him like lichen. (She did so to calm him.) He began touching her hair; he said: ‘Spirits do not have hair.’ He said to her: ‘Who are you, a spirit or a woman?’ She said: ‘A woman.’ [He said:] ‘Are you single or married?’ She said to him: ‘Single.’ [He said:] ‘Are you ritually impure, or pure?’ She said to him: ‘Pure.’ Here was a ritually pure woman lying at his feet, as it is stated: “He said: Who are you? She said: I am Ruth your maidservant…” (Ruth 3:9). Rabbi Berekhya said: The wicked are accursed. There it is written: “She grabbed him by his garment, saying: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:12), but here: “Spread your garment over your maidservant” (Ruth 3:9). (The wife of Potiphar brazenly demanded that Joseph lie with her, although she was married. Ruth, in contrast, who was permitted to Boaz, spoke to him in a humble and modest fashion. )

Quoting Commentary

Rashbam explains the spelling of "תשבות" in Leviticus 26:35:2 is due to the tone sign etnachta. Rabbeinu Bahya in Shemot 13:19:1 discusses Moses taking Joseph's remains as a noble act, linking it to his own burial by God. In Shemot 21:8:2, Rabbeinu Bahya explains the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva on the meaning of "בבגדו בה," with one connecting it to "garment" and the other to "betrayal," citing examples and principles from the Talmud to support their interpretations.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 13:19:1

ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף, “Moses took the remains of Joseph, etc.” While the Israelites were still preoccupied with material concerns such as demanding silver and gold from the Egyptians, Moses was preoccupied with nobler matters, needs of the soul, by performing the commandment of seeing to it that Joseph would eventually be interred in Eretz Yisrael. This was in accordance with Proverbs 10,8 quoted in Sotah 13, that “he whose heart is wise accepts commands.” Joseph had acquired the merit of having brought his father Yaakov to burial in Eretz Yisrael; as a result he received the distinction of having his own remains taken out of Egypt by someone greater than him, by Moses. In return for having performed this commandment Moses himself was interred by someone greater than he himself, by the Almighty personally, as we know from Deut. 34,6: “He (G’d) buried him in the valley, etc.” I have discussed this matter in connection with Joseph’s death (Genesis 50,28). We have also found a Bereshit Rabbah 87,10 that Moses needed to take Joseph with him as otherwise he could not have split the Sea of Reeds. This miracle occurred as a compensation for Joseph who at the time had fled from the presence of his master Potiphar’s wife, placing himself in a most embarrassing situation by leaving his garments inside the house (Genesis 39,12). The Torah describes his departure there as וינס ויצא החוצה, “he fled-and went outside.” We find the same word וינס applied to the motion of the Sea when G’d (Moses) parted it (Psalms 114,3 ) הים ראה וינס, “the Sea saw and fled.” What did the Sea see which made it retreat? “It saw the remains of Joseph.” We find another similarity of expression between what happened to the brothers and Joseph and to something which happened at the Sea. In Genesis 50,21 when Joseph tries to calm his brothers’ fears that now that Yaakov was dead he would revenge himself on them, וינחם אותם וידבר על לבם, “he comforted them and spoke to their heart.” A the splitting of the Sea we find the expression (Exodus 15,8) בלב ים, “in the heart of the Sea.”

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 21:8:2

בבגדו בה, “seeing he has betrayed her.” He would have betrayed her if he sold her to a Gentile master. He can only sell her to someone who can wed her in accordance with Jewish law. There is a disagreement between the two scholars Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva (Kidushin 18) on the precise meaning here of the words בבגדו בה, “seeing he has betrayed her.” One of the scholars traces the word בבגדו to the word בגד, “garment,” whereas the other scholar understands is as בגידה, “betrayal.” Rabbi Akiva who holds that it is connected to בגד bases himself on the principle of יש אם למקרא that the reading of the text is more authoritative when it conflicts with the spelling. The reading is based on the word לו as we read the word לא as if it had been spelled with a ו, meaning the master had designated her for himself. By becoming betrothed to her master at the time she entered his service he had placed her under the protection of his mantle, figuratively speaking. Once her master had done this he is no longer free to sell her. Rabbi Eliezer, on the other and, believes that the spelling is of greater weight whenever there is an ambiguity in the meaning of the words, a principle known as יש אם למסורת. In our case the spelling of the word לא is with the letter א meaning “no” i.e. he had not betrothed her to himself. Rabbi Akiva sees an ambiguity even in the word בבגדו-בה itself, being convinced it means “when his garment was on her,” seeing that if it were derived from בגידה, betrayal, the vowel under the second letter ב should have been a chataf kametz instead of a chirik which is proof that it is derived from בגד, a word in which the basic vowel segol always turns into a chirik when it appears in the possessive form. The word בה is to be understood as עליה, “upon her.” The word בה also means עליה in Nechemyah 2,12 הבהמה אשר אני רוכב בה, “the beast which I ride on.” Rabbi Eliezer understands the word as derived from בגידה even though the vowel pattern does not appear to support his theory. The reason is that he considers the word not as a possessive form but as an infinitive. The vowel chirik as such would be perfectly in place. A Biblical example supporting his theory would be Leviticus 26,26 בשברי לכם מטה לחם, “when I break for you the staff of bread.” The reason the Torah writes בה, (according to Rabbi Eliezer) is that the preposition used with the word בגד, betray, is always the letter ב. To quote but two examples: (Malachi 2,14 and Malachi 2,15) אשת נעוריך אשר בגדת בה, “the wife of your youth whom you have betrayed; or ובאשת נעוריך אל יבגוד, “and let no one break faith with the wife of your youth.” On that same folio of the Talmud Rabbi Shimon holds that we pay halachic attention to both the spelling and the reading so that we can derive two rulings from the verse.

Rashbam on Leviticus 26:35:2

תשבות. Spelled plene, with the tone sign etnachta. If it were not for the tone sign it would have been spelled תשבת, tishbat, as in verse 34. Similar constructions are found in Genesis 11,28 וימת, or Genesis 39,12 וינס, whereas in Psalms 114,3 the spelling is וינוס, and in Genesis 5,5 it is וימות, all on account of the tone sign etnachta. (or end of verse).

Second Temple

The man of self-control chooses to leave behind passion and temptation in order to avoid being enslaved by it, as seen in the allegorical interpretation of Genesis 39:12 [240].

Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, Book III 85:3

[240] See, I seize and carry off part of what goes to produce her, and I declare that you would be unable to exist without using something productive of pleasure.” What does the man of self-control do? “If,” he says, “I am going to be a slave to passion for the sake of the matter that is productive of it, I will even leave passion behind and go forth outside”; for “leaving his garments in her hands he fled and went forth outside” (Gen. 39:12).

Talmud

The text discusses how the nations should provide witnesses to testify that the Jewish people have fulfilled the Torah, using examples from the lives of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph. It also explores the struggle between the Evil Urge and the Good Urge within a person, highlighting the righteous actions of Joseph, Rabbi Tzadok, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Eliezer the Great in resisting temptation and adhering to moral standards.

Avodah Zarah 3a:8

Instead, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says to the nations: Let the witnesses come from among you and testify that the Jewish people fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. Let Nimrod come and testify about Abraham that he did not engage in idol worship. Let Laban come and testify about Jacob that he is not suspect with regard to robbery (see Genesis 31:36–42). Let the wife of Potiphar come and testify about Joseph that he is not suspect with regard to the sin of adultery (see Genesis 39:7–12).

Avot DeRabbi Natan 16:2

The Evil Urge. How so? They say that for the first thirteen years [of a person’s life] the Evil Urge is greater than the Good Urge. There in his mother’s womb, a person’s Evil Urge grows with him. [After he emerges into the world,] he starts breaking the Sabbath, and nothing is there to stop him; [killing people, and nothing is there to stop him; going out to sin, and nothing is there to stop him.] After thirteen years, the Good Urge is born. Then when he breaks the Sabbath, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Exodus 31:14), “One who breaks it will surely die”? When he kills, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Genesis 9:6), “One who spills the blood of a person, his own blood will be spilled”? When he goes out to sin, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Leviticus 20:16), “Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”? When a person heats himself up, and then goes to commit some act of lewdness, all of his limbs will obey him, because the Evil Urge rules over all 248 limbs. When he goes to perform a mitzvah, his limbs begin to grow lazy, because the Evil Urge in his stomach rules over all 248 of a person’s limbs. The Good Urge, meanwhile, is like someone trapped in a prison, as it says (Ecclesiastes 4:14), “From the prison, he comes forth to rule” – that is the Good Urge. Some say, that verse refers to Joseph the Righteous, when that wicked woman came and tortured him with words. She said to him: I will lock you up in prison! He said to her: But God releases the bound. She said to him: I will poke out your eyes! He said: God gives sight to the blind. She said to him: I will bend you down! He said to her: God straightens the bent. (She said to him: I will make you into a wicked man! He said to her: God loves the righteous. She said to him: I will make you an Aramean! He said to her: God protects the strangers. Until finally he said [Genesis 39:9], “How can I do this evil thing?”) And do not be surprised at Joseph the Righteous. For behold, Rabbi Tzadok was the greatest of his generation when he was captured. And a matron took him and presented before him a beautiful maidservant. When he saw her, he turned his eyes to the wall so he would not see her. And he sat and recited his learning the whole night. In the morning, the maidservant left and complained to her mistress: I would rather die than be given to that man! The matron sent for him and said to him: Why didn’t you do with this woman as all people do? He said to her: What can I do? I come from the lineage of the high priest, from a great family! I said to myself, Perhaps I will sleep with her and increase mamzerim in Israel! When she heard this, she commanded he be released with great honor. (And they say:) Do not be surprised at Rabbi Tzadok. For behold, Rabbi Akiva was greater than him! When he went to Rome, informers slandered him to a local prefect, who then presented before him two beautiful women. [The prefect] bathed and anointed them dressed them up like brides, and they fell upon [Rabbi Akiva] the whole night. This one said: Come to me! And that one said: Come to me! But he sat between them and spat, and would not turn to them. They went before the prefect and said to him: We would rather die than be given to that man! He sent for [Rabbi Akiva] and said to him: Why didn’t you do with those women as all people do with women? Weren’t they beautiful? And weren’t they human beings just like you? Didn’t the One who created you create them as well? [Rabbi Akiva] said: What could I do? Their scent was worse to me than carcasses and vermin! And do not be surprised at Rabbi Akiva. For behold, Rabbi Eliezer the Great was greater than him. For he raised his sister’s daughter until she was thirteen, and she slept in bed with him until she began puberty. Then he said to her: Go, and marry a man. She said to him: Am I not your woman? Should I be given as a maidservant to wash the legs of your students? He said to her: My daughter, I am already an old man. Go and marry a young man like yourself. She said to him: Didn’t I already say to you, Am I not your woman? Should I be given as a maidservant to wash the legs of your students? When he heard her words, he got permission from her to marry her, and then had sexual relations with her.

Sotah 36b:13

The verse states: “And she caught him by his garment, saying: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:12). At that moment his father’s image [deyokeno] came and appeared to him in the window. The image said to him: Joseph, the names of your brothers are destined to be written on the stones of the ephod, and you are to be included among them. Do you desire your name to be erased from among them, and to be called an associate [ro’eh] of promiscuous women? As it is written: “But he who keeps company with harlots wastes his riches” (Proverbs 29:3), as he loses his honor, which is more valuable than wealth.

Targum

In Genesis 39:12, both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan recount the story of Joseph fleeing from Potiphar's wife after she tried to seduce him, leaving his garment behind as he ran out to the marketplace.

Onkelos Genesis 39:12

She grabbed him by his garment, saying, Be with me. He left his garment in her hand, and fled, and he went outside [to the marketplace].

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:12

that she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and went forth into the street.

וַיְהִי֙ כִּרְאוֹתָ֔הּ כִּֽי־עָזַ֥ב בִּגְד֖וֹ בְּיָדָ֑הּ וַיָּ֖נׇס הַחֽוּצָה׃ 13 J When she saw that he had left it in her hand and had fled outside,
Chasidut explains how Rachel's physical attributes symbolize the attribute of harmony, which can elevate physical matters spiritually. Joseph used this attribute to avoid sinning when faced with temptation from Potiphar's wife, who falsely accused him to avoid shame. Musar compares Joseph leaving his garment with Mrs. Potiphar to Queen Esther taking control of the kingdom without relations with the king. Targum describes Joseph fleeing from Potiphar's wife, leaving his garment as evidence of her false accusations.

Chasidut

The Torah mentions Rachel's physical attributes to highlight the spiritual significance of the attribute of harmony, known as תפארת, which Yaakov used in serving the Lord. This attribute can elevate any physical matter containing a "spark" from it, bringing the host closer to its roots in the celestial regions. Joseph, when faced with temptation, also utilized תפארת to avoid sinning, as seen in his escape from Potiphar's wife who used her mode of dress to lure him into a sinful relationship. Additionally, every tzaddik who serves the Lord will be granted a vision of the tzaddik who had made that attribute his primary role model in serving the Lord, as seen when Joseph had a vision of his father at the critical moment before the seduction.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayetzei 23

Genesis 29,11. “Yaakov gave Rachel a kiss, etc;” ‎‎[note that the Torah does not refer to Rachel’s physical ‎appearance until verse 17 after Yaakov had already worked for ‎him for over a month. Ed.]‎ Genesis 29,17. “and Rachel was shapely and ‎beautiful.” At first glance it is surprising that the Torah ‎appears to link Yaakov’s falling in love with Rachel in verse 18, ‎ויאהב יעקב את רחל‎, “Yaakov loved Rachel,” to the description ‎of her physical assets in verse 17. Is it possible that Yaakov, the ‎most highly admired of our patriarchs, was attracted by Rachel’s ‎physical features, and that this is why the Torah reports matters ‎in this sequence? Our sages called our attention to Yaakov’s ‎message to his brother Esau in Genesis 32,4 where he told him ‎עם ‏לבן גרתי‎, ”I have remained a stranger while with Lavan, etc.” The ‎numerical value of the letters in the word ‎גרתי‎, equals 613, the ‎number of commandments in the Torah. Yaakov reminded his ‎brother that during the entire period that he spent in Charan he ‎had observed the Torah, and therefore had little to fear. A man ‎who could make such a statement certainly did not marry Rachel ‎because he was smitten by lust to possess her shapely body. ‎Anyone who observes the 613 commandments is well aware of ‎the statement by Solomon in Proverbs 31,30 that ‎שקר החן והבך ‏היופי‎, that external attributes such as physical beauty or even a ‎graceful walk, etc., are deceptive and offer no clue to the owner’s ‎character.‎ We must look further for the reason why the Torah made a ‎point of mentioning Rachel’s physical attributes. I have heard ‎from my revered teacher the Maggid of Mezeritch Dov Baer, of ‎sainted memory, that we must understand this as follows. We ‎know that the principal attribute used by Yaakov in serving the ‎Lord is the attribute known as ‎תפארת‎, harmony, located in the ‎center of diagrams of the 10 emanations, ‎ספירות‎. Any physical ‎matter on earth, containing a “spark” from this emanation, is ‎spiritually elevated by the presence of this spark, regardless of ‎how secular it is by nature. Through this spark of the attribute of ‎תפארת‎, its host is brought closer to its roots in the celestial ‎regions, and engages in some degree of service to the Lord.‎ We must look further for the reason why the Torah made a ‎point of mentioning Rachel’s physical attributes. I have heard ‎from my revered teacher the Maggid of Mezeritch Dov Baer, of ‎sainted memory, that we must understand this as follows. We ‎know that the principal attribute used by Yaakov in serving the ‎Lord is the attribute known as ‎תפארת‎, harmony, located in the ‎center of diagrams of the 10 emanations, ‎ספירות‎. Any physical ‎matter on earth, containing a “spark” from this emanation, is ‎spiritually elevated by the presence of this spark, regardless of ‎how secular it is by nature. Through this spark of the attribute of ‎תפארת‎, its host is brought closer to its roots in the celestial ‎regions, and engages in some degree of service to the Lord.‎ When the Torah (Genesis 39,13) reports that Joseph ‎וינס ויצא ‏החוצה‎, “fled and went “outside,” to escape the efforts of ‎Potiphar’s wife to seduce him, he did so because he realized that ‎that woman had used her mode of dress to lure him into a sinful ‎relationship (Yuma 35). She had employed whatever holy ‎spark she possessed in a reverse manner, instead of a means to ‎come closer to her Creator. When Joseph escaped from her ‎presence he took with him this “holy spark” thereby serving his ‎Creator and paving the way for this “spark” that had escaped ‎from the Shechinah to find its way back to its roots.‎ It is known that Joseph, though, of course also serving the ‎Lord, did not do so by using principally the attribute of harmony ‎as his father was in the habit of doing. However, at this critical ‎juncture, in his fateful seclusion with the wife of his master ‎Potiphar, he resorted to the attribute of ‎תפארת‎ as the means to ‎avoid sinning.‎ It is also known that every tzaddik who serves the Lord, ‎regardless of which of the attributes in the diagram of the ‎emanations he uses as his primary model, will be granted a vision ‎of the tzaddik who had made that attribute his primary role ‎model in serving the Lord. When the Talmud Sotah 36 ‎relates that at the critical moment before the seduction, Joseph ‎had a vision of his father, it is a vision of the emanation of ‎תפארת‎ ‎that the Talmud refers to as having been seen by Joseph.‎

Commentary

Potiphar's wife felt insulted and feared being exposed for her nefarious conduct after Joseph refused her advances and fled, leaving his garment behind. She believed that if Potiphar questioned Joseph about the incident, he would be forced to disclose the truth, leading her to falsely accuse Joseph of trying to seduce her to avoid shame and blame.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:13:1

She, for her part, seeing that he had left his robe in her hand and had fled outside naked – something which is not done – thought that, without doubt, if his master arrived on the scene, he would question him as to what had occurred, and Joseph would be compelled to reply to him to excuse himself for walking about outside the house naked; and that when he would tell him the truth as to what had taken place, her nefarious conduct would become public knowledge. This, then, is the correct interpretation of the verse: ‘Now it transpired, that when she saw that he had left his robe in her hand and fled outside’ (39:13) – for had he not done both these things, she would not have suspected him of revealing the incident; just as she too had not disclosed it till now. However, as he had fled outside naked, whoever saw him – and most certainly his master – would be prompted to demand an explanation from him; and he in turn would be forced to disclose the incident. It was due to such considerations (only) that she (decided to) act cunningly, for fear of the shame she would suffer on being discovered by the members of the household. Hence she herself publicized the affair, by exclaiming:(39:14): ‘Look how he (my husband) has brought us a Hebrew man’ – an enemy of the Egyptian nation – and promoted him over his household; and he, for his part, perceiving this, had the temerity to mock me!’ [in the sense of the Biblical verse (Proverbs 29:21): ‘he who pampers his slave from his youth will ultimately find the slave lording it over him!’] With such an interpretation of the passage, the third question we initially posed has been satisfactorily resolved.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:13

It was when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and had fled outside. When she realized that even now, Joseph refused to lie with her, she could no longer rationalize his refusal by claiming that it was as an attempt to tease her, or that he rejected her until a more opportune time would present itself. She now felt immensely insulted, whether because she failed to achieve her desire, or because the lowly servant Joseph had the audacity to refuse her demands.

Musar

Jacob felt entitled to impersonate Esau because he had already received the benefits of being his twin. This is similar to Queen Esther, who, after becoming queen, took control of the kingdom without actually having relations with the king, similar to Joseph leaving his deceptive garment with Mrs. Potiphar. The mystical significance of clothing in this context is important to understand.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Toldot, Torah Ohr 109

When Jacob realized that he had already become the beneficiary of being Esau's twin, as we explained earlier, he felt entitled to describe himself as "I am your firstborn Esau, I have done as you have commanded me." We can understand this still better when considering a statement by the Zohar Parshat Vayetze (Sullam edition page 3), which states that after Queen Esther was appointed queen, and ותלבש מלכות, wore the royal robes, she assumed control both of Ahasverus and of his entire kingdom. Though they shared the same bedroom she never had marital relations with the king. She behaved like Joseph of whom the Torah says that he left his בגדו in the hands of Mrs. Potiphar (Genesis 39, 13). The word בגד suggests something that is deceptive like the בוגד, traitor. It is also an outer garment, concealing the true person underneath. Had the Torah used the term לבוש, it would not have a doubtful meaning. The king, who is described as having loved Esther more than any other woman (Esther 2,17), really consorted only with a demon who assumed the guise of Esther's outer garments. Whoever appreciates the mystical significance of התלבשות, will understand what I have in mind.

Targum

Both Targums describe the moment when Joseph fled from Potiphar's wife, leaving his garment behind in her hand as evidence of her false accusations.

Onkelos Genesis 39:13

It was when she saw that he left his garment in her hand and had fled outside [to the marketplace],

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:13

And when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and had gone forth into the street,

וַתִּקְרָ֞א לְאַנְשֵׁ֣י בֵיתָ֗הּ וַתֹּ֤אמֶר לָהֶם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר רְא֗וּ הֵ֥בִיא לָ֛נוּ אִ֥ישׁ עִבְרִ֖י לְצַ֣חֶק בָּ֑נוּ בָּ֤א אֵלַי֙ לִשְׁכַּ֣ב עִמִּ֔י וָאֶקְרָ֖א בְּק֥וֹל גָּדֽוֹל׃ 14 J she called out to her servants and said to them, “Look, he had to bring us a Hebrew to dally with us! This one came to lie with me; but I screamed loud.
Potiphar's wife falsely accused Joseph of trying to take advantage of her, using his Hebrew identity against him and exaggerating the situation to gain support. Joseph's righteousness and wisdom ultimately led to his success in Egypt, as emphasized in various Midrashim. The Second Temple commentary praises Abraham and Joseph for rejecting lusts and passions, while the Targum depicts Potiphar's wife's false accusations in a dramatic manner. Abraham in Mamre received news from a fugitive in Genesis 14:13.

Commentary

Potiphar's wife accused Joseph of trying to take advantage of her, referring to him as a Hebrew man that her husband had brought into their home, indicating that Hebrews were despised by the Egyptians. She called the members of her household to testify, exaggerating Joseph's actions to make her version of events believable and to ensure their support in her accusations against him. Joseph escaped the situation, leaving his garment behind, which Potiphar's wife used as evidence to support her false claims.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 39:14:1

HE HATH BROUGHT UNTO US. That is, my husband. (Our verse is short for: my husband hath brought unto us (Weiser).)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:14:1

ותקרא לאנשי ביתה, she called the members of her household, etc. She was well aware that her husband put great faith in Joseph's righteousness and might not believe her accusation against him. Therefore she called the members of her household asking them, i.e. לאמור to tell her husband what had happened (according to her version). The members of her household who were jealous of Joseph who had risen above them would be happy to testify against him, saying: "look what happened as a result of your bringing this Hebrew man into the house." When she said לצחק בנו, "to make sport of us," she used the word us deliberately to indicate that they had all suffered from Joseph's elevated status, especially since Joseph was an alien.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:14:2

It is also possible that when Mrs Potiphar said ראו, look! that she invited the members of the household to testify only to what they had seen; the Torah describes this as לאמור ראו, "say what you have seen." She included her husband in her accusation in the event he would find excuses for Joseph's alleged behaviour.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:14:1-2

ראו! הביא לנו איש עברי, “see here! he has brought to us a Hebrew man to make sport with us.” Mrs. Potiphar did not name the subject of “he brought,” i.e. her husband. The reason she did not mention her husband by name is related to a feminine tactic not to directly embarrass their husbands. The reason she described Joseph as איש עברי, “a Hebrew man,” was because both Joseph and his forefathers were considered as “newcomers,” even in the land of Canaan seeing they had immigrated from beyond the river Euphrates. לצחק בנו, “to make sport with us.” The term is one used for sexual license such as in Proverbs 10,23: “just as to a fool carnality is like a sport, etc.” בא אלי לשכב עמי, “he came to me in order to have sexual intercourse with me.” She inflated her ego, claiming that Joseph had initiated the request to have sex with her, whereas she had initiated the request to be intimate with Joseph. According to Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 6, the above words are an illustration of why Solomon warned in Kohelet 7,26: “and I have discovered that a woman whose heart is snares and nets is worse than death.” Rabbi Yehudah son of Shalom added: “there is no worse cause of sin than woman; whereas we find that three thousand Jewish males were slain for having worshipped the golden calf, (Exodus 32,28), twenty-four thousand Jewish males were killed due to the seduction by the Mobaite and Midianite women reported in Numbers 28,9”. What is the meaning of the words אסורים ידיה “her hands are tied?” If G’d had not tied woman’s hands she would accost man in the marketplace demanding that he have carnal relations with her. Kohelet continues by saying that “he who is pleasing to G’d will escape the machinations of such a woman whereas the sinner will be trapped by her.” The “man pleasing to G’d” is a reference to Joseph who escaped the wife of Potiphar, where the “sinner” is a reference to Zimri, prince of the tribe of Shimon, who slept with Cosbi the Midianite during the encounter described in Numbers. When G’d created Chavah, (first woman) He had said to Himself: “which part of Adam shall I use to make into woman? If I use the head she will be of haughty spirit. If I use Adam’s eyes as raw material she will possess insatiable curiosity. If I create her from part of Adam’s mouth she will babble interminably. If I construct her out of part of Adam’s ear, she will turn out to be extremely inquisitive. If I create her out of Adam’s hands, she may turn out to be a thief, whereas if I construct her from part of Adam’s legs, she will constantly roam outside her house. What did G’d do? He formed Chavah from the rib, a place well hidden from Adam’s exterior so that she would be chaste and remain primarily indoors. In spite of the fact that G’d took care not to construct Chavah from one of the organs which would made her prone to the afore-mentioned character weaknesses, we find that she possessed these weaknesses after all. She is described as haughty in Isaiah 3 16, “because the daughters of Zion are so vain and walk with their heads thrown back, with roving eyes, and with mincing gait, etc.” Although G’d did not use part of Adam’s eyes as raw material from which to form Chavah we still find that she was insatiably curious as the prophet records her as possessing “roving eyes.” We also find that the Torah writes (Genesis 3,6) “the woman saw that the tree was good to eat and alluring for the eyes.” Even though G’d did not utilise any of Adam’s hands to create woman she still became a thief as the Torah writes (Genesis 30,15) “Rachel stole the teraphim.” Even though G’d did not use any part of Adam’s ears in order to make Chavah, she became unduly curious as we know from Sarah who is reported as listening to the conversation between Avraham and the angels “at the entrance to the tent” in Genesis 18,10. Even though G’d also did not use any part of Adam’s legs or feet to make Chavah, she still developed the tendency to roam outside her home as we know from Dinah, the daughter of Yaakov and Leah of whom the Torah reports that “she went out to look around amongst the girls of the country”’ (Genesis 34,1). Dinah’s mother Leah has also been described as leaving her home needlessly when the Torah writes (Genesis 30,15) “Leah went out, etc.” We know that Leah was babbling when the Torah describes her as accusing her sister Rachel of taking her husband away from her (Genesis 30,15), an accusation which was quite unwarranted. All this happened although G’d had not made Chavah from any part of Adam’s mouth.

Radak on Genesis 39:14:1

ותקרא לאנשי ביתה, how is that possible seeing that none of them were in the house at the time?ואקרא בקול גדול.ותאמר..לאמר, to tell her husband.

Radak on Genesis 39:14:2

הביא לנו, they said to him (accusingly) how he could have brought such a man.

Radak on Genesis 39:14:3

בנו, a word denoting glory, i.e. how could he be “over us, in a superior position?”

Ramban on Genesis 39:14:1

SEE, HE HATH BROUGHT IN A HEBREW UNTO US. The meaning thereof is that the Hebrews were hated by the Egyptians. They did not eat with them, this being a matter of abhorrence to them. (See further, 43:32.) They did not purchase them as servants except as vinedressers and plowmen, but they would not permit them to come into their homes. This is why she said: “Behold, the master has done us evil by bringing a Hebrew into our home, and he has further appointed him as overseer and ruler, and now he has fittingly seen to mock us.” [The point of her statement] is similar to that which is said in the verse, He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become a master at the last. (Proverbs 29:21.) This is the meaning of her saying, Whom thou hast brought unto us, (Verse 17 here.) as his being brought into their house was in itself embarassing to them. In the verse before us, the expression, He has brought us, refers to her husband. She does not mention him by name out of respect, (In view of the fact that she blames him for what happened.) or perhaps because such is the ethical way for women to speak, or perhaps because it is known who brought Joseph into the house. Similarly, in many places in the book of Job it speaks of Almighty G-d anonymously because the conversants know that they are speaking of Him. Similarly, in the verse, And he said to Abner, Why hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine? (II Samuel 3:7.) the name of the speaker is not mentioned, and no reference is made to him at all in the above verse because it is known that he was Ish-bosheth. (Of “the house of Saul,” mentioned there in Verse 6. And it is already self-understood that the speaker in Verse 7 is Ish-bosheth, as he was the leader of the house of Saul. (R’dak.))

Rashbam on Genesis 39:14:1

ואקרא בקול גדול, because you were so far away from me. If I had not raised my voice so greatly he would have raped me.

Rashi on Genesis 39:14:1

ראו הביא לנו SEE, HE HATH BROUGHT IN UNTO US — This is an elliptical phrase: “he hath brought in to us” without stating plainly who brought him in She was referring to her husband.

Rashi on Genesis 39:14:2

עברי A HEBREW — is one who came from the other side (עבר) of the river Euphrates, being at the same time of the sons of Eber (אדניו).

Sforno on Genesis 39:14:1

ותקרא לאנשי ביתה, in order to justify her conduct. However, when she saw that Joseph had stopped running after leaving the room where she had waylaid him, and the fact that the people in her house had no reason to question Joseph who was acting perfectly normally, she told those people that Joseph had fled from her room and walked outside, something which actually corresponded to the truth as far as the facts were concerned. (verse 15) However, when relating what had supposedly occurred to her husband who had not been an eye witness to any part of the incident, she described Joseph’s behaviour as a flight not only from her room but also outside of it. (verse 18) In order to make her version of events believable she had to lie so that Joseph would be perceived as having tried to escape from the other members of the household.

Sforno on Genesis 39:14:2

לצחק בנו, to take sexual liberties with us.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:14:1

From the other side of the river. One who is a descendant of Eiver. [Question:] On the verse, “He told Avram the Hebrew” (14:13), Rashi explained: “He came from the other side of the river.” Why did he not he also explain, “A descendant of Eiver”? The answer is: “The other side of the river” is a sufficient explanation for Avraham, who came from there himself. But for Avraham’s descendants it is not sufficient, as they did not come from there, so Rashi needed both explanations. And it is not sufficient to say only that they are descendants of Eiver, because why should they be called after Eiver, and not after Shem? (Gur Aryeh)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:14

Potifar’s wife sought to protect her dignity and simultaneously take revenge against Joseph. She called to the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying: See, he, Potifar, brought to us a Hebrew man to ridicule us (see 19:14). Alternatively, the verse means: He brought to us a Hebrew man to abuse us. 33 He came to me to lie with me, and I, being a decent woman, cried out immediately with a loud voice.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:14:1

ראו הביא לנו איש עברי, “see here! He brought us a Hebrew man.” Mrs. Potiphar referred to the “Hebrew” as universally known antagonists of the Egyptians, a reason why the Egyptians would not acquire “Hebrews” as slaves, except to work in the vineyards and other menial occupations in the fields. They were never allowed into the homes of upper class Egyptians. Mrs Potiphar voiced her disgust with her husband who not only had taken a slave of such parentage into their house, but had even elevated him to be the most powerful person in the whole household. It was not surprising therefore that an עברי slave who had been promoted to such a position would begin to take advantage of it and treat all of us as his inferiors, abusing us, as he has just tried to do with me. She deliberately left out a direct reference to her husband, as she wanted to insure that the members of the household would support her.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 110

“She called out to her servants” [39:14]. When she saw that Joseph had run out, she called out and shouted to her household that Joseph had wanted to forcibly sleep with her. Joseph heard that I was shouting and he ran out, leaving his garment with me. Hizkuni writes. She said that Joseph had removed his garment in order to forcibly sleep with her. That is why he forgot the garment and ran away quickly. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 39:12.)

Midrash

In Bereshit Rabbah 87:8, the text discusses how Joseph's righteousness and avoidance of sin led to his eventual reward and success in Egypt. In Bereshit Rabbah 88:1, the text highlights the importance of acknowledging one's land and avoiding transgressions to receive blessings. In Bamidbar Rabbah 14:7, the text connects Joseph's actions to his future reward and honors in Egypt. In Devarim Rabbah 2:8, the text emphasizes the importance of observing mitzvot and avoiding transgressions to receive divine protection and blessings. In Bamidbar Rabbah 14:6, the text discusses how Joseph's actions of righteousness and wisdom led to his eventual success and reward.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:6

“On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:54). “On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” – that is what is written: “I keep the king’s directive, [and in regard to the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). If the king will say to you that his fear shall be upon you and you shall observe his decrees, observe his decrees. Likewise, it says: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) – that his fear shall be upon you. And it says: “Any man who will disobey your directive, [and does not heed your words in everything that you command him, will be put to death]” (Joshua 1:18). “I” that is written here is nothing other than fear of the monarchy, just as Pharaoh said to Joseph. That is what is written: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, and without you no man shall lift his hand…” (Genesis 41:44). What is “I am Pharaoh”? This is what Pharaoh said to Joseph: Even though I said to you: “You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:40) – that I made you king over everyone – be careful to treat me with respect and make me king over you. That is why he said: “I am Pharaoh” – in other words, that the fear of my kingship shall be upon you. Similarly, “God spoke to Moses, and He said to him: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:2) – why was it necessary to say here: “I am the Lord”? Rather, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: Even though I set you as a god for Pharaoh, as the verse states: “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1) be careful that my Godliness will be upon you, as I made you a god only over Pharaoh alone. That is, “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is “I” who requires you to “keep the king’s directive” – that his fear shall be upon you. Make certain that you do not flout his commands. Is it, perhaps, even if he tells you to violate the words of the Omnipresent? The verse states: “And in regard to the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – the verse comes to inform you that “and in regard to the word of an oath of God” will be paramount over the command of flesh and blood, as you should nullify the will of flesh and blood before the will of God and fulfill all the commandments that are in the Torah, as you entered into an oath in their regard to fulfill them, just as it says: “To pass you into the covenant of the Lord your God and into His oath…” (Deuteronomy 29:11), and it says: “[Cursed be] who will not uphold the matters of this Torah to perform them; and the entire people shall say: Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:26). Similarly, “each of you shall fear his mother and his father…” (Leviticus 19:3) – is it, perhaps, even if his father said to him: Slaughter for me and cook for me on Shabbat, that he should listen to him? The verse states: “And you shall observe My Shabbatot” (Leviticus 19:3) – all of you are obligated in My honor. Here too, “and the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as above the word of the king observe the word of an oath to God. “Do not be frightened; leave his presence [mipanav]; [do not remain in a bad situation, as he will do what he wills]” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). If [a king of] flesh and blood will become angry at you in order to cause you to violate the statutes of the Torah, do not be frightened by his anger and follow his counsel, just as it says: “Who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalms 1:1). Panav is nothing other than his anger, just as it says: “And the expression on his face [anpohi] was distorted” (Daniel 3:19). That is, “leave his presence”; “do not remain in a bad situation [bedavar]” – do not remain in his path to follow it, just as it says: “And did not remain in the path of sinners” (Psalms 1:1). What is “bedavar” (Ecclesiastes 8:3)? It is that you should not fear that evil matter, that he will say to you that he will burn you, kill you, or subject you to harsh suffering if you do not fulfill his decree, and he will threaten you that there is no God in the world who will be able to rescue you from his hand. That is what is written thereafter: “As he will do what he wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). Just as Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya: “At that time you will be cast into the burning fiery furnace; who is the god who will save you from my hands?” (Daniel 3:15). “Since authority is by the king’s word, [who will say to him: What are you doing?]” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). If you devote yourself to the mitzvot to fulfill the decree of the Holy One blessed be He and to nullify the decrees of flesh and blood, what is your reward? When the Holy One blessed be He issues a decree to bring calamity to the world – as he is the King of the world and Ruler of everything, to do everything that He desires and no one can impede him: “He is of one mind, and who can respond to Him? His soul desires, and He does” (Job 23:13) – you will stand and ask for mercy regarding the decree to abrogate it. The Holy One blessed be He will show forbearance to you, and He will nullify it because you nullified the decree of flesh and blood in order to fulfill His decree. That is why it is stated: “Since authority is by the king’s word” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, when He says to bring something to the world to inform of his authority in the world, just as it says: “God caused that they would experience fear before Him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). Know, who can impede His decree and say to Him: ‘Why are You doing so’? It is one who observes mitzvot. That is why it is stated: “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” Who can say to Him: ‘Why are You doing this to Your creations? Descend to them with the attribute of mercy’? That is one who observes His mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva [will know no evil matter]” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5)? It is measure for measure; he did not remain in a bad situation, therefore, “he will know no evil matter.” “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – as there is a wise man who considers the consequences and reckons the loss from a mitzva against its reward and the loss from a transgression against its reward. He considers in his heart: If I transgress His mitzvot, and I have an opportunity to do what I want and there is no one who can impede me, tomorrow, the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him (Referring to himself.) because he violated His Torah. Likewise it says: “The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool [walks in darkness]” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). And it says: “The heart of the wise inclines to his right, [and the heart of a fool inclines to his left]” (Ecclesiastes 10:2). “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” – one whose heart is wise knows that if he transgresses the mitzvot, that the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him, and he refrains from the transgression. That is what is written thereafter: “For there is a time and a judgment for every matter…” (Ecclesiastes 8:6) – regarding every situation where a person performs his will and nullifies the will of the Omnipresent, it should be known to him that he is destined to be judged. Even though retribution is not exacted from him immediately, let him not think that the Holy One blessed be He would overlook his iniquity for him, but rather, He is slow to anger and collects what is due to Him. When does He exact retribution from him? It is when the hin is filled. Likewise it says: “With the filling of his quota, he will be troubled; [the hand of all travail will come upon him]” (Job 20:22). That is why it is stated: “As the evil of man overwhelms him” (Ecclesiastes 8:6); just as He did with the generation of the Flood, as He gave them an extension but ultimately exacted retribution from them, just as it says: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…” (Genesis 6:5). What is written thereafter? “The Lord said: I will obliterate man…” (Genesis 6:7). “For he does not know what will be, [for whenever it will be, who will have told him]?” (Ecclesiastes 8:7). The verse comes to teach you that anyone who does not repent from a transgression that he committed and does not fear the Day of Judgment, when it will arrive they will not show him forbearance. Were he to come and say that he be given an extension so he could repent, they will not listen to him. That is, for whenever punishment “will be, who will have told him” so he would repent and be accepted. It is to say to you that prior to the sentence they listen to him; after the sentence they do not listen to him. That is why it is stated: “For whenever it will be, who will have told him?” “There is no man who rules the spirit [to retain the spirit, and there is no rule on the day of death, and there is no sending a proxy in war, and wickedness will not rescue its owner]” (Ecclesiastes 8:8) – because we found that the Holy One blessed be He decreed four court-imposed death penalties for performers of transgressions. That is why four matters are written here, corresponding to them, where the living lack the ability to be rescued from them after their sentence. These are: “There is no man who rules the spirit [ruaḥ] to retain the spirit” – this is death by strangulation and the like, as a person dies from it only due to breath [ruaḥ], as he has no place from which to breathe. That is, “there is no man who rules the spirit” to exhale it when the day comes that the breath will be constricted in his body. “And there is no rule on the day of death” – this is death by stoning and the like, just as it says: “You shall stone him with stones, and he will die” (Deuteronomy 13:11). “There is no sending a proxy in war” – this is death by decapitation by sword and the like, just as it says: “Go out and wage war with Amalek” (Exodus 17:9), and it is written: “Joshua weakened [Amalek and its people by sword]” (Exodus 17:13). “And wickedness will not rescue its owner” – this is death by burning and the like, just as it says: “All the criminals and all the doers of wickedness will be straw; the day that is coming will burn them…” (Malachi 3:19). These are the four court-imposed death penalties mentioned in this verse. Even though the Sanhedrin ceased and the four court-imposed death penalties were abrogated, the sentence of the four court-imposed death penalties were not abrogated, as the Holy One blessed be He judges the living to die of them with harsh punishments corresponding to them. One who incurs liability to be strangled either drowns in the river, dies of diphtheria, or is delivered into the hands of idol worshippers who strangle him. One who incurs liability to be stoned either falls off the roof, or a beast tramples him, or idol worshippers stone him. One who incurs liability to be beheaded, robbers come upon him and behead him. One who incurs liability to be burned either falls into the fire or a snake bites him. You learned that a person cannot escape the judgment of the Holy One blessed be He that He will not punish him measure for measure. That is why it is stated: “There is no man who rules the spirit….” (Ecclesiastes 8:8). Another matter: “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is speaking of Joseph the righteous, who observed the “I” that Pharaoh had said to him, just as it says: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, [and without you no man shall lift his hand]” (Genesis 41:44), as he never flouted his command. “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as even though he entered into that prominence, he did not throw the yoke of Heaven from upon him and he feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “[I fear] God” (Genesis 42:18). That is why “God” is stated. (According to the Etz Yosef, the midrash is explaining that this is an allusion to the verse, “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2).) He was very cautious regarding the oath, as he did not take an oath “as the Lord lives,” but rather, “as Pharaoh lives, that you will not depart from here” (Genesis 42:15). That is, “an oath.” What is “the word of [divrat]”? It is because he separated himself from lasciviousness, just as it says: “He shall not see a lascivious matter [davar] in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it says: The young woman, because [al devar] she did not cry out in the city…” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Likewise it says: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). What is written there? “He refused, and he said to his master’s wife: Behold, my master…” (Genesis 39:8). That is why it is stated: “The word of [divrat],” just as it says: “It was, as she spoke [kedabra] to Joseph day after day, and he did not heed her…” (Genesis 39:10). “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence” – when he entered the house to perform his labor, and the house was vacant and there was no person who could see him, just as it is written: “It was, on a certain day he went into the house to perform his labor, and there was no one [of the people of the household there in the house]” (Genesis 39:11), she came and seized his garment so that he would lie with her. Nevertheless, he was not frightened by her actions, and he went outside, just as it says: “He left his garment in her hand, fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). That is why it is stated: “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence.” He was not frightened by the house being vacant, but rather he fled and left, even though she said to him that if he would not lie with her, she would say to her husband that he sought to rape her, and her husband will kill him, and there would be no one to impede him, because he is his slave. Nevertheless, he did not allow her to fulfill her desire because of that evil matter that she threatened to do to him. That is why it says: “Do not remain in a bad situation, as God will do what He wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). From where do you derive that she threatened him in that manner? It is from the end of the matter. When she saw that her actions were to no avail, look at what she did: “She called to the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying.… It was, when he heard.… She placed his garment [beside her, until his master’s arrival home]. She spoke to him…[saying: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to me to mock me]. It was, as I raised my voice [and cried out, that he left his garment with me, and fled outside]” (Genesis 39:14–18). “Since authority is by the king’s word…” (Ecclesiastes 8:4) – what reward did the Holy One blessed be He give him for this? He placed him in a position of authority in the land of Egypt. That is what is written: “Since [authority is] by the king’s word…,” just as it says: “Pharaoh spoke to Joseph: In my dream, behold, I am…” (Genesis 41:17). “Authority” – just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4), just as it says: “Go to Joseph; what he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). Why to that extent? It is because he observed the mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter”? It is this evil matter that the butler said, just as it says: “There with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief executioner…” (Genesis 41:12). He said three matters here in Joseph’s regard: “Lad” – that he was a fool, just as it says: “Folly is bound in the heart of a lad” (Proverbs 22:15); “Hebrew” – an enemy; “slave” – that he is not worthy of kingship. Nevertheless, Joseph knew no evil matter. In other words, the matter did not affect him, as he ruled. “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this was Joseph, who was called wise, just as it says: “There is no one as wise and understanding as you” (Genesis 41:39). He knew that he would be held accountable had he touched Potifar’s wife; that is why he withdrew from her. That is what is written: “He did not heed her [to lie with her, to be with her]” (Genesis 39:10); “to lie with her” in this world; “to be with her” in the World to Come. Another matter: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this is the Holy One blessed be He, in whose regard it is written: “Wise of heart and mighty of power” (Job 9:4). He brought about a time to reward Joseph on the basis of measure for measure. How so? He ruled over his inclination and did not touch her; therefore, he became a ruler, just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). He did not heed her, just as it says: “He did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10); therefore, the Holy One blessed be He crowned him as king over Egypt in its entirety, and everyone heeded his words, just as it says: “What he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). His mouth [piv] did not kiss [nashak] in transgression; therefore, “at your directive [pikha] my entire people will be sustained [yishak]” (Genesis 41:40). He said: “There is no one greater in this house than I…” (Genesis 39:9) in order to rebuff her; therefore, “you will be in charge of my house” (Genesis 41:40). He did not seize her, but she seized him with her hands, just as it says: “She seized him by his garment…” (Genesis 39:12); therefore, “Pharaoh removed his signet ring from upon his hand, and he placed it upon Joseph’s hand” (Genesis 41:42). He left his garment in her hand; therefore, “he dressed him in linen garments” (Genesis 41:42). He did not bend his neck toward her; therefore, “he placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42). He did not mount [rakhav] her; therefore, “he had him ride [vayarkev] in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43). She called the people of her household in this regard, just as it says: “She called the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14); therefore, “they called before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43). He was relegated to the prison for this, just as it says: “He relegated him [vayitenehu] to the prison” (Genesis 39:20); therefore, “he appointed him [venaton oto] over the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:43). He did not direct his glance toward her, and not toward the Egyptian women when he ruled, just as it says: “Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful bough alongside a spring [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22), as he averted his eye [she’ilem eino] from Potifar’s wife and from the Egyptian women. “Branches [banot] (Banot can also mean women.) ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22). Therefore, alei shur. Rabbi Reuven said: What is alei shur? The Holy One blessed be He said: It is incumbent upon me to pay a reward for that eye. How so? The Rabbis taught that in the Temple they would eat offerings of lesser sanctity within the wall, within the wall of Jerusalem. But in Shilo, which was in the portion of Joseph, they would eat it within eyeshot. (Within eyeshot of the Tabernacle (Rambam, Mishna Zevaḥim 14:6).) That is alei shur, just as it says: “The eye of one who sees me will not behold me [teshureni]” (Job 7:8). Rabbi Azarya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Joseph: You observed the mitzva of: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), which is the seventh of the Commandments, and you did not commit adultery with Potifar’s wife. And you observed the mitzva of: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), which is the eighth of the Commandments, as you did not steal Potifar’s property and you did not “steal” his wife, just as it says: “The eye of the adulterer observes the night, saying: No eye will behold [teshureni] me…” (Job 24:15). The time will come when I will repay you for them. Tomorrow, when the princes come to bring [offerings] for the dedication of the altar, the princes of your two sons, one will present his offering on the seventh day, and the second on the eighth day. And no other tribe will interpose between your two sons, just as you did not interpose (Namely, you did not differentiate between them. You observed both of them. As a reward, Benjamin did not interpose between Ephraim and Manasseh.) between “you shall not commit adultery” and “you shall not steal,” as it is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim.… On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh…” (Numbers 7:48–54) That is why it is written: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:7

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:55). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]…” – do not read it as kaarat, but rather as akart, corresponding to Jacob, who extracted [akar] the birthright (The birthright refers to the extra portion of the inheritance that the eldest son received.) from Reuben and gave it to Joseph: “I have given you one portion more than your brothers…” (Genesis 48:22). “Silver” – just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20), just as he (Silver alludes to the statement made by Jacob, who was righteous.) said: “Ephraim and Manasseh will be for me like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – when Jacob descended to Egypt on account of Joseph, he was one hundred and thirty years old, as it is stated: “Jacob said to Pharaoh: The days of the years of my residence are one hundred and thirty years” (Genesis 47:9). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – corresponding to Joseph, who was cast [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “Silver” – after: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20) – what he said to his father (Silver alludes to the statement made by Joseph, who was righteous.) : “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn; place your right hand upon his head” (Genesis 48:18). “Seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” – as it was through him that seventy people descended to Egypt. “Both of them full…” – Jacob and Joseph, both of them were full-fledged righteous men and both produced tribes. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:56). “One gold ladle of ten shekels…” – corresponding to the ten districts of Manasseh, as it is stated: “Ten districts fell to Manasseh” (Joshua 17:5). “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:57). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:58). “One young bull, one ram [one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering]; one goat…” – these (This is a reference to the three burnt offerings.) are three corresponding to the three generations that Joseph saw from Manasseh that received a portion in the land, (This is a reference to the fact that there were three major families named after the three generations following Manasseh, in addition to the family which was named after Manasseh himself. Therefore, the phrase “the sons of Makhir” refers to Makhir himself, Gilad, and Iezer.) as it is stated: “The children of Makhir son of Manasseh, too, were born at Joseph’s knees” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise, it says: “The sons of Manasseh: For Makhir, the family of the Makhirites, and Makhir begot Gilad.… These are the sons of Gilad: Of Iezer…” (Numbers 26:29–30). Makhir, Gilad, and Iezer – these are three generations that were patrilineal houses that were attributed to Joseph, as Manasseh is attributed to Jacob, just as it says: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before my coming to you to Egypt, they are mine” (Genesis 48:5). The fourth, this was Ya’ir son of Manasseh, who received a portion in the land, just as it says: “Ya’ir son of Manasseh went and captured their villages [ḥavot], and he called them Ḥavot Ya’ir” (Numbers 32:41). The three species of burnt offerings corresponded to the sons of Makhir son of Manasseh. (This is referring to what was mentioned above, and is mentioned again since the midrash now also explains what the sin offering signifies.) The goat sin offering corresponded to Ya’ir, who did not bequeath his portion to his sons, because he did not have sons. That is why he called them (The villages.) by his name, because he did not have any remnant, and the sons of his brother Makhir inherited his portion. “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:59). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the tribe of Manasseh, which split into two and received two portions in the land, half of it on the east bank of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan. “Five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year” – these are three species, corresponding to three things that Joseph did on behalf of Manasseh, whom he sought to elevate over his brother Ephraim. The first: “Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim in his right hand to the left of Israel, and Manasseh in his left hand to the right of Israel” (Genesis 48:13). The second: “He supported his father’s hand, to remove it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh” (Genesis 48:17). The third: “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn…” (Genesis 48:18). Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five women from the tribe of Manasseh who took a portion in the land. These were Tzelofḥad’s five daughters, just as it says: “Tzelofḥad’s daughters speak justly; give them a holding for inheritance…” (Numbers 27:7). They were five, as it is stated: “These are the names of his daughters: Maḥla, Noa, Ḥogla, Milka, and Tirtza” (Numbers 27:1). Likewise, Jacob mentioned them in the blessing of Joseph, as it is stated: “Branches [banot] ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22); these are Tzelofḥad’s daughters [banot], who received a portion in the land. Alternatively, why were they five each? It corresponds to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “May they proliferate like fish in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16), and fish were created on the fifth day. “This was the offering of Gamliel…” – since the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented the offering in this order, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Gamliel…”

Bereshit Rabbah 87:8

“She seized him by his garment, saying: Lie with me. He left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). “She seized him by his garment…and went outside” – he leapt by the merit of the patriarchs, just as it says: “He took him outside” (Genesis 15:5). (God took Abraham outside and promised him that he would have many descendants, like the many stars in the sky. ) Shimon of Kitron said: By the merit of Joseph’s bones, the sea was split for Israel. That is what is written: “The sea saw and fled” (Psalms 114:3), by the merit of: “He left his garment in her hand and fled.” “She called the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying: See, he brought us a Hebrew man to ridicule us; he came to me to lie with me, and I cried out in a loud voice” (Genesis 39:14). “She called the people of her household” – she placed it into the mouths of all of them. (She coached them to tell her husband that Joseph had propositioned them as well (Etz Yosef).) “She placed his garment beside her, until his master’s arrival to his home” (Genesis 39:16). “She placed his garment beside her” – Rabbi Ami said: She hugged it and kissed it.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:1

“It was after these matters; the butler of the king of Egypt and the baker sinned against their master, against the king of Egypt” (Genesis 40:1). “It was after these matters…sinned.” “Deliver me from all my transgressions; do not disgrace me among the scoundrels” (Psalms 39:9) – Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman, Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: The nations of the world were not fit to have anguished and despised individuals in their midst. (Since they are rewarded for their good deeds in this world and punished in the next world, it would have been fitting for them to not have individuals who suffer in this world (Yefeh To’ar). ) Why, then, do they have anguished and despised individuals in their midst? It is so they will not taunt Israel and say to them: ‘You are a nation of anguished and despised people.’ This is in accordance with [the verse]: “Do not disgrace me among the scoundrels.” Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: The nations of the world were not fit to have those who develop scabs in their midst. Why, then, do they have those who develop scabs in their midst? It is so they will not taunt Israel and say to them: ‘Are you not a nation of lepers?’ This is in accordance with [the verse]: “Do not disgrace me among the scoundrels.” Another matter, “deliver me from all my transgressions…” – this is Joseph. Because it is written in his regard: “She called to the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14) – she placed him in the mouths of all of them, (The wife of Potiphar caused everyone to talk about how improper it was that Joseph had received so much from his master and had reciprocated by attempting to seduce his wife.) the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘It is preferable that they turn against one another and not turn against this righteous one.’ That is what is written: “It was after these matters…sinned….” (Genesis 40:1). (God arranged for people to be distracted by the next sensation, the incarceration of the butler and baker. )

Devarim Rabbah 2:8

“Lord God, You have begun” – he said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, why am I not entering the land? Is it because I said: “Hear now, defiant ones”? It was You who said first: “As a safekeeping, as a sign for the defiant ones”’ (Numbers 17:25). Another matter: “Lord God, You have begun” – Rabbi Reuven said: Moses said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Why are You doing this to me? It was You who first approached me.’ From where is this derived? It is as it is stated: “An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from inside the bush” (Exodus 3:2). He said to Him: ‘After You elevated me, You are demoting me from my elevated stature?’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘But I took an oath.’ [Moses] said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, when I requested, did You not break an oath? Did You not take an oath that You would eradicate Your children, and You reconsidered, as it is stated: “The Lord reconsidered”’ (Exodus 32:14)? Another matter: Rabbi Levi said: He said before Him: ‘Joseph’s bones will enter the land, but I will not enter the land?’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘The one who acknowledged his land will be buried in his land, and the one who did not acknowledge his land will not be buried in his land.’ Joseph acknowledged his land; from where is this derived? His master’s wife said: “See, he brought us a Hebrew man…” (Genesis 39:14), and he did not deny it; rather, “I was stolen from the land of the Hebrews” (Genesis 40:15). He was buried in his land. From where is this derived? As it is stated: “The bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32). ‘You, who did not acknowledge your land, will not be buried in your land.’ How so? Yitro’s daughters said: “An Egyptian man rescued us from the shepherds” (Exodus 2:19), and he heard and was silent. That is why he was not buried in his land.

Quoting Commentary

Rabbeinu Bahya explains that Shechem urgently wanted his father to speak to Yaakov about Dinah, Rashbam suggests that Yitzchok became less cautious about hiding Rivkah's identity because he didn't think she would be abducted, Radak discusses how the Simeonites were not as prolific as the Judahites and were eventually expelled from their portion by the Judahites, Ramban explains that the land of the Hebrews refers to Hebron where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived, and Chizkuni compares Yitzchok's intimacy with Rivkah to the situation with the wife of Potiphar.

Chizkuni, Genesis 26:8:3

וירא, והנה יצחק מצחק את רבקה, “he looked and here he saw that Yitzchok was engaged in intimacies with Rivkah.” This expression for describing intimacies with the opposite sex is found when the wife of Potiphar tells the servants in her husband’s household that this is what the Hebrew slave tried to do to her. (Genesis 39,14). In that verse the next words are: לשכב עמי, “to sleep with me;” from this we are able to deduce that Avimelech did not witness actual intercourse but only foreplay. Yitzchok most certainly would not have engaged in marital relations unless he was sure that no peeping Tom could witness this.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 34:4:1

אל חמור אביו לאמור, “to his father Chamor, to say:” The word לאמור means that he wanted his father to speak to Yaakov on the subject. Alternately, the word is merely used to underline the urgency with which Shechem viewed the matter. He wanted his father to be insistent. We find a similar use of the word לאמור in connection with the wife of Potiphar in Genesis 39,14, where she wanted to underline that the fact that her husband had brought a Hebrew slave into the household resulted in her almost being raped.

Radak on I Chronicles 4:27:1

In all, their families were not as prolific as the Judahites. Because [the Simeonites] dwelt among the Judahites, the text says that their families were not prolific enough to equal the numbers of the Judahites. It is for this reason that they dwelt among them and were appended to them, living in just a few of the cities of Judah. One even finds the cities mentioned here listed in the book of Joshua among the cities of Judah (Jos 15:20–36). It also mentions these cities as part of the portion of the Simeonites that fell to them within the portion of Judah (Jos 19:1–6). Now it says here “These were their cities until David became king”; for when David became king and the Judahites gained power, the Judahites expelled the Simeonites from their portion. They then sought a portion for themselves, as it says, “They went to the approaches of Gedor, to the eastern side of the valley … and some of the Simeonites went to Mount Seir …” (vv. 39–42); for they went all over looking for a portion. And when it says, “such were their settlements, those to which they were linked (ve-hityaḥsam la-hem),” it means that those five cities and their villages remained theirs (the Judahites did not expel them from them), so that they were linked to them, meaning that these cities were always referred to by the Simeonites’ name. Linguistically, it is not problematic to employ yḥs for cities. After all, the word yaḥas, as an indication of family, functions mainly to identify the family or tribe from which a person comes. Similarly, then, it can relate cities to people or people to cities, for the purpose of identification and of imparting the relevant information. Accordingly, the yod of צורי (Ṣori; =Tyrian; 1 Kgs 7:14) is called a “yod of yaḥas” because it relates the individual to Tyre, just as the yod of עברי (‘Ivri; =Hebrew; Gen 39:14) is called a “yod of yaḥas” because it relates [the individual] to Eber. Now when the text says “such (zot) were their settlements,” instead of saying elleh, this is consistent with the way the language works in many places, using a plural form for an individual or a singular form for a group: ki tiqrenah milḥamah (=should there be a war; Exod 1:10), vayyavo Mosheh ve-Aharon (=Moses and Aaron came; Exod 7:10), and others like them, as we have written in the Mikhlol in the section on grammar (6b–7a). Alternatively, its meaning is: “This (zot) was the land.”

Ramban on Genesis 40:15:1

THE LAND OF THE HEBREWS. This means the land of Hebron, wherein dwelt Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham, the head of the lineage, was called “Abraham the Hebrew” (Above, 14:13.) since he came from across the River Euphrates, and he was honored among the nations for in him was fulfilled the blessing, And I will make thy name great. (Ibid., 12:1.) It is for this reason that all of his seed are called Ivrim (Hebrews). They hold on to this name in order not to intermingle with the various peoples in the Canaanite lands, and this name has been established as the name for all Israel’s seed forever. This is the meaning of the verse, He hath brought in a Hebrew unto us, (Ibid., 39:14.) since Joseph told them “I am a Hebrew,” and he did not want them to take him as a Canaanite. And the land where they resided was called “the land of the Hebrews,” that is to say, the land in which the Hebrews are. (But not that it is theirs.) It may be that it was so called because they were its leaders and nobles, even as it says, Thou art a prince of G-d in the midst of us, (Above, 23:6.) and it is further written, Touch not My anointed ones. (Psalms 105:15.)

Rashbam on Genesis 26:8:1

ויהי כי ארכו לו שם, after a while Yitzchok was no longer careful to conduct himself in a manner that the suspicion that Rivkah was his wife could not be aroused. The reason was that he did not think that she would be abducted.

Second Temple

Abraham's conduct was praised for rejecting lusts and passions, fearing God, and claiming real life in Egypt. Philo highlights Joseph's virtue of deriding lusts and passions in Genesis 39:14 and 17, even though the context refers to Joseph's alleged misconduct.

On the Migration of Abraham 4:5

[21] was conduct that called for no slight praise: he derided lusts and all passions and their gross excesses (Gen. 39:14, 17): he feared God (Gen. 42:18) even though he was not yet ready to love Him: when in Egypt he claimed as his own the life that is real life,

On the Migration of Abraham, Appendix 4

§ 21. He derided lusts, etc. Neither Mangey nor Wendland give the reference to Gen. 39:14 and 17, where Potiphar’s wife says “Lo, he hath brought in a Hebrew servant to mock at us” (ἐμπαίζειν ἡμῖν). Presumably they supposed the words to be a general description of Joseph’s continence. But the form shews that it is a separate item in Joseph’s virtues, each based on a separate text. “Us” is interpreted as meaning “all the passions.” That in the story the “mocking” referred to Joseph’s alleged misconduct matters little or nothing to Philo.

Tanakh

Abram, living in Mamre with his allies Eshkol and Aner, received news from a fugitive. (Genesis 14:13)

Genesis 14:13

A fugitive brought the news to Abram the Hebrew, who was dwelling at the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, kinsman of Eshkol and Aner, these being Abram’s allies.

Targum

Potiphar's wife falsely accuses Joseph of trying to seduce her, calling for the men of the household to witness her claims and stating that Joseph came to mock them by trying to lie with her, causing her to cry out in a loud voice. (Onkelos Genesis 39:14, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:14)

Onkelos Genesis 39:14

that she called to the men of the household and said to them, See, he brought us a Hebrew man to mock us. He came to be with me, and I called out in a loud voice.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:14

that she called the men of the house and said, See this, ___ which the Hebrew man hath done whom your master hath brought to mock us. He came in to lie with me, and I cried with a high voice.

וַיְהִ֣י כְשׇׁמְע֔וֹ כִּֽי־הֲרִימֹ֥תִי קוֹלִ֖י וָאֶקְרָ֑א וַיַּעֲזֹ֤ב בִּגְדוֹ֙ אֶצְלִ֔י וַיָּ֖נׇס וַיֵּצֵ֥א הַחֽוּצָה׃ 15 J And when he heard me screaming at the top of my voice, he left his garment with me and got away and fled outside.”
Joseph left his garment with Potiphar's wife when she falsely accused him of attempting to rape her, leading him to flee when she started yelling, as stated in Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:15.

Commentary

Joseph fled and left his garment with Potiphar's wife, who falsely accused him of attempting to rape her. This act of fleeing led to a reward from God, as seen in the future when the sea fled at the approach of Joseph's coffin during the Israelites' escape from the Egyptians. Potiphar's wife claimed Joseph left his garment with her in preparation for raping her, but he fled when she started yelling.

Chizkuni, Genesis 39:15:1

ויעזב את בגדו אצלי, “he left his outer garment in my hands;” in preparation of raping me. He was not able o retrieve it until I started yelling, when he decided to flee.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 39:15:1

וינס ויוצא החוצה, “he fled, leaving the house.” As a reward for Joseph’s fleeing the presence of his master’s wife on that occasion, G–d told him that He would reward him when the sea of reeds fled at the approach of Joseph’s coffin when the Israelites were facing the sea with the Egyptians threatening them from behind. (Tanchuma on parshat Nasso, section 30, interprets Psalms: 114,3: הים ראה וינוס, “the sea saw and fled” as meaning just that.)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:15

It was when he heard; I raised my voice and cried. He left his garment with me, fled, and went outside.

Targum

In Genesis 39:15, both Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan state that when Joseph heard Potiphar's wife cry out, he left his garment with her and fled outside to the marketplace.

Onkelos Genesis 39:15

When he heard that I raised my voice and cried out, he left his garment with me, and fled and went outside [to the marketplace].

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:15

And when he heard that I lifted up my voice, he left his garment with me, and went forth into the street.

וַתַּנַּ֥ח בִּגְד֖וֹ אֶצְלָ֑הּ עַד־בּ֥וֹא אֲדֹנָ֖יו אֶל־בֵּיתֽוֹ׃ 16 J She kept his garment beside her, until his master came home.
Rashi explains that Joseph's master refers to Potiphar, not the garment's owner, while Steinsaltz notes that Potiphar's wife kept Joseph's garment with her until her husband returned. Kabbalah relates the Matron to Malchut and Esther's rule over Achashverosh to Joseph's ability to attract negative forces. In the Midrash, Joseph's escape symbolizes his leap by the merit of the patriarchs, and Potiphar's wife falsely accuses him of seduction. Ramban discusses the High Priest's garments coming from the Temple treasury, and Targum notes that Potiphar's wife kept Joseph's garment with her until Potiphar returned.

Commentary

Rashi explains that "his master" refers to Joseph's master, not the owner of the garment. Steinsaltz notes that Potifar's wife did not just tell others about the incident, but also placed Joseph's garment beside her until his master returned home.

Rashi on Genesis 39:16:1

אדניו HIS MASTER — Joseph’s master (not the master or owner of the garment).

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:16

Potifar’s wife did not suffice with relating this tale to the members of the household; rather, she placed his garment beside her, until his master’s arrival to his home.

Kabbalah

The sages in the Mishnah relate the Matron to Malchut, indicating her rule over the kelipot. Esther's ability to rule over Achashverosh without mating with him is likened to Joseph's situation, where the outer aspect, or 'beged', can attract negative forces.

Zohar, Ki Teitzei 1:6

The sages who wrote the Mishnah {said that} it is said of the Matron, [Matron corresponds to Malchut], "and His kingdom מַלְכוּתוֹ rules over all" (Psalms 103:19), [ This is because she rules over the kelipot as well]. After Esther put on {the royal apparel}, Esther ruled over Achashverosh and his people, and it is said of them, "and slew of their foes" (Esther 9:16). If you say that he {Achashverosh} mated with her, G-d forbid - though they were in the same house - {she did not mate with him}, but was like Joseph of whom it says, "And she laid up his garment בִּגְדוֹ by her" (Genesis 39:16). The word בִּגְדוֹ 'bigdo' is employed, which is derived from, "traitors have dealt treacherously בָּגָדוּ" (Isaiah 24:16). [ The 'beged' is the outer aspect, which the kelipot can attach themselves to].

Midrash

Joseph escaped Potiphar's wife's advances by leaving his garment behind and fleeing, symbolizing his leap by the merit of the patriarchs. Shimon of Kitron believed that by the merit of Joseph's bones, the sea was split for Israel. Potiphar's wife falsely accused Joseph of trying to seduce her, manipulating her household to support her story. She kept Joseph's garment with her until her husband's return, hugging and kissing it according to Rabbi Ami.

Bereshit Rabbah 87:8

“She seized him by his garment, saying: Lie with me. He left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). “She seized him by his garment…and went outside” – he leapt by the merit of the patriarchs, just as it says: “He took him outside” (Genesis 15:5). (God took Abraham outside and promised him that he would have many descendants, like the many stars in the sky. ) Shimon of Kitron said: By the merit of Joseph’s bones, the sea was split for Israel. That is what is written: “The sea saw and fled” (Psalms 114:3), by the merit of: “He left his garment in her hand and fled.” “She called the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying: See, he brought us a Hebrew man to ridicule us; he came to me to lie with me, and I cried out in a loud voice” (Genesis 39:14). “She called the people of her household” – she placed it into the mouths of all of them. (She coached them to tell her husband that Joseph had propositioned them as well (Etz Yosef).) “She placed his garment beside her, until his master’s arrival to his home” (Genesis 39:16). “She placed his garment beside her” – Rabbi Ami said: She hugged it and kissed it.

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that the garments of the High Priest must come from the Temple treasury, as stated in the Torath Kohanim. The use of multiple verbs in the verse indicates that the High Priest may wear the same vestments again in the afternoon. Rashi interprets the word "yitznoph" as "he shall place upon his head," similar to the Targum's translation in Genesis 39:16.

Ramban on Leviticus 16:4:1

HE SHALL PUT ON THE LINEN TUNIC OF ‘KODESH’ (HOLINESS). “This means that they [i.e., all the garments of the High Priest] must be of the Sanctuary [treasury, and not of his own possession].” This is Rashi’s language. (Rashi thus interprets the verse to mean: “he shall put on the linen tunic of the Sanctuary.” Ramban will later suggest that by way of the simple meaning of Scripture, the phrase means that “he shall put on ‘the holy’ linen tunic.” It is so rendered in the J.P.S. translation.) Thus the following phrase which states, they are garments of ‘kodesh’ (holiness) must therefore mean that all the garments [even those of the ordinary priests], must come from the Sanctuary [treasury]. And [so] it is stated in the Torath Kohanim: (Torath Kohanim, Acharei 1:10.) “‘Kodesh yilbash’ (‘He shall put on’ the linen tunic ‘of holiness’), this means that these [garments of the High Priest] are to be of the Sanctuary. From this phrase I would only know concerning these garments [i.e., the four garments worn by the High Priest when he ministered in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement]. Whence do I know to include the other garments of the High Priest [i.e., the eight golden garments in which he officiated throughout the year], and the garments of his brethren the priests [that they too must all come from the Temple treasury]? Scripture therefore says, they are garments of ‘kodesh’ (holiness). It is a conclusion by analogy that all garments [worn by all priests] should be of the Temple treasury” [since they all come under the term ‘garments of holiness’]. By way of the simple meaning of Scripture, just as He said, and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, (Exodus 28:4.) referring to the eight [golden] garments, He states that these [four garments worn by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement] are also holy garments. Their secret is analogous to the man clothed in linen, (Ezekiel 9:11. The symbol there is that G-d will not destroy His people, but that He will deal with them in mercy (Abusaula).) and therefore He informed him that they are holy garments. And in Vayikra Rabbah the Rabbis have said: (Vayikra Rabbah 21:10.) “As the Service performed Above, so is the Service below. Just as of the Service Above it is said, one man in the midst of them clothed in linen, (Ezekiel 9:2.) so of the Service below it is said, he shall put on the holy linen tunic.

Ramban on Leviticus 16:4:2

HE SHALL PUT ON … HE SHALL BE GIRDED … HE SHALL BE ATTIRED. (The verse reads: ‘He shall put on’ the holy linen tunic, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and ‘he shall be girded’ with the linen belt, and with the linen mitre ‘he shall be attired.’ The use of the multiple verbs will be explained in the following text from the Torath Kohanim.) [The Scriptural use of these multiple expressions is] explained by the Torath Kohanim: (Torath Kohanim, Acharei 1:14.) “Since we are finally bound to include [among the requirements for the Service on the Day of Atonement] another set of [four linen] garments [when he brought out the spoon and censer from the Holy of Holies] in the afternoon of that day, then I might think that if he has no other set of garments he should not put on those he wore in the morning [when he first entered the Holy of Holies]. Scripture therefore says he shall put on … he shall be girded … he shall be attired” [thus indicating by the multiple use of these expressions that the High Priest may wear these vestments again in the afternoon]. Now Rashi commented: “‘Yitznoph’ (he shall be attired). [The word is to be understood as the Targum rendered it:] yocheith b’reishei which means “he shall ‘place’ it upon his head.” This is like ‘vatanach’ his garment by her (Genesis 39:16.) which the Targum rendered ‘v’achthethei,” meaning “and she ‘placed’ [his garment by her].” But Onkelos’ opinion [in translating the Hebrew word yitznoph as “placing”] is not clear to me, for the term tzniphah means “winding” [something] around the head like a turban, (See Ramban, Exodus 28:31. (Vol. II, pp. 486-7).) so why did he translate it merely as “placing,” and did not render it by an [Aramaic] word which is used specifically for actual “winding”? Perhaps there is no equivalent expression for it in the Aramaic language, for even the expression in [the Book of] Isaiah, ‘hatzniphoth’ and the mantles, (Isaiah 3:23. Tzniphoth is translated “turbans.”) Yonathan ben Uziel rendered kitoraya (“crownings” surrounding the head). Thus both [Onkelos and Yonathan] had no Aramaic equivalent for tzniph [in the Book of Isaiah] and mitznepheth [in the Torah — Exodus 28:4], and therefore both of them used the same term derived from the Sacred Language — mitznephta. (Thus the Hebrew mitznepheth [in Exodus 28:4] is rendered both by Onkelos and Yonathan as mitznephta, which is basically the same Hebrew word as mitznepheth, since they had no Aramaic word for it.)

Rashi on Leviticus 16:4:3

יצנף — Understand this as the Targum does: יחת ברישה which means: he shall place upon his head. Thus, the verb in (Genesis 39:16) ותנח בגדו, is rendered by the Targum ואחתתיה (of the same root as יחת) “and she placed".

Targum

In Genesis 39:16, Onkelos and Targum Jonathan both mention that Potiphar's wife kept Joseph's garment near her until Potiphar returned home.

Onkelos Genesis 39:16

She laid his garment near her until his master came home.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:16

And she let the garment remain until his master came into his house;

וַתְּדַבֵּ֣ר אֵלָ֔יו כַּדְּבָרִ֥ים הָאֵ֖לֶּה לֵאמֹ֑ר בָּֽא־אֵלַ֞י הָעֶ֧בֶד הָֽעִבְרִ֛י אֲשֶׁר־הֵבֵ֥אתָ לָּ֖נוּ לְצַ֥חֶק בִּֽי׃ 17 J Then she told him the same story, saying, “The Hebrew slave whom you brought into our house came to me to dally with me;
Chasidut highlights Potiphar's impotence as a consequence of his desire for homosexual acts with Joseph, showcasing God's orchestration of events to bring down the wicked and strengthen the righteous. Commentary explores Potiphar's anger towards his wife's accusations against Joseph, suggesting various interpretations for his actions. Kabbalah delves into the symbolism of riding animals to represent responsibility and control, while Midrash discusses the corrupt actions of the Israelites and Ishmael, contrasting negative and positive interpretations. Quoting Commentary provides examples of how the term "לצחק" can refer to different actions in different verses, and Targum explains Potiphar's wife's accusation against Joseph. Tosefta presents Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's interpretation of "m'tzachek" in Genesis 21:9 as Ishmael's inappropriate behavior towards Isaac, diverging from Rabbi Akiva's view.

Chasidut

Potiphar's impotence was a result of his desire to use Joseph for homosexual practices, leading to his inability to believe his wife's accusations against Joseph. God allowed Potiphar to enjoy success temporarily to strengthen Joseph's faith, ultimately leading to the downfall of the wicked. This demonstrates how God orchestrates events to bring about the downfall of the wicked while strengthening the righteous.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayeshev 16

Genesis 39,17. “your servant has done to me unspeakable ‎things.” According to Rashi the conversation described ‎in the Torah here occurred while Potiphar and his wife were ‎having marital relations. At first glance, this appears somewhat ‎difficult to understand as in Genesis 41,45 when the Torah ‎reports that Pharaoh gave Joseph as a wife the daughter of ‎Potiphar, Rashi points out that Potiphar was impotent, as a ‎penalty for having desired to use Joseph for homosexual ‎practices, and that Ossnas was not his biological daughter. We ‎must therefore assume that the attempted seduction of Joseph ‎occurred earlier. If so, why did he become impotent only at a later ‎stage?‎ Actually, the Almighty Who performs wonderful deeds ‎completely unassisted, arranges events in such a way that the ‎wicked will commit fatal errors, as we know from Job 12,23 ‎משגיא ‏לגויים ויאבדם‎, “He leads (wicked) nations astray and causes their ‎destruction.” If G’d had made Potiphar impotent earlier, he could ‎not have believed his wife when she described that Joseph had ‎engaged in similar activities to the ones practiced by her husband ‎during marital intercourse. In addition to this, the Torah testified ‎that Potiphar was aware of and admired Joseph’s absolute loyalty ‎and sincerity, as we know from 39,3 and 4. The Torah sometimes ‎shows us how G’d, on occasion, lets a wicked person enjoy a ‎degree of success even when they are in the process harming the ‎righteous, so that the righteous has a chance to become stronger ‎in his faith in G’d. When this happens the wicked interprets it as ‎proof that G’d approves of what he has been doing, whereas in ‎fact G’d is only preparing the downfall of the wicked. Ultimately, ‎in retrospect, G’d will be seen as having misled the wicked, as per ‎Job 12,23.‎

Commentary

Potiphar's anger was not directed at Joseph, but at the fact that his wife had witnesses to support her accusations, leading to Joseph's imprisonment instead of execution. There are various interpretations of the events, including the possibility that Potiphar did not want to become a laughing stock by executing Joseph, or that he had a fondness for him. Additionally, Rashi clarifies that the Hebrew slave was brought to them by Potiphar, not to mock his wife.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:17:1

ותדבר אליו..לאמור, She spoke to him…saying. The word לאמור here is meant as a reference to the testimony which the members of the household would be willing to supply. Potiphar's anger was not so much directed at Joseph but at the fact that his wife was able to reinforce her accusations by calling the members of the household as witnesses. This is why the Torah writes: "when his master heard the words of his wife which she spoke to him לאמור כדברים האלה." The Torah did not need to write more than: "when his master heard the words of his wife." We are meant to realise that Potiphar only became angry after לאמור, i.e. that there were independent witnesses supporting his wife's tale.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:17:2

לאמור כדברים האלה, to corroborate such words. Potiphar did not believe his wife. Since the accuser was his own wife, however, he had to make some gesture otherwise his wife would have been publicly discredited. This is why Potiphar did not discipline Joseph nor had him executed, the normal penalty for a slave who dared to aspire to the wife of his master.

Rashi on Genesis 39:17:1

בא אלי —The sentence means: the Hebrew servant whom thou hast brought unto us came to me to have his sport with me.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:17:1

In order to mock me, the Hebrew slave that you brought to us. Rashi changes the order of the verse, because as written it implies that her husband brought the Hebrew slave in order to mock her, which is incorrect.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:17

She spoke to him these words, saying: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us and whom you promoted, came to me to mock me.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:17:1

כדברים האלה, “words similar to these.” According to Rashi, a reference to “pillow” talk between Mrs Potiphar and her husband. She considered the timing appropriate to relate to her husband matters pertaining to what she described as Joseph’s sexual advances to her. Nachmanides queries this in light of the Midrashim that teach us that Potiphar had become impotent as a punishment for trying to indulge his homosexual fantasies by using Joseph as his partner. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Mrs Potiphar would reveal intimate details about Joseph to her husband, details the knowledge of which would incriminate her. If she had accused Joseph of raping her, he would be guilty of execution, so why did Potiphar not have him executed? Moreover, why had she not cried out before Joseph could perpetrate his evil intention? She only raised a fuss after the event! This would give her husband the right to execute her! She only had to tell her husband that Joseph was getting ready to rape her! Perhaps both the Midrash upon which Rashi based himself, and his own understanding of the words עניני תשמיש, is not to be understood literally, but refers to Mrs Potiphar describing fondling of her by Joseph, not his sleeping with her. It is possible that Potiphar, in order to suppress the scandal, did not execute Joseph, as his reputation as a husband cuckolded by a Hebrew slave would have resulted in his becoming a laughing stock among his peers. It is also possible that Potiphar’s fondness of Joseph was such that he could not bear to kill him. Looking at the plain meaning of the text, we do not need all of these convoluted explanations (based on the extraneous letter כ in front of the word דברים), and the meaning is the same as if the Torah had written הדברים האלה, “these matters.” Alternately, the Torah hints, that as soon as Potiphar heard the story of his wife about what Joseph was supposed to have done to her, i.e. her words, not necessarily the true events, he did not believe her, having faith in Joseph’s uprightness, and, seeing that he had to save face, he incarcerated Joseph instead of executing him, thus saving face for his wife also.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 111-112

“She told him the same story” [39:17]. When the master came and lay down beside her, she said to him. Joseph also did this to me. That is to say, just like you embrace and kiss me, Joseph also did this to me. That is, he did not properly lie near me, but embraced and kissed me. I shouted and he ran away. Ramban and also Bahya ask a question. How is it that she should say that Joseph properly lay near me? She made herself despicable to her husband. Also, Potiphar was a eunuch and could not sleep with any woman. However, he lay near his wife and kissed and embraced her. Therefore, she said that you are now doing what Joseph also did. If you want to ask, Potiphar, Joseph’s master, had a daughter with his wife. So how could he have been a eunuch, and not have proper relations with his wife? The explanation is that when Potiphar saw Joseph for sale and that Joseph was handsome, Potiphar thought he would buy him to have homosexual relations with him. The Holy One caused that Potiphar should not be able to sleep with any woman and became a eunuch, in the expectation that he should not have homosexual relations with Joseph. (Ramban, Genesis, 39:19; Bahya, Genesis, 39:19.) Therefore, Rashi also writes that she said, sexual practices like these. That is to say, when we used to kiss and embrace, Joseph did as you are doing to me. (Rashi, Genesis, 39:19.)

Kabbalah

The text discusses the symbolism of a person riding a dog, snake, or donkey, with the rider being held liable once they recognize which animal they ride. It mentions a fallen person falling backwards, with the tzadik being able to control the animal by tying it with the strap of the tefilin, symbolizing the connection to the vertebrae of the back of the neck.

Zohar, Pinchas 79:486

And there is a dog, and a snake and a braying donkey which are ridden by a person. And immediately when a person recognizes which one that s/he rides, s/he is liable. And about that person it is written "and its rider will fall backwards" (Genesis 39:17). And the secret of the word/expression is "when the fallen person falls from it" (Deut. 22:8). And regarding this Yov said "I did not fall lower than you" (Job 12:3). And a tzadik will ride on it - he will tie it with the strap of the tefilin - the letter of the tefilin is the letter yud of Shaday [symbolized/connected to] the [top] vertebrae of the back of neck; shin of the tefilin [symbolized/connected to] chain of vertebrae of the back of the neck.

Midrash

The Midrash discusses the corrupt actions of the Israelites in the wilderness, including idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. It also highlights how Moses interceded on their behalf, reminding God of their past faithfulness and sacrifices. Additionally, the text explores the negative actions of Ishmael, suggesting he engaged in sexual immorality, idol worship, and bloodshed, contrasting with a more positive interpretation that focuses on issues of inheritance.

Bereshit Rabbah 53:11

“Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she bore to Abraham, playing” (Genesis 21:9). “She said to Abraham: Banish this maidservant and her son, for the son of this maidservant will not inherit with my son, with Isaac” (Genesis 21:10). “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian” – Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: Rabbi Akiva used to say something derogatory regarding this, but I say something complimentary regarding it. Rabbi Akiva expounded: “Sarah saw [the son of Hagar…playing [metzaḥek]]” – metzaḥek is nothing other than sexual immorality, just as it says: “The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to me to play with [letzaḥek] me” (Genesis 39:17). It teaches that our matriarch Sarah would see Ishmael force himself on women, trap married women, and violate them. It is taught: Rabbi Yishmael says: This expression of tzeḥok is nothing other than idol worship, as it is stated: “The people sat to eat and drink and they rose to revel [letzaḥek]” (Exodus 32:6). It teaches that our matriarch Sarah would see Ishmael building altars, trapping grasshoppers, and sacrificing [them] upon them. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: This expression of tzeḥok is nothing other than an expression of bloodshed, as it says: “Let the lads rise now and play [visaḥaku] before us” (II Samuel 2:14). Rabbi Azarya said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Ishmael said to Isaac: ‘Let us go and see our portion in the field.’ Ishmael would then take a bow and arrows and shoot toward Isaac, conducting himself as though he was [just] playing. That is what is written: “Like the prankster who shoots firebrands, [arrows, and death], so is a man who deceives his friend, and says: Am I not joking?” (Proverbs 26:18–19). But I [Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai] say something complimentary regarding it. This expression of tzeḥok is nothing other than an expression of inheritance. When our patriarch Isaac was born, everyone was rejoicing. Ishmael said to them: ‘You are fools. I am the firstborn and I will inherit twice as much.’ From Sarah’s response to Abraham: “For the son of this maidservant will not inherit with my son, with Isaac,” you may learn this. (Sarah said that the reason she wanted Yishmael banished was connected to the issue of inheritance.) “For…will not inherit with my son” – even if he were not Isaac, and “he will not inherit…with Isaac” – even if he were not my son; all the more so “with my son, with Isaac.”

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 6:1

(Gen. 37:2:) AND JOSEPH BROUGHT BAD REPORTS OF THEM < UNTO HIS FATHER >. What is the meaning of BAD REPORTS? That he had said something slanderous against his brothers. And what slanderous thing did he say against them? R. Judah said: He said against them that they would cut a limb from a living animal and eat it. (yPe’ah 1:1 (15d-16a); Gen. R. 84:7.) The Holy One said to him: You have said something slanderous against the tribes. Tomorrow, by your life, you are going down to Egypt. Then you shall invite them to eat with you, but they shall suspect you there in regard to the ritual slaughtering. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 43:32): THEY SERVED HIM BY HIMSELF, < AND THEM BY THEMSELVES >…. R. Me'ir says: He said to him: My brothers have set their eyes on Canaanite women. The Holy One said to him: You have said something slanderous against your brothers. Tomorrow, by your life, you are going down to Egypt. Then that woman (Potiphar's wife) shall say (in Gen. 39:17): THE HEBREW SLAVE < WHOM YOU BROUGHT TO US > CAME UNTO ME < TO FONDLE ME >. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): AND JOSEPH BROUGHT < BAD REPORTS OF THEM UNTO HIS FATHER >.

Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 20:1

And the Lord spoke unto Moses: “Go, get thee down…. I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people” (Exod. 32:7–9). R. Tanhuma the son of Abba began the discussion with the verses: As vapors and wind without rain, so is he that boasteth himself of a false gift. By long forbearing is a ruler persuaded (Prov. 25:14–15). One who promises a gift to his friend but fails to fulfill his promise can be likened to vapors and wind without rain. The generation of the desert behaved in that fashion. It is said: All the people answered with one voice, and said: “All the words which the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exod. 24:7), yet they violated every command He issued. When the Holy One, blessed be He, observed that, He ordered Moses: Go get thee down, thy people have dealt corruptly (ibid. 32:7). The word dealt corruptly refers to immoral acts, as it is said: Is corruption His? No, His children’s is the blemish (Deut. 32:5). Not only did they make the golden calf, they were also guilty of sexual crimes and shedding blood, as it is said: And the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to make merry (ibid., v. 6). The words make merry imply sexual crimes, as is stated: The Hebrew servant, whom thou hast brought unto us, came unto me to make merry (Gen. 39:17). They were also guilty of bloodshed, as it is written: Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and play before us (II Sam. 2:14).

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 9:4

When she realized that he would not pay any attention to her, she began to complain against him to her husband, as it is said: The Hebrew servant, whom thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me (Gen. 39:17). Thereupon Joseph’s master seized him and imprisoned him for twelve years.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayetzei 7:2

Another comment on He executeth justice for the oppressed: This alludes to the righteous Joseph, whose mistress wronged him, when she said: The Hebrew servant came in unto me (Gen. 39:17). “I will sever your pay if you do not hearken to me,” she told him, and he replied: He who giveth bread to the hungry (Ps. 146:7) will feed me. “I will put you in chains,” she shouted, and he retorted: The Lord looseth those that are bound up (ibid.). “I will blind your pretty eyes,” she cried; and he answered: The Lord openeth the eyes of the blind (ibid., v. 8). Finally, she said to him: “I will have you banished,” and he retorted: The Lord preserveth strangers (ibid., v. 9).

Midrash Tehillim 7:2

Thoughts on David. Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Levi that three things came out of David's mouth regarding Saul, and all three were fulfilled. As it is said (1 Samuel 26:10), "As the Lord lives, the Lord shall strike him." And so it was. Either his day will come and he will die, and so it was. Or he will go down in battle and perish, and so it was, as it is said (1 Samuel 31:6), "So Saul died, and his three sons." Rabbi Elazar said, "By the life of the Lord, I swear to the evil inclination that I will not do this thing." Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said to Avishai ben Tzeruya, "By the life of the Lord, if you touch the blood of the righteous, I will mix your blood with his." And Saul had a concubine, as it is written (2 Samuel 3:7), "And David took more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem." And you compare yourself to Saul. Saul's feet were as swift as eagles; Rabbi Levi said he could travel sixty miles in one day. Rabbi Simon said "One hundred and twenty," and the rabbis say "One hundred and eighty." And when was this? When the Ark was captured. This is as it is written (1 Samuel 4:10-11), "And a man of Benjamin ran from the battle line and came to Shiloh the same day, with his clothes torn and with dirt on his head. When he arrived, there was Eli sitting on his chair by the side of the road, watching, because his heart feared for the ark of God. When the man entered the city and told what had happened, the whole city sent up a cry." Just as Saul was compared to the man of Benjamin who ran to Shiloh, so too, a person who goes to a party should not bring his children with him because of appearances. But Saul went to war, and he knew that the judgment of the law would fall upon him, and he brought his children with him. And you say (2 Samuel 21:17), "You shall go out no more with us to battle." Saul ate non-sacred food in purity, as it is stated (1 Samuel 9:23-24), "The cook took up the thigh and what was attached to it, and set it before Saul. And Samuel said, 'This is what has been kept for you. Eat, because it was set aside for you for this occasion, from the time I said, "I have invited guests."' And Saul ate with Samuel that day." Rabbi Yochanan says the thigh and the tail. Rabbi says the thigh and the breast. He ate non-sacred food in purity, and you compare yourself to Saul. This is what the Scripture says (Job 12:16), "With Him is strength and wisdom; the deceived and the deceiver are His." Strength refers to Torah, as it is stated (Psalms 29:11), "The Lord will give strength to His people." Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, "Why is it called wisdom? Because it gives strength to the body and the eyes." What is meant by (Job 12:16), "The deceived and the deceiver are His"? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, "Prophets and prophetesses." Rabbi Shimon said "Shetia" and the Rabbis said "Sega". If a person makes a mistake in Torah study, the words of Torah correct him. This is what the verse means when it says, "Even though I have erred, the teaching has not strayed from me" (Job 6:10). It is not enough that the Torah waits for a person during his lifetime, it also waits for him at the moment of his death. David requested "Let my soul be redeemed from distress" (Psalms 25:17). Regarding the words of Kush the Benjamite, Rabbi Chanina bar Papa said, "Just as Joseph's mistress summoned him, as it says, 'Lie with me' (Genesis 39:7), so too did the Holy One, blessed be He, summon him, as it says, 'Come to me, the Hebrew slave' (Genesis 39:17). Similarly, Saul said, 'My sons have stirred up my servants against me to ambush me' (1 Samuel 22:8). Rabbi Acha said, "But isn't it true that someone who commits an abomination is not punished? So why did David say this about Saul?" It is because he sang a song to God, as it is written, "In the falling of your enemy, do not rejoice" (Proverbs 24:17).

Shemot Rabbah 42:1

“The Lord spoke to Moses: Go descend; for your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have acted corruptly” (Exodus 32:7). “The Lord spoke to Moses: Go descend” – Rabbi Tanḥuma bar Abba began: “Clouds and wind but no rain, [is a man who glories in a false gift.] With patience, a commander is enticed” (Proverbs 25:14–15). One who says that he will give a gift to another but does not give it, to what is he comparable? To clouds, wind, and lightning that come, but rains do not fall. This was the generation of the wilderness. When they were in Sinai, they were six hundred thousand elders, a like number of young men, a like number of lads, and a like number of women. (The verse states that the children of Israel were “six hundred thousand men on foot besides children” (Exodus 12:37). The midrash asserts that the words “men on foot” serve to teach that there were a like number of elders, who could not travel on foot, as well as a like number of youth, who were not yet “men,” and a like number of women. ) When they arrived at Sinai and accepted the kingship of the Holy One blessed be He upon them, and they called out in a single voice: “Everything that the Lord spoke, we will perform and we will heed” (Exodus 24:7); that was a voice that was a [strong, impressive] voice. (Comparable to the impressive sound of thunder that had accompanied the giving of the Torah. ) When they arrived at the wilderness, they violated everything and corrupted their actions. When the Holy One blessed be He saw this, He said to Moses: “Go descend, for your people…have acted corruptly [shiḥet].” Shiḥet means nothing other than that they corrupted their actions, just as it says: “They behaved corruptly [shiḥet], not from Him; His children, it is their blemish” (Deuteronomy 32:5). Not only did they engage in idol worship, but they also engaged in forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed. The revelry [seḥok] stated here, (“They stood to revel [letzaḥek]” (Exodus 32:6).) is nothing other than idol worship, (The midrash does not find it necessary to prove that the term seḥok can refer to idolatry, as it is clear from the context of the verse in Exodus that the people engaged in idolatry (see Maharzu). ) forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. From where is it derived that seḥok is bloodshed? As it is stated: “Let the lads arise and play [visaḥaku] before us” (II Samuel 2:14). From where is it derived [that the term seḥok can refer to] forbidden sexual relations? As it is stated: “The Hebrew slave [whom you brought to us] came to me to mock [letzaḥek] me…” (Genesis 39:17). There was no one there greater than Ḥur, and they killed him. This is the approach of Abba, the expounder. (This is all stated by Rabbi Tanḥuma bar Abba, citing his father. ) Another matter: “[The Lord spoke [vaydaber] to Moses:] go descend,” in anger. At that moment, the Holy One blessed be He spoke harsh words against him. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The speech [dibur] stated here is nothing other than harsh words, just as it says: “The man, lord of the land, spoke [diber] harshly with us” (Genesis 42:30). At that moment, Moses saw the ministering angels that were rising and seeking to go out and to harm all of Israel. Moses said: If I forsake Israel and descend, they will never recover. I will not move from here until I ask for mercy on their behalf. Immediately, he began speaking in their defense. He said to the Holy One blessed be He: ‘I have a claim to advance in their favor.’ He said to Him: ‘Master of the universe, remember in their regard that when You sought to give the Torah to the children of Esau, and they did not accept it, Israel accepted it,’ as it is stated: “All the people answered together [and said: Everything that the Lord has spoken we will perform]” (Exodus 19:8). The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘They transgressed regarding the performance,’ as it is stated: “They have quickly deviated from the path…” (Exodus 32:8). He said to Him: ‘Remember in their regard that when I went as Your emissary to Egypt and said Your name to them, they immediately believed and prostrated themselves to Your name,’ as it is stated: “The people believed” (Exodus 4:31), and immediately, “they bowed and prostrated themselves” (Exodus 4:31). He said to him: ‘They transgressed regarding the prostrating,’ as it is stated: “They prostrated themselves to it” (Exodus 32:8). ‘He said to Him: ‘Remember their young men whom I sent and they sacrificed offerings before You,’ as it is stated: “He sent the young men of the children of Israel [and they offered burnt offerings and they sacrificed feast offerings]” (Exodus 24:5). He said to him: ‘They transgressed regarding the sacrifice,’ as it is stated: “They sacrificed to it” (Exodus 32:8). He said to Him: ‘Remember for them what You said at Sinai: “I am the Lord your God”’ (Exodus 20:2). He said to him: ‘They violated it,’ as it is stated: “They said: This is your god” (Exodus 32:8). That is, “clouds and wind but no rain” (Proverbs 25:14). Moses immediately voided the punishment. That is, “with patience, [a commander is enticed]” (Proverbs 25:15).

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that the term "לצחק" can refer to idolatry, sexual immorality, or bloodshed, citing examples from Genesis 39:17 and II Samuel 2:14. Rashbam notes that the same term can refer to marital intimacy, as seen in Genesis 39:17. Ramban discusses the transposition of verses for proper interpretation, giving examples such as Genesis 39:17 and Exodus 12:15.

Ramban on Genesis 15:13:1

THAT THY SEED SHALL BE A STRANGER. This is a verse that is to be transposed, its purport being that “thy seed shall be a stranger for four hundred years in a land that is not theirs, and they shall enslave them, and they shall afflict them.” He has thus not specified the length of the period of servitude and affliction. There are many cases in Scripture where verses must be transposed if they are to be interpreted properly. Thus: There came unto me the Hebrew servant, who thou hast brought unto us, to mock me; (Further, 39:17. The meaning being: “There came unto me to mock me the Hebrew servant.…”) And all countries came into Egypt to buy corn to Joseph; (Ibid., 41:57. The meaning being: “And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph.…”) For whosoever eateth leavened bread, that soul shall be cut off from Israel, from the first day until the seventh day; (Exodus 12:15. The meaning being: “For whosoever eateth leavened bread, from the first day until the seventh day, that soul.…”) In that day a man shall cast away his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship, to the moles and to the bats; (Isaiah 2:20. The meaning being: “In that day a man shall cast away to the moles and to the bats his idols.…”) Come, and hearken, and I will declare, all ye that fear G-d, what He hath done for my soul; (Psalms 66:16. The meaning being: “All ye that fear G-d, come.…”) They cry unto Me, My G-d we Israel know Thee; (Hosea 8:2. The meaning being: “Unto Me crieth Israel, ‘My G-d, we know Thee.’”) And they shall be Mine, saith the Eternal of hosts, in the day that I do make, even Mine own treasure, and I will spare them. (Malachi 3:17. The meaning being: “And they shall be Mine treasure, saith the Eternal.…”) There are many other such verses. The sense of the verse is: “Even though I tell you that I have given this land to your children, you should surely know that before I give it to them they shall be strangers for four hundred years in a land not belonging to them, and they shall also enslave them and afflict them.” Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said [that the verse should be interpreted as follows]: “You should surely know that your children shall be strangers in servitude and affliction until the end of a four hundred year period commencing from this day of the covenant.” If so, G-d informed Abraham of the time of the redemption, but He did not inform him of the exact length of the exile. This too is correct.

Rashbam on Genesis 26:8:1

ויהי כי ארכו לו שם, after a while Yitzchok was no longer careful to conduct himself in a manner that the suspicion that Rivkah was his wife could not be aroused. The reason was that he did not think that she would be abducted.

Rashbam on Genesis 26:8:2

מצחק, engaging in marital intimacy. The same word was used for intimacy by the wife of Potiphar in Genesis 39,17 when she accused Joseph of trying to rape her. [the author brings this example as in Genesis 21,9 this word could not have had the same meaning. Ed.] Potiphar’s wife elsewhere used to word לשכב עמי, “to sleep with me,” to describe Joseph’s supposed conduct (39,14).

Rashi on Exodus 32:6:2

לצחק TO PLAY — There is implied in this term besides idolatry also sexual immorality, — as we find the word used in, (Genesis 39:17) “to mock (לצחק) me” where unchastity is meant as is evident from the context — and blood-shed, as it is said, (II Samuel 2:14) “Let the young men arise and play (וישחקו) before me; [and they caught every one his fellow by the head and thrust his sword in his fellows side]”— here, too, Hur was assassinated (Midrash Tanchuma 3:9:20).

Rashi on Genesis 21:9:1

מצחק MAKING SPORT — This means worshipping idols, as it is said in reference of the Golden Calf, (Exodus 32:6) “And they rose up to make merry (לצחק).” Another explanation is that it refers to immoral conduct, just as you say in reference to Potiphar’s wife, (Genesis 39:17) “To mock (לצחק) at me.” Another explanation is that it refers to murder, as (2 Samuel 2:14) “Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and make sport (וישחקו) before us” (where they fought with and killed one another) From Sarah’s reply — “for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son״ — you may infer that he (Ishmael) was quarrelling with Isaac about the inheritance, saying, “I am the first-born and will, therefore, take a double portion”. They went into the field and he (Ishmael) took his bow and shot arrows at him (Isaac), just as you say (Proverbs 26:18-19) “As a madman who casteth firebrands, [arrows and death] and says: I am only מצחק mocking” (Genesis Rabbah 53:11).

Targum

In Genesis 39:17, Onkelos and Targum Jonathan both explain that Potiphar's wife accused Joseph of trying to seduce her by claiming he came to mock her, after he rejected her advances.

Onkelos Genesis 39:17

She spoke to him [her husband] according to these words, saying, The Hebrew slave came to me—the same one you brought into us—[he came to] mock me.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:17

and she spake to him according to these words, saying The Hebrew servant whom thou broughtest to us came in to me to mock me.

Tosefta

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai prefers his own interpretation over Rabbi Akiva's regarding the meaning of "m'tzachek" in Genesis 21:9. He argues that it refers to Ishmael's inappropriate behavior towards Isaac, rather than idol worship, sexual immorality, or the spilling of blood. Rabbi Shimon suggests that the laughter mentioned in the verse is related to the joy surrounding Isaac's birth and the subsequent inheritance dispute between Ishmael and Isaac.

Tosefta Sotah 6:3

Said Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: There were four matters that Rabbi Akiva expounded upon [midrashically], but I prefer my own words to his. Rabbi Akiva expounded (Gen 21:9), "And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian that she bore to Abraham m'tzachek (lit., 'laughing' or 'sporting')." Laughter is not what is being spoken of here; rather, idol worship, as it is said [during the sin of the golden calf] (Ex. 32:6), "And the people sat down to eat and drink, and [then] they arose to sport (l'tzachek)." It teaches that our Matriarch Sarah saw Ishmael building high places and hunting for locusts, and offering it up and turning it into smoke for idol worship. Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Rabbi Yosei HaGalili says, laughter (tzachok) is not spoken of here; rather sexual immorality, as it is said [in the matter of Potiphar's wife] (Gen 39:17), "The [Hebrew] servant came to me, etc., to sport (l'tzachek) with me." It teaches that our Matriarch Sarah saw Ishmael trampling the gardens and afflicting the women. Rabbi Yishmael says, the word tzachok means nothing other than the spilling of blood, as it is said (2 Sam. 2:14-16), "And Abner said to Joab, 'Let the young men arise and sport (visachaku) before us', etc. And they got up and they were counted by number, etc. And each man grabbed his neighbor by the head and [stuck] his sword into his neighbor's side, and they fell together." It teaches that our Matriarch Sarah was seeing Ishmael taking a bow and arrow and shooting them toward Isaac [as though in sport], as it is said (Prov. 26:19-20, JPS tr.), "Like a madman scattering deadly firebrands, arrows, is one who cheats his fellow and says, 'I was only joking.'" And I say, God forbid that there would be such things occurring in the house of this same tzaddik (i.e., Abraham)! Is it possible that the one for whom it is said (Gen. 18:19), "For I have known him in order that he command [his sons and his household after him, that they shall heed the path of God, to perform righteousness and justice]," that there would be idol worship, sexual immorality, and the spilling of blood in his household?! Rather, "tzachok" is only mentioned here in connection with inheritance, for from the time that our Patriarch Isaac was born to our Father Abraham, everyone was joyous, and they said, "A son is born to Abraham! A son is born to Abraham!" He had waited for so long, and he was given two portions. And Ishmael laughed to himself, and he said, "Don't be foolish! Don't be foolish! I am the first-born and I will take both portions." Then, at the conclusion of the matter, you learn, as it is said (Gen. 21:10), "for the son of this maidservant [shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac]." And I prefer my words to the words of Rabbi Akiva.

וַיְהִ֕י כַּהֲרִימִ֥י קוֹלִ֖י וָאֶקְרָ֑א וַיַּעֲזֹ֥ב בִּגְד֛וֹ אֶצְלִ֖י וַיָּ֥נׇס הַחֽוּצָה׃ 18 J but when I screamed at the top of my voice, he left his garment with me and fled outside.”
Joseph's integrity is demonstrated by his refusal to comply with his master's wife's advances, leading to his imprisonment. His obedience to God's commandments and wisdom in avoiding temptation eventually result in his reward of becoming a ruler. Pharaoh's decision to send carriages to bring Joseph's family to Egypt indicates a welcome, dispelling Yaakov's previous concerns about antisemitism in Egypt. The Targum translations of Joseph's statement emphasize his reaction to the situation.

Commentary

Joseph's master's wife falsely accused him of trying to seduce her, leading to Joseph being thrown into prison because he refused to comply with her advances. Joseph's integrity is shown by the fact that he left his garment behind when he fled from her attempts.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:18

It was as I raised my voice and cried that he left his garment with me and fled outside.

Midrash

Joseph was a wise man who obeyed both the king and God, understanding the importance of keeping commandments and oaths. He demonstrated wisdom and self-control by avoiding temptation and remaining faithful to God, leading to his eventual reward of becoming a ruler. Joseph's story serves as an example of how one's actions and adherence to God's laws can lead to blessings and protection from harm.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:6

“On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:54). “On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” – that is what is written: “I keep the king’s directive, [and in regard to the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). If the king will say to you that his fear shall be upon you and you shall observe his decrees, observe his decrees. Likewise, it says: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) – that his fear shall be upon you. And it says: “Any man who will disobey your directive, [and does not heed your words in everything that you command him, will be put to death]” (Joshua 1:18). “I” that is written here is nothing other than fear of the monarchy, just as Pharaoh said to Joseph. That is what is written: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, and without you no man shall lift his hand…” (Genesis 41:44). What is “I am Pharaoh”? This is what Pharaoh said to Joseph: Even though I said to you: “You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:40) – that I made you king over everyone – be careful to treat me with respect and make me king over you. That is why he said: “I am Pharaoh” – in other words, that the fear of my kingship shall be upon you. Similarly, “God spoke to Moses, and He said to him: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:2) – why was it necessary to say here: “I am the Lord”? Rather, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: Even though I set you as a god for Pharaoh, as the verse states: “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1) be careful that my Godliness will be upon you, as I made you a god only over Pharaoh alone. That is, “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is “I” who requires you to “keep the king’s directive” – that his fear shall be upon you. Make certain that you do not flout his commands. Is it, perhaps, even if he tells you to violate the words of the Omnipresent? The verse states: “And in regard to the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – the verse comes to inform you that “and in regard to the word of an oath of God” will be paramount over the command of flesh and blood, as you should nullify the will of flesh and blood before the will of God and fulfill all the commandments that are in the Torah, as you entered into an oath in their regard to fulfill them, just as it says: “To pass you into the covenant of the Lord your God and into His oath…” (Deuteronomy 29:11), and it says: “[Cursed be] who will not uphold the matters of this Torah to perform them; and the entire people shall say: Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:26). Similarly, “each of you shall fear his mother and his father…” (Leviticus 19:3) – is it, perhaps, even if his father said to him: Slaughter for me and cook for me on Shabbat, that he should listen to him? The verse states: “And you shall observe My Shabbatot” (Leviticus 19:3) – all of you are obligated in My honor. Here too, “and the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as above the word of the king observe the word of an oath to God. “Do not be frightened; leave his presence [mipanav]; [do not remain in a bad situation, as he will do what he wills]” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). If [a king of] flesh and blood will become angry at you in order to cause you to violate the statutes of the Torah, do not be frightened by his anger and follow his counsel, just as it says: “Who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalms 1:1). Panav is nothing other than his anger, just as it says: “And the expression on his face [anpohi] was distorted” (Daniel 3:19). That is, “leave his presence”; “do not remain in a bad situation [bedavar]” – do not remain in his path to follow it, just as it says: “And did not remain in the path of sinners” (Psalms 1:1). What is “bedavar” (Ecclesiastes 8:3)? It is that you should not fear that evil matter, that he will say to you that he will burn you, kill you, or subject you to harsh suffering if you do not fulfill his decree, and he will threaten you that there is no God in the world who will be able to rescue you from his hand. That is what is written thereafter: “As he will do what he wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). Just as Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya: “At that time you will be cast into the burning fiery furnace; who is the god who will save you from my hands?” (Daniel 3:15). “Since authority is by the king’s word, [who will say to him: What are you doing?]” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). If you devote yourself to the mitzvot to fulfill the decree of the Holy One blessed be He and to nullify the decrees of flesh and blood, what is your reward? When the Holy One blessed be He issues a decree to bring calamity to the world – as he is the King of the world and Ruler of everything, to do everything that He desires and no one can impede him: “He is of one mind, and who can respond to Him? His soul desires, and He does” (Job 23:13) – you will stand and ask for mercy regarding the decree to abrogate it. The Holy One blessed be He will show forbearance to you, and He will nullify it because you nullified the decree of flesh and blood in order to fulfill His decree. That is why it is stated: “Since authority is by the king’s word” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, when He says to bring something to the world to inform of his authority in the world, just as it says: “God caused that they would experience fear before Him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). Know, who can impede His decree and say to Him: ‘Why are You doing so’? It is one who observes mitzvot. That is why it is stated: “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” Who can say to Him: ‘Why are You doing this to Your creations? Descend to them with the attribute of mercy’? That is one who observes His mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva [will know no evil matter]” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5)? It is measure for measure; he did not remain in a bad situation, therefore, “he will know no evil matter.” “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – as there is a wise man who considers the consequences and reckons the loss from a mitzva against its reward and the loss from a transgression against its reward. He considers in his heart: If I transgress His mitzvot, and I have an opportunity to do what I want and there is no one who can impede me, tomorrow, the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him (Referring to himself.) because he violated His Torah. Likewise it says: “The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool [walks in darkness]” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). And it says: “The heart of the wise inclines to his right, [and the heart of a fool inclines to his left]” (Ecclesiastes 10:2). “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” – one whose heart is wise knows that if he transgresses the mitzvot, that the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him, and he refrains from the transgression. That is what is written thereafter: “For there is a time and a judgment for every matter…” (Ecclesiastes 8:6) – regarding every situation where a person performs his will and nullifies the will of the Omnipresent, it should be known to him that he is destined to be judged. Even though retribution is not exacted from him immediately, let him not think that the Holy One blessed be He would overlook his iniquity for him, but rather, He is slow to anger and collects what is due to Him. When does He exact retribution from him? It is when the hin is filled. Likewise it says: “With the filling of his quota, he will be troubled; [the hand of all travail will come upon him]” (Job 20:22). That is why it is stated: “As the evil of man overwhelms him” (Ecclesiastes 8:6); just as He did with the generation of the Flood, as He gave them an extension but ultimately exacted retribution from them, just as it says: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…” (Genesis 6:5). What is written thereafter? “The Lord said: I will obliterate man…” (Genesis 6:7). “For he does not know what will be, [for whenever it will be, who will have told him]?” (Ecclesiastes 8:7). The verse comes to teach you that anyone who does not repent from a transgression that he committed and does not fear the Day of Judgment, when it will arrive they will not show him forbearance. Were he to come and say that he be given an extension so he could repent, they will not listen to him. That is, for whenever punishment “will be, who will have told him” so he would repent and be accepted. It is to say to you that prior to the sentence they listen to him; after the sentence they do not listen to him. That is why it is stated: “For whenever it will be, who will have told him?” “There is no man who rules the spirit [to retain the spirit, and there is no rule on the day of death, and there is no sending a proxy in war, and wickedness will not rescue its owner]” (Ecclesiastes 8:8) – because we found that the Holy One blessed be He decreed four court-imposed death penalties for performers of transgressions. That is why four matters are written here, corresponding to them, where the living lack the ability to be rescued from them after their sentence. These are: “There is no man who rules the spirit [ruaḥ] to retain the spirit” – this is death by strangulation and the like, as a person dies from it only due to breath [ruaḥ], as he has no place from which to breathe. That is, “there is no man who rules the spirit” to exhale it when the day comes that the breath will be constricted in his body. “And there is no rule on the day of death” – this is death by stoning and the like, just as it says: “You shall stone him with stones, and he will die” (Deuteronomy 13:11). “There is no sending a proxy in war” – this is death by decapitation by sword and the like, just as it says: “Go out and wage war with Amalek” (Exodus 17:9), and it is written: “Joshua weakened [Amalek and its people by sword]” (Exodus 17:13). “And wickedness will not rescue its owner” – this is death by burning and the like, just as it says: “All the criminals and all the doers of wickedness will be straw; the day that is coming will burn them…” (Malachi 3:19). These are the four court-imposed death penalties mentioned in this verse. Even though the Sanhedrin ceased and the four court-imposed death penalties were abrogated, the sentence of the four court-imposed death penalties were not abrogated, as the Holy One blessed be He judges the living to die of them with harsh punishments corresponding to them. One who incurs liability to be strangled either drowns in the river, dies of diphtheria, or is delivered into the hands of idol worshippers who strangle him. One who incurs liability to be stoned either falls off the roof, or a beast tramples him, or idol worshippers stone him. One who incurs liability to be beheaded, robbers come upon him and behead him. One who incurs liability to be burned either falls into the fire or a snake bites him. You learned that a person cannot escape the judgment of the Holy One blessed be He that He will not punish him measure for measure. That is why it is stated: “There is no man who rules the spirit….” (Ecclesiastes 8:8). Another matter: “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is speaking of Joseph the righteous, who observed the “I” that Pharaoh had said to him, just as it says: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, [and without you no man shall lift his hand]” (Genesis 41:44), as he never flouted his command. “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as even though he entered into that prominence, he did not throw the yoke of Heaven from upon him and he feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “[I fear] God” (Genesis 42:18). That is why “God” is stated. (According to the Etz Yosef, the midrash is explaining that this is an allusion to the verse, “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2).) He was very cautious regarding the oath, as he did not take an oath “as the Lord lives,” but rather, “as Pharaoh lives, that you will not depart from here” (Genesis 42:15). That is, “an oath.” What is “the word of [divrat]”? It is because he separated himself from lasciviousness, just as it says: “He shall not see a lascivious matter [davar] in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it says: The young woman, because [al devar] she did not cry out in the city…” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Likewise it says: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). What is written there? “He refused, and he said to his master’s wife: Behold, my master…” (Genesis 39:8). That is why it is stated: “The word of [divrat],” just as it says: “It was, as she spoke [kedabra] to Joseph day after day, and he did not heed her…” (Genesis 39:10). “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence” – when he entered the house to perform his labor, and the house was vacant and there was no person who could see him, just as it is written: “It was, on a certain day he went into the house to perform his labor, and there was no one [of the people of the household there in the house]” (Genesis 39:11), she came and seized his garment so that he would lie with her. Nevertheless, he was not frightened by her actions, and he went outside, just as it says: “He left his garment in her hand, fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). That is why it is stated: “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence.” He was not frightened by the house being vacant, but rather he fled and left, even though she said to him that if he would not lie with her, she would say to her husband that he sought to rape her, and her husband will kill him, and there would be no one to impede him, because he is his slave. Nevertheless, he did not allow her to fulfill her desire because of that evil matter that she threatened to do to him. That is why it says: “Do not remain in a bad situation, as God will do what He wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). From where do you derive that she threatened him in that manner? It is from the end of the matter. When she saw that her actions were to no avail, look at what she did: “She called to the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying.… It was, when he heard.… She placed his garment [beside her, until his master’s arrival home]. She spoke to him…[saying: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to me to mock me]. It was, as I raised my voice [and cried out, that he left his garment with me, and fled outside]” (Genesis 39:14–18). “Since authority is by the king’s word…” (Ecclesiastes 8:4) – what reward did the Holy One blessed be He give him for this? He placed him in a position of authority in the land of Egypt. That is what is written: “Since [authority is] by the king’s word…,” just as it says: “Pharaoh spoke to Joseph: In my dream, behold, I am…” (Genesis 41:17). “Authority” – just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4), just as it says: “Go to Joseph; what he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). Why to that extent? It is because he observed the mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter”? It is this evil matter that the butler said, just as it says: “There with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief executioner…” (Genesis 41:12). He said three matters here in Joseph’s regard: “Lad” – that he was a fool, just as it says: “Folly is bound in the heart of a lad” (Proverbs 22:15); “Hebrew” – an enemy; “slave” – that he is not worthy of kingship. Nevertheless, Joseph knew no evil matter. In other words, the matter did not affect him, as he ruled. “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this was Joseph, who was called wise, just as it says: “There is no one as wise and understanding as you” (Genesis 41:39). He knew that he would be held accountable had he touched Potifar’s wife; that is why he withdrew from her. That is what is written: “He did not heed her [to lie with her, to be with her]” (Genesis 39:10); “to lie with her” in this world; “to be with her” in the World to Come. Another matter: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this is the Holy One blessed be He, in whose regard it is written: “Wise of heart and mighty of power” (Job 9:4). He brought about a time to reward Joseph on the basis of measure for measure. How so? He ruled over his inclination and did not touch her; therefore, he became a ruler, just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). He did not heed her, just as it says: “He did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10); therefore, the Holy One blessed be He crowned him as king over Egypt in its entirety, and everyone heeded his words, just as it says: “What he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). His mouth [piv] did not kiss [nashak] in transgression; therefore, “at your directive [pikha] my entire people will be sustained [yishak]” (Genesis 41:40). He said: “There is no one greater in this house than I…” (Genesis 39:9) in order to rebuff her; therefore, “you will be in charge of my house” (Genesis 41:40). He did not seize her, but she seized him with her hands, just as it says: “She seized him by his garment…” (Genesis 39:12); therefore, “Pharaoh removed his signet ring from upon his hand, and he placed it upon Joseph’s hand” (Genesis 41:42). He left his garment in her hand; therefore, “he dressed him in linen garments” (Genesis 41:42). He did not bend his neck toward her; therefore, “he placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42). He did not mount [rakhav] her; therefore, “he had him ride [vayarkev] in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43). She called the people of her household in this regard, just as it says: “She called the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14); therefore, “they called before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43). He was relegated to the prison for this, just as it says: “He relegated him [vayitenehu] to the prison” (Genesis 39:20); therefore, “he appointed him [venaton oto] over the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:43). He did not direct his glance toward her, and not toward the Egyptian women when he ruled, just as it says: “Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful bough alongside a spring [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22), as he averted his eye [she’ilem eino] from Potifar’s wife and from the Egyptian women. “Branches [banot] (Banot can also mean women.) ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22). Therefore, alei shur. Rabbi Reuven said: What is alei shur? The Holy One blessed be He said: It is incumbent upon me to pay a reward for that eye. How so? The Rabbis taught that in the Temple they would eat offerings of lesser sanctity within the wall, within the wall of Jerusalem. But in Shilo, which was in the portion of Joseph, they would eat it within eyeshot. (Within eyeshot of the Tabernacle (Rambam, Mishna Zevaḥim 14:6).) That is alei shur, just as it says: “The eye of one who sees me will not behold me [teshureni]” (Job 7:8). Rabbi Azarya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Joseph: You observed the mitzva of: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), which is the seventh of the Commandments, and you did not commit adultery with Potifar’s wife. And you observed the mitzva of: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), which is the eighth of the Commandments, as you did not steal Potifar’s property and you did not “steal” his wife, just as it says: “The eye of the adulterer observes the night, saying: No eye will behold [teshureni] me…” (Job 24:15). The time will come when I will repay you for them. Tomorrow, when the princes come to bring [offerings] for the dedication of the altar, the princes of your two sons, one will present his offering on the seventh day, and the second on the eighth day. And no other tribe will interpose between your two sons, just as you did not interpose (Namely, you did not differentiate between them. You observed both of them. As a reward, Benjamin did not interpose between Ephraim and Manasseh.) between “you shall not commit adultery” and “you shall not steal,” as it is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim.… On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh…” (Numbers 7:48–54) That is why it is written: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5).

Quoting Commentary

Yaakov's spirits were revived when he saw the carriages sent by Pharaoh, as he knew that previously carriages were not allowed to leave Egypt, but Pharaoh had relented and instructed Joseph to bring his family to Egypt using them, indicating a welcome. This turnaround convinced Yaakov that Pharaoh himself had given the command, dispelling any antisemitic feelings he had attributed to Egypt.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 45:27:2

וירא את העגלות....ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, “when he saw the carriages, their father Yaakov’s spirits revived.” He was aware that previously the Egyptian ruler had absolutely forbidden that any carriages leave the boundaries of Egypt [in order not to enable horses to be exported from Egypt. Ed.] Now Pharaoh had relented and instructed Joseph to bring his family to Egypt by means of carriages. This turnaround convinced Yaakov that he and his family would be welcome in Egypt. He realised that such a command could only have been given by Pharaoh himself. [He had attributed antisemitic feeling in Egypt as dating back to when his grandmother had almost been raped there, had G–d not interfered. (Compare Genesis chapter 12 and the derogatory term used by Potiphar’s wife about the ‘Hebrew’ slave in Genesis 39,18. Ed.]

Targum

In Genesis 39:18, Onkelos translates Joseph's statement as "When I raised my voice and cried out, he left his garment with me and fled outside [to the marketplace]." The Targum Jerusalem renders it as "And it was when I thundered with my voice."

Onkelos Genesis 39:18

When I raised my voice and cried out, he left his garment with me and fled outside [to the marketplace].

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 39:18

And it was when I thundered with my voice.

וַיְהִי֩ כִשְׁמֹ֨עַ אֲדֹנָ֜יו אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֣י אִשְׁתּ֗וֹ אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבְּרָ֤ה אֵלָיו֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר כַּדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה עָ֥שָׂה לִ֖י עַבְדֶּ֑ךָ וַיִּ֖חַר אַפּֽוֹ׃ 19 J When his master heard the story that his wife told him, namely, “Thus and so your slave did to me,” he was furious.
Potiphar's impotency may have been a result of his desire to use Joseph for homosexual practices, leading to fatal errors in judgment. The Almighty orchestrated events to allow the wicked to make mistakes, ultimately leading to their downfall and strengthening Joseph's faith in God. Potiphar did not believe his wife's false accusation of Joseph trying to rape her, possibly due to Joseph's righteousness or a miracle of God, putting Joseph in prison to avoid scandal. Rabbi Abahu suggests that Potiphar punished Joseph despite believing in his innocence to protect his family's reputation. Ibn Ezra and Ramban provide interpretations of specific words in the text, while Targum mentions Potiphar's anger upon hearing the accusation.

Chasidut

Potiphar's impotency was a result of his desire to use Joseph for homosexual practices, which led to fatal errors in his judgment. The Almighty orchestrated events to allow the wicked to commit mistakes, ultimately leading to their downfall. This situation also served to strengthen Joseph's faith in God, showcasing how God's actions may seem to favor the wicked temporarily but are actually part of a larger plan for justice.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayeshev 16

Genesis 39,17. “your servant has done to me unspeakable ‎things.” According to Rashi the conversation described ‎in the Torah here occurred while Potiphar and his wife were ‎having marital relations. At first glance, this appears somewhat ‎difficult to understand as in Genesis 41,45 when the Torah ‎reports that Pharaoh gave Joseph as a wife the daughter of ‎Potiphar, Rashi points out that Potiphar was impotent, as a ‎penalty for having desired to use Joseph for homosexual ‎practices, and that Ossnas was not his biological daughter. We ‎must therefore assume that the attempted seduction of Joseph ‎occurred earlier. If so, why did he become impotent only at a later ‎stage?‎ Actually, the Almighty Who performs wonderful deeds ‎completely unassisted, arranges events in such a way that the ‎wicked will commit fatal errors, as we know from Job 12,23 ‎משגיא ‏לגויים ויאבדם‎, “He leads (wicked) nations astray and causes their ‎destruction.” If G’d had made Potiphar impotent earlier, he could ‎not have believed his wife when she described that Joseph had ‎engaged in similar activities to the ones practiced by her husband ‎during marital intercourse. In addition to this, the Torah testified ‎that Potiphar was aware of and admired Joseph’s absolute loyalty ‎and sincerity, as we know from 39,3 and 4. The Torah sometimes ‎shows us how G’d, on occasion, lets a wicked person enjoy a ‎degree of success even when they are in the process harming the ‎righteous, so that the righteous has a chance to become stronger ‎in his faith in G’d. When this happens the wicked interprets it as ‎proof that G’d approves of what he has been doing, whereas in ‎fact G’d is only preparing the downfall of the wicked. Ultimately, ‎in retrospect, G’d will be seen as having misled the wicked, as per ‎Job 12,23.‎

Commentary

Potiphar's wife falsely accused Joseph of trying to rape her, but Potiphar did not believe her and did not kill Joseph. Instead, he put Joseph in prison to appease his wife and avoid a scandal, as he doubted her words, knew Joseph's righteousness, or it was a miracle of God. Some commentaries suggest that Potiphar was a eunuch, unable to have sexual relations, and that he may have intended to have homosexual relations with Joseph. Alternatively, it is proposed that Potiphar's castration was partial, affecting his ability to ejaculate. The Torah does not explicitly state with whom Potiphar was incensed.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:19:1

Undoubtedly, when Joseph’s master, appreciating that God was ever-present in his mind, did not believe what his wife was saying; for had he done so, he would have had to put him to death. However, he was still troubled by this episode, and accordingly put him in prison – had he not acted in this way, he would have become a laughing-stock, as his wife was (already) saying as much. By remaining silent, he would have provided her with a pretext for being unfaithful to him. This, then, is what Scripture intends to convey by the phrase, ‘And when his master heard the words of his wife’ (39:19): – for he was not unduly affected by the incident itself, since he lent it no credence; nor was he influenced by the robe found in her hand – as he undoubtedly questioned Joseph about it, and was told the truth. The Torah mentions this only briefly, as it is quite clear from the basic drift of the narrative. Hence it does not say (39:19): ‘And his fury was aroused against Joseph’, but simply, ‘his fury was aroused’. He was angered by what his wife had said, and his mind pre-occupied with what to do to appease her, given that she was insisting on her version of events. Accordingly, he resolved to incarcerate Joseph in the prison-house, which was under his control and located within the precincts of his own home, to remain there until (his wife’s) fury had subsided.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 39:19:1

כדברים האלה, “things like this;” according to Rashi, Potiphar’s wife showed him how Joseph had tried to arouse her while she was in bed with her husband. This appears difficult, as Rabbi Moshe, quoting the Talmud in tractate Sotah, folio 13 pointed out that the name Potiphar is spelled in the Torah once as פוטיפר, (39,1) without the letter ע at the end, and on another occasion with that letter ע missing (37,36) The Talmud concludes that once he had become a eunuch, as a close servant of Pharaoh, he could not indulge in sexual activity, so that Rashi’s commentary seems forced, to say the least. In fact, it is suggested that he bought Joseph in order to indulge in homosexual relations with him. Alternately, his castration had only been a partial one. Ibn Ezra explains that there are indeed two types of castration. One is called a hot castration, the other a cold castration. [The term occurs in the Talmud Yevamot repeatedly, but I have not found it mentioned here by Ibn Ezra. Ed.] Medically speaking, someone who underwent the “cold castration” requires a great deal of heat before he can ejaculate any semen. Potiphar, according to this opinion, was afflicted with that type of castration.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 39:19:1

THAT HIS WRATH WAS KINDLED. Potiphar nevertheless did not kill Joseph because he wasn’t certain as to the truth of his wife’s accusation.

Ramban on Genesis 39:19:1

AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN THE MASTER HEARD. She told him about it at the time of conjugal intimacy. Matters such as these did your servant to me, i.e., matters of intimacy such as these. So says Rashi. So also did they say in Bereshith Rabbah: (87:10.) “Rabbi Abahu said, ‘She said it to him at the time of conjugal relations.’” Now I wonder. Joseph’s master was a castrate, (Sotah 13b.) who had married his wife during his youth, and the Rabbis expounded, “ ‘Sris’ (a captain of) Pharaoh (Above, 37:36.) — this teaches us that he bought Joseph for carnal purposes only, but the Holy One, blessed be He, caused Joseph’s master to become castrated.” (The Hebrew word for castrate is saris, the same word mentioned in the verse above.) Moreover, how would she dare discredit herself and become loathsome in the eyes of her husband by telling him that she had committed adultery, whether by force or with acquiescence, which would have merited mortal punishment, for why did she not cry out at the outset, so that he should run away, as she did at the end? Now to the men of her house she said, He came unto me to lie with me, (Verse 14 here.) but not that he lay with her, only that he came to do so, but she cried out and he fled. And surely she would hide the matter from her husband. And should you say that she told him so in order that his anger be kindled against him and that he should kill him, [it would have been sufficient for this purpose that she say that he attempted to violate her, for] any servant that attempts to violate his master’s wife deserves the death penalty! It is possible that they intended to explain the expression, Matters such as these, as meaning matters of intimacy, meaning, exposing and caressing but not actual intimacy, as his master had become physically castrate, having been visited by a disease which resulted in a lack of desire for conjugal relations, as is the case with a shachuf. (One whose genitals are atrophied.) In line with the literal interpretation of Scripture there is no need for all this, for the Hebrew letter kaph, in the word kadvarim, is not for the purpose of expressing comparison to other matters. Instead its meaning is “these things.” (I.e., only to indicate approximation, and here meaning: “matters as these, more or less.”) A similar usage [of the letter kaph is found in these verses]: And she told her mother’s house ‘kadvarim ha’eileh’ (according to these words); (Above, 24:28. ) And when he had spoken unto me ‘kadvarim ha’eileh’ (according to these words) I set my face toward the ground. (Daniel 10:15. ) There are many similar verses. It may be that the verse is saying that when his master heard his wife’s words which she told him — “Your servant did unto me such matters as these which I had immediately related to the men of the house” — then his anger was kindled. It is possible that the kaph is here used for exaggeration, similar to its use in the verses: Why speaketh my lord ‘kadvarim ha’eileh’ (such words as these)? (Further 44:7.) And there have befallen me such things as these (‘ka’eileh’)? (Leviticus 10:19.) Now due to his master’s love for Joseph he did not kill him, or it was a miracle of G-d, or knowing Joseph’s righteousness, he doubted her words. Similarly the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah: (Bereshith Rabbah 87:10.) “The master said to Joseph, ‘I know this charge against you is false, but lest a stigma fall on my children, (Lest people say; “Just as she was free with you, so she was with others, and the children she had are not his.”) [I will put you in prison].’”

Rashi on Genesis 39:19:1

ויהי כשמע אדניו AND IT CAME TO PASS WHEN HIS LORD HEARD etc. — She said this when he was alone with her, caressing her. This is what she meant by כדברים האלה “things like these did thy servant do to me” — caresses such as these.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:19

It was when his master heard the words of his wife that she spoke to him, saying: Your slave did to me in this manner, he attempted to rape me, he, Potifar, was incensed. It should be noted that the verse does not state with whom he was incensed.

Midrash

Rabbi Abahu suggests that Potiphar's wife accused Joseph of trying to have intercourse with her, leading Potiphar to believe Joseph's innocence but still punish him to avoid stigma for his family. (Bereshit Rabbah 87:9)

Bereshit Rabbah 87:9

“It was when his master heard the words of his wife that she spoke to him, saying: Your slave did to me in this manner. His wrath was enflamed” (Genesis 39:19). “It was when his master heard…in this manner” – Rabbi Abahu said: It was during intercourse. (As Potiphar and his wife engaged in intimate conduct, she would say to him: This is what your slave would do to me. ) “Joseph's master took him, and placed him in the prison, the place where the king's prisoners were incarcerated, and he was there in the prison” (Genesis 39:20). “Joseph's master took him” – he said to him: ‘I know that you did not do this, (If he had believed his wife, he would, no doubt, have killed Joseph.) but it is so I will not attach stigma to my children.’ (If I do not punish you, everyone will know that I know that my wife is a harlot, and that stigma will affect my children.) .

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains that the word "appo" loses the nun and relates to other words, and mentions Caleb before Joshua for a specific reason. Ramban clarifies that "kazoth" in Genesis 45:23 refers to the amount of the gift sent to Jacob, and Tze'enah Ure'enah discusses Rashi's interpretation of Joseph's actions in Genesis 39:19.

Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 1:37:1

[ALSO THE LORD WAS ANGRY WITH ME.] I have already shown you (See I.E.’s comments on Ex. 2:2 (Vol. 2, p. 32).) that the nun of the word appo (his anger) (Gen. 39:19) is swallowed by the peh. (The root of appo is alef, nun, peh. In appo the nun drops out and a dagesh is placed in the peh.) However, it is present in the Aramaic. (Cf. anpa, anpin (Krinsky).) Furthermore, appo is also related to the word anafta (From the root alef, nun, peh.) (thou was angry) in For though Thou was angry with me (Is. 12:1) and hitannaf (was angry) (From the root alef, nun, peh.) in Also the Lord was angry with me. Moses mentions Caleb first, then Joshua. (Moses mentions Caleb before Joshua.) I have already explained why. (Caleb is mentioned first because he quieted the people. See I.E. on Num. 14:24,30 (Vol. 4, pp. 111,113).)

Ramban on Genesis 45:23:1

AND TO HIS FATHER HE SENT ‘KAZOTH’ (IN LIKE MANNER). I.e., according to this amount. And what was the amount? Ten asses, etc. This is the language of Rashi. It is not correct that kazoth should refer to the amount [for if it refers to cheshbon (amount), it should have said kazeh in the masculine, and not kazoth in the feminine]. But it is possible that Scripture says, in like manner, meaning “according to this gift,” [with the word minchah matching the feminine gender of kazoth] The purport thereof is, “and to his father he sent this gift: ten asses, etc.,” [with the word kazoth being understood as if it were written zoth], and the letter kaph in the word kazoth is considered redundant. However, it is the way of the Sacred Language to express it in this way, just as, And she spoke to him, [saying]: ‘ka’dvarim ha’eileh’ (after the manner of these things) did thy servant do to me. (Ibid., Verses 17 and 19.) It may be that Scripture is saying: “and to his father he sent provision (tzeidah), [which is also in the feminine gender], which was like this provision which he gave to his brothers.” But the intent of the expression is not to make them equal, but only to say that just as he gave them provision for the road when they went to Canaan, so did he send his father corn and bread and sustenance for his journey towards Egypt. And this is the correct interpretation. Scripture mentions asses and she-asses to inform us that he sent him both the provisions and the animals that carried them, and it was customary to send males and females, as his father had done. (Ibid., 32:16.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 112

Therefore, Rashi also writes that she said, sexual practices like these. That is to say, when we used to kiss and embrace, Joseph did as you are doing to me. (Rashi, Genesis, 39:19.)

Targum

When Joseph's master heard his wife's false accusation, he became furious and his wrath grew strong [Onkelos Genesis 39:19; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:19].

Onkelos Genesis 39:19

When his master heard the words of his wife which she spoke to him, saying, Your slave did such things to me, he became furious.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:19

And when his master heard the words which his wife spake with him, saying, According to these things did thy servant to me, his wrath became strong.

וַיִּקַּח֩ אֲדֹנֵ֨י יוֹסֵ֜ף אֹת֗וֹ וַֽיִּתְּנֵ֙הוּ֙ אֶל־בֵּ֣ית הַסֹּ֔הַר מְק֕וֹם אֲשֶׁר־[אֲסִירֵ֥י] (אסורי) הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ אֲסוּרִ֑ים וַֽיְהִי־שָׁ֖ם בְּבֵ֥ית הַסֹּֽהַר׃ 20 J So Joseph’s master had him put in prison, where the king’s prisoners were confined. But even while he was there in prison,
Joseph's time in prison, despite being innocent, led to interpreting dreams and ultimately becoming a leader in Egypt. The Torah emphasizes Joseph's righteousness and adherence to God's commandments, highlighting how the Lord was with him in both prosperity and trouble. Various words in the Hebrew Bible are spelled with a waw but read with a yod, as seen in the Talmud, and Joseph's placement in the prison is detailed in different Targum commentaries.

Chasidut

Marital intimacy is a realm of holiness with great temptations, as seen in Joseph's escape from Potiphar's wife's advances. Joseph's time in prison, despite being innocent, led to interpreting dreams, highlighting the benefit of leaving his fate in God's hands.

Flames of Faith 21:44

Marital intimacy is a realm of enormous holiness, which is why the temptations in this regard are so difficult. The greater the potential for good, the more difficult it is to attain that good. Joseph was the embodiment of holiness in this realm, as evidenced in the fact that he ran away from the allurements of Potiphar’s wife. (In Gen. 39:6-20 the Torah relates the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. Joseph had been sold as a slave to an Egyptian nobleman. The nobleman’s wife sought to seduce Joseph for a long time. Once, they were alone in her home, and she grabbed his shirt and asked him to sleep with her. He ran outside the house to escape her entreaties and left his garment with her.)

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayeshev 17

Genesis 39,20. “Joseph’s master took him and placed him ‎in the jail reserved for high ranking prisoners (prior to their ‎judgment).” ‎ויהי שם בבית הסהר‎. “He remained there for a ‎considerable period.” On the face of it, this last sentence appears ‎superfluous. At first glance, it appears as if when G’d ‎unaccountably sends afflictions on people the “victim” if truly ‎G’d-fearing, is not supposed to react by “physical ‎countermeasures,” but is supposed to continue to have faith in ‎G’d; as a result he will experience that in due course this ‎‎“harmful” decree will prove to have been beneficial. This is an ‎example of what we have been taught in Taanit 21 that what ‎appear to be painful reverses should be met with the ‎acknowledgment of ‎גם זו לטובה‎, “this too has been meant for our ‎ultimate benefit.”‎ The line describing Joseph as spending a considerable time in ‎prison, although he was innocent of the charges against him, is to ‎hint to us that through his remaining there he eventually ‎interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh’s cupbearer and chief baker, ‎only to come to Pharaoh’s attention and start a magnificent ‎career. Inaction, not publicizing his plight, leaving his fate in the ‎hands of G’d, was the instrument that was most effective.‎

Commentary

Joseph was placed in a prison reserved for the king's prisoners, a distinguished political prison, due to his master's love for him. The prison was likely an underground dungeon with minimal light, similar to Noah's ark. Joseph was not judged by regular courts, but by priests, who declared him innocent. The Torah emphasizes that Joseph remained in the prison to avoid disgracing the woman who accused him, and out of gratitude for the priests' judgment, Joseph provided them with bread when he became king during the famine.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:20:1

He did not hand him over to his servants, the officials, to lead him away in shame and derision to the jail, as would be normal (in such cases); but rather, his master personally took him by the hand and led him there, as he (Joseph) was highly esteemed by him. This is what is meant by the verse ‘And Joseph’s master took him, and placed him in the prison-house’. (39:20). However, he did not put him in the area where men of lowly rank were imprisoned by order of the city’s judiciary, but in the section where royal prisoners were incarcerated; for inside the jail were various chambers and storeys, each separate from one another; and Joseph was placed in that very room where those princes imprisoned by royal command had been assigned.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:20:2

As for the next phrase, ‘and he remained there in the prison-house’, we must understand this to mean that he (Potiphar) placed him there, as this was to be his punishment, i.e. to remain there at his pleasure for a period of time; and he was to receive no further punishment.

Chizkuni, Genesis 39:20:1

ויתנהו אל בית הסוהר, “he put him in (the) jail.” He was not guilty of the death penalty as there had been no witness to the alleged rape attempt. In such cases the standard penalty was to be incarcerated.

Chizkuni, Genesis 39:20:2

אסורי המלך, “the King’s prisoners;” the spelling here is with the letter ו, although we are to read the word as if it had been written with the letter י instead of the letter ו. We found an interesting Midrash, according to which when Joseph was brought before the King, the angel Gavriel, having assumed the guise of a human being said to the King: “if it pleases Your Majesty may the garments of both the accused and the accuser be examined for evidence. If the woman’s garment show tears it is clear that the accused has tried to rape her. If only Joseph’s clothing has been torn, it is clear that his mistress attempted to seduce him by force. Gavriel’s suggestion was accepted and that was the reason why Joseph was not convicted of the death penalty. He could not be released unconditionally as it would have been too embarrassing for the wife of a highly placed minister at Pharaoh’s Court to have been declared a liar. He was judged by a court of the priests of Egypt, and out of gratitude for this, Joseph did not confiscate the lands of the priests during the years of the famine. (compare 47,22)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 39:20:1-2

ויתנהו אל בית הסוהר, “and he put him in jail.” This is a kind of underground prison, a dungeon, a place where the mentally ill are kept nowadays (author’s time). These prisons have a small hole on top through which the prisoners are brought in and a little daylight is seen. The expression סוהר is similar to the word צוהר, which is used in Genesis 6,15 to describe the source of light in Noah’s ark. The exchange of the letters ס and צ respectively is not unique. The Torah next mentions that this was an extraordinary dungeon, reserved for the King’s highly placed servants if they had incurred his displeasure. This is why the Torah writes: “the place where the king’s prisoners would be kept locked up.” There were two jails within the same compound, the one reserved for the king’s prisoners being the “deluxe” accommodation. The main distinction between the two appears to have been the amount of daylight the prisoners enjoyed. The reason the Torah adds: “he (Joseph) remained there in the jail,” is in order to place these words next to the words ויהי ה' את יוסף, “G’d remained at Joseph’s side.” This teaches that even within the prison G’d’s שכינה, benevolent presence, remained with Joseph.(based on Mechilta Bo, 14). It is quite possible that these words were meant to allude to happenings in the future, and that the oppression which Joseph underwent in that dungeon foreshadowed the exile of the Jewish people which has also been compared to a בור, a pit, a dungeon. This may have been the origin of the prayer in which we ask יעלה ויבא, “may He arise and arrive,” a request voiced in our prayers on days when we are especially conscious of the absence of the Temple service and the benefits it had conferred upon the Jewish people. It is a reference to the ascent of the Shechinah. Anyone who finds himself imprisoned in a dungeon needs to literally “arise” in order to get out of there. Just as the Shechinah did not forsake Joseph when he was in jail, so the Shechinah will not forsake the Jewish people just because they are in exile. Just as the Torah wrote concerning Joseph (Psalms 105,18) ברזל באה נפשו, “an iron collar was placed around his neck,” it is also written concerning Israel in exile (Psalms 107,10) יושבי חשך וצלמות אסירי עני וברזל, “some lived in deepest darkness, bound in cruel irons.” Just as we read concerning Joseph ויט אליו חסד, “He endowed him with kindness,” (verse 21) so we find concerning Israel in exile that the prophet says (Isaiah 54,10) וחסדי מאתך לא ימוש, “but My kindness will not depart from you.” Concerning Joseph the Torah writes (21) ויתן חנו בעיני שר בית הסוהר, “He put his favour in the eyes of the prison warden.” We find a corresponding statement in connection with Israel in exile when the psalmist writes (Psalms 106,46) ויתן אותם לרחמים לפני כל שוביהם, “He made all their captors kindly disposed toward them.” Just as Joseph eventually was released from prison and rose to unprecedented power and prominence, so the Jewish people will be redeemed from their exile as is written in Daniel 12,4 “as for you Daniel, obscure the matters and close the book and seal it until the time of the end; let many muse and let knowledge increase.”

Ramban on Genesis 39:20:1

AND HE PUT HIM INTO PRISON, THE PLACE WHERE THE KING’s PRISONERS WERE BOUND. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that the verse itself explains that a beth haso’ar (prison) is “a place where the king’s prisoners were bound.” The reason this is stated in the verse itself is that beth haso’ar is an Egyptian word, for it is the style of Scripture to explain foreign words just as, they cast pur, that is the lot. (Esther 3:7.) This interpretation is of no significance. Rather, And he put him into the prison, means that he put him into a certain prison recognized as the royal prison, which was the place where the king’s prisoners were bound. The sense of the verse is thus to state that this was the cause of the butler and the baker being imprisoned with him. It is possible that the term, “the king’s prisoners,” means his servants and attendants who have sinned against him in matters of state, as other prisoners of the people sentenced by judges and officers were placed in another prison house. Scripture relates that they placed Joseph in the king’s prison because of his master’s love for Joseph, all of which was caused by G-d. Linguists (Here referring to R’dak, who so writes in his Book of Roots, under the term sohar.) explain sohar as an arched chamber, similar in expression to, agan hasohar (a round goblet). (Song of Songs 7:3.) In my opinion it is an underground house having a small opening above ground, through which the prisoners are lowered and from which they have light. The word sohar is thus derived from the word sihara (light) in Aramaic, just as in Hebrew, Scripture says; A transparency (‘tzohar’) shalt thou make to the ark, (Above, 6:16.) the word tzohar being derived from tzaharayim (mid-day — when the light reaches its zenith). The difference between tzohar and sohar is that tzohar connotes an abundance of light, while sohar connotes minimal light.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:20:1

סחר ,זהר ,צהר ,סהר usw. סחר: im Kreise herumziehen. זהר und צהר: einen Strahlenkreis um sich bilden, einen Hof um sich bilden. סהר: ein umschließender Raum. Ob ihre Gefängnisse rund gewesen? Es scheint so, da auch בור, der gewöhnliche Name für Gefängnis, rund war. Siehe Bawa Kama 50b. Die Verwandtschaft von סהר, die Kreislinie, mit סור weichen, gibt den Begriff der Kreislinie als eine solche, die in jedem Punkt ihrer Fortbewegung von der eingenommenen Richtung weicht. Sie verändert unaufhörlich ihre "Berührende", ihr Tangente, d. h. sie weicht unaufhörlich. — ויתנהו אל בית הסהר וגו׳ ויהי שם בבית הסהר. Wenn das erste schon hieß, er gab ihn ins Gefängnis, so wäre der Schlusssatz, dort war er im Gefängnis, völlig überflüssig. Potiphar hatte auch das Staatsgefängnis unter sich (siehe folgendes Kap. V. 3). Dorthin, אל בית הסהר gab er ihn, versetzte ihn dorthin, damit er dort sich nützlich mache wie bisher in seinem Hause, und auf diese Weise war er dort Gefangener. Es würde dies voraussetzen, daß er in seinem eigenen Innern von Josefs Unschuld überzeugt gewesen, und nur um seiner Ehre willen also handeln musste. — אָסִיר ist Hauptwort, also ein bleibender Charakter, Gefangener, אָסור als Zeitwort bezeichnet nur einen zeitweiligen Charakter. Ein Untersuchungsgefangener ist אָסור, ein Strafgefangener: אָסִיר. Durch Keri und Ketib steht hier beides. Es war das ein Gewahrsam, wohin sowohl Straf- als Untersuchungsgefangene kamen. Auf diesen Umstand scheint der weitere Verfolg zu beruhen. Dadurch konnte Josef mit Männern in Berührung kommen, die, nur zeitweilig interniert, wieder zu einer bedeutenden Stellung zurückkehrten. In der Tat scheinen der Fürst der Bäcker und der der Schenke nur in Untersuchungshaft gewesen zu sein. 
Raw Hirsch on Genesis 39: 21. ויט אליו חסד, nicht der Menschen, sein, Gottes Wohlwollen neigte Er ihm zu. Es war dies die tiefste Stufe, auf welche Josef sinken sollte. Von nun an wandte Gott ihm חסד zu. — ׳שר ב׳ה. Wiederum ein שר. Je knechtischer und gefesselter ein Volk ist, umsomehr "Fürsten" hat es. Wer nur ein bißchen höher steht, wird gleich ein "Fürst".

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:20

Joseph’s master took him, without any judicial process, and placed him in the prison in order to punish him, in the place where the king’s prisoners were incarcerated. It later becomes apparent that this prison housed distinguished political prisoners, not convicted criminals. And he was there in the prison as one of the prisoners.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 39:20:1

ויתנהו אל בית הסוהר מקום אשר אסירי המלך, “he placed him in the jail in which the King’s prisoners were kept.” According to Ibn Ezra the term בית הסוהר is a specifically Egyptian term. This is the reason why the Torah found it necessary to explain the meaning of the term by writing that it was the place in which the King’s prisoners were kept. Nachmanides writes concerning Ibn Ezra’s observation that Ibn Ezra made no contribution at all with his excuse for the apparent repetition, but that the letter ה at the beginning of the word סוהר indicates that this was a very well known jail, the one specially reserved for the king’s prisoners This explains why the King’s baker and the King’s cupbearer were placed in that jail where they met Joseph. It is also possible that the wording in chapter 40,3 indicates that prisoners kept in that jail were dealt with by the King personally, and not by regular judges and courts. The Torah’s reporting that this was the jail Potiphar placed Joseph in, is an indication that Joseph was considered as a V.I.P. by his former master.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 113

“He put him in prison” [39:20]. Hizkuni writes. He was put in prison, but they could not judge him; there were no witnesses present. The Talmud says that Joseph was brought to the king. The angel Gabriel disguised himself as one of the nobles and said to the king that they should discover who was right. If the garments of the woman were torn, then Joseph would be in the wrong. He had wanted to sleep with her by force. If Joseph’s garments were torn, then she had wanted to sleep with him by force. They found that Joseph’s garments were torn. Priests sat in judgment. The priests declared Joseph innocent, but they said that it would be a disgrace for the woman if we were to declare Joseph innocent. Therefore, let him sit in prison, so that people would not say that the woman was a whore. Because, the priests judged properly, therefore, Joseph gave them sufficient bread, when he became king during the famine. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 39:20.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 114

“He put him in prison” [39:20]. Joseph was put in the prison where the nobles were placed; it was light in the prison.

Midrash

The Midrash discusses how those who hate the righteous are considered to be hating God. It also highlights the concept of the Shechinah being with Israel in times of bondage and exile. The commentary on Joseph in prison shows how the Lord was with him in both prosperity and trouble. The text also discusses how Joseph's actions led to his eventual reward of leadership in Egypt, emphasizing his righteousness and adherence to God's commandments.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:6

“On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:54). “On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh, Gamliel son of Pedatzur” – that is what is written: “I keep the king’s directive, [and in regard to the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). If the king will say to you that his fear shall be upon you and you shall observe his decrees, observe his decrees. Likewise, it says: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) – that his fear shall be upon you. And it says: “Any man who will disobey your directive, [and does not heed your words in everything that you command him, will be put to death]” (Joshua 1:18). “I” that is written here is nothing other than fear of the monarchy, just as Pharaoh said to Joseph. That is what is written: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, and without you no man shall lift his hand…” (Genesis 41:44). What is “I am Pharaoh”? This is what Pharaoh said to Joseph: Even though I said to you: “You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:40) – that I made you king over everyone – be careful to treat me with respect and make me king over you. That is why he said: “I am Pharaoh” – in other words, that the fear of my kingship shall be upon you. Similarly, “God spoke to Moses, and He said to him: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:2) – why was it necessary to say here: “I am the Lord”? Rather, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: Even though I set you as a god for Pharaoh, as the verse states: “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1) be careful that my Godliness will be upon you, as I made you a god only over Pharaoh alone. That is, “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is “I” who requires you to “keep the king’s directive” – that his fear shall be upon you. Make certain that you do not flout his commands. Is it, perhaps, even if he tells you to violate the words of the Omnipresent? The verse states: “And in regard to the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – the verse comes to inform you that “and in regard to the word of an oath of God” will be paramount over the command of flesh and blood, as you should nullify the will of flesh and blood before the will of God and fulfill all the commandments that are in the Torah, as you entered into an oath in their regard to fulfill them, just as it says: “To pass you into the covenant of the Lord your God and into His oath…” (Deuteronomy 29:11), and it says: “[Cursed be] who will not uphold the matters of this Torah to perform them; and the entire people shall say: Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:26). Similarly, “each of you shall fear his mother and his father…” (Leviticus 19:3) – is it, perhaps, even if his father said to him: Slaughter for me and cook for me on Shabbat, that he should listen to him? The verse states: “And you shall observe My Shabbatot” (Leviticus 19:3) – all of you are obligated in My honor. Here too, “and the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as above the word of the king observe the word of an oath to God. “Do not be frightened; leave his presence [mipanav]; [do not remain in a bad situation, as he will do what he wills]” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). If [a king of] flesh and blood will become angry at you in order to cause you to violate the statutes of the Torah, do not be frightened by his anger and follow his counsel, just as it says: “Who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalms 1:1). Panav is nothing other than his anger, just as it says: “And the expression on his face [anpohi] was distorted” (Daniel 3:19). That is, “leave his presence”; “do not remain in a bad situation [bedavar]” – do not remain in his path to follow it, just as it says: “And did not remain in the path of sinners” (Psalms 1:1). What is “bedavar” (Ecclesiastes 8:3)? It is that you should not fear that evil matter, that he will say to you that he will burn you, kill you, or subject you to harsh suffering if you do not fulfill his decree, and he will threaten you that there is no God in the world who will be able to rescue you from his hand. That is what is written thereafter: “As he will do what he wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). Just as Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya: “At that time you will be cast into the burning fiery furnace; who is the god who will save you from my hands?” (Daniel 3:15). “Since authority is by the king’s word, [who will say to him: What are you doing?]” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). If you devote yourself to the mitzvot to fulfill the decree of the Holy One blessed be He and to nullify the decrees of flesh and blood, what is your reward? When the Holy One blessed be He issues a decree to bring calamity to the world – as he is the King of the world and Ruler of everything, to do everything that He desires and no one can impede him: “He is of one mind, and who can respond to Him? His soul desires, and He does” (Job 23:13) – you will stand and ask for mercy regarding the decree to abrogate it. The Holy One blessed be He will show forbearance to you, and He will nullify it because you nullified the decree of flesh and blood in order to fulfill His decree. That is why it is stated: “Since authority is by the king’s word” – this is the Holy One blessed be He, when He says to bring something to the world to inform of his authority in the world, just as it says: “God caused that they would experience fear before Him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). Know, who can impede His decree and say to Him: ‘Why are You doing so’? It is one who observes mitzvot. That is why it is stated: “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” Who can say to Him: ‘Why are You doing this to Your creations? Descend to them with the attribute of mercy’? That is one who observes His mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva [will know no evil matter]” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5)? It is measure for measure; he did not remain in a bad situation, therefore, “he will know no evil matter.” “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – as there is a wise man who considers the consequences and reckons the loss from a mitzva against its reward and the loss from a transgression against its reward. He considers in his heart: If I transgress His mitzvot, and I have an opportunity to do what I want and there is no one who can impede me, tomorrow, the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him (Referring to himself.) because he violated His Torah. Likewise it says: “The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool [walks in darkness]” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). And it says: “The heart of the wise inclines to his right, [and the heart of a fool inclines to his left]” (Ecclesiastes 10:2). “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” – one whose heart is wise knows that if he transgresses the mitzvot, that the time will come when the Holy One blessed be He will execute judgment against him, and he refrains from the transgression. That is what is written thereafter: “For there is a time and a judgment for every matter…” (Ecclesiastes 8:6) – regarding every situation where a person performs his will and nullifies the will of the Omnipresent, it should be known to him that he is destined to be judged. Even though retribution is not exacted from him immediately, let him not think that the Holy One blessed be He would overlook his iniquity for him, but rather, He is slow to anger and collects what is due to Him. When does He exact retribution from him? It is when the hin is filled. Likewise it says: “With the filling of his quota, he will be troubled; [the hand of all travail will come upon him]” (Job 20:22). That is why it is stated: “As the evil of man overwhelms him” (Ecclesiastes 8:6); just as He did with the generation of the Flood, as He gave them an extension but ultimately exacted retribution from them, just as it says: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…” (Genesis 6:5). What is written thereafter? “The Lord said: I will obliterate man…” (Genesis 6:7). “For he does not know what will be, [for whenever it will be, who will have told him]?” (Ecclesiastes 8:7). The verse comes to teach you that anyone who does not repent from a transgression that he committed and does not fear the Day of Judgment, when it will arrive they will not show him forbearance. Were he to come and say that he be given an extension so he could repent, they will not listen to him. That is, for whenever punishment “will be, who will have told him” so he would repent and be accepted. It is to say to you that prior to the sentence they listen to him; after the sentence they do not listen to him. That is why it is stated: “For whenever it will be, who will have told him?” “There is no man who rules the spirit [to retain the spirit, and there is no rule on the day of death, and there is no sending a proxy in war, and wickedness will not rescue its owner]” (Ecclesiastes 8:8) – because we found that the Holy One blessed be He decreed four court-imposed death penalties for performers of transgressions. That is why four matters are written here, corresponding to them, where the living lack the ability to be rescued from them after their sentence. These are: “There is no man who rules the spirit [ruaḥ] to retain the spirit” – this is death by strangulation and the like, as a person dies from it only due to breath [ruaḥ], as he has no place from which to breathe. That is, “there is no man who rules the spirit” to exhale it when the day comes that the breath will be constricted in his body. “And there is no rule on the day of death” – this is death by stoning and the like, just as it says: “You shall stone him with stones, and he will die” (Deuteronomy 13:11). “There is no sending a proxy in war” – this is death by decapitation by sword and the like, just as it says: “Go out and wage war with Amalek” (Exodus 17:9), and it is written: “Joshua weakened [Amalek and its people by sword]” (Exodus 17:13). “And wickedness will not rescue its owner” – this is death by burning and the like, just as it says: “All the criminals and all the doers of wickedness will be straw; the day that is coming will burn them…” (Malachi 3:19). These are the four court-imposed death penalties mentioned in this verse. Even though the Sanhedrin ceased and the four court-imposed death penalties were abrogated, the sentence of the four court-imposed death penalties were not abrogated, as the Holy One blessed be He judges the living to die of them with harsh punishments corresponding to them. One who incurs liability to be strangled either drowns in the river, dies of diphtheria, or is delivered into the hands of idol worshippers who strangle him. One who incurs liability to be stoned either falls off the roof, or a beast tramples him, or idol worshippers stone him. One who incurs liability to be beheaded, robbers come upon him and behead him. One who incurs liability to be burned either falls into the fire or a snake bites him. You learned that a person cannot escape the judgment of the Holy One blessed be He that He will not punish him measure for measure. That is why it is stated: “There is no man who rules the spirit….” (Ecclesiastes 8:8). Another matter: “I keep the king’s directive” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – it is speaking of Joseph the righteous, who observed the “I” that Pharaoh had said to him, just as it says: “Pharaoh said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh, [and without you no man shall lift his hand]” (Genesis 41:44), as he never flouted his command. “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) – as even though he entered into that prominence, he did not throw the yoke of Heaven from upon him and he feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “[I fear] God” (Genesis 42:18). That is why “God” is stated. (According to the Etz Yosef, the midrash is explaining that this is an allusion to the verse, “And the word of an oath to God” (Ecclesiastes 8:2).) He was very cautious regarding the oath, as he did not take an oath “as the Lord lives,” but rather, “as Pharaoh lives, that you will not depart from here” (Genesis 42:15). That is, “an oath.” What is “the word of [divrat]”? It is because he separated himself from lasciviousness, just as it says: “He shall not see a lascivious matter [davar] in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it says: The young woman, because [al devar] she did not cry out in the city…” (Deuteronomy 22:24). Likewise it says: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). What is written there? “He refused, and he said to his master’s wife: Behold, my master…” (Genesis 39:8). That is why it is stated: “The word of [divrat],” just as it says: “It was, as she spoke [kedabra] to Joseph day after day, and he did not heed her…” (Genesis 39:10). “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence” – when he entered the house to perform his labor, and the house was vacant and there was no person who could see him, just as it is written: “It was, on a certain day he went into the house to perform his labor, and there was no one [of the people of the household there in the house]” (Genesis 39:11), she came and seized his garment so that he would lie with her. Nevertheless, he was not frightened by her actions, and he went outside, just as it says: “He left his garment in her hand, fled, and went outside” (Genesis 39:12). That is why it is stated: “Do not be frightened; [leave] his presence.” He was not frightened by the house being vacant, but rather he fled and left, even though she said to him that if he would not lie with her, she would say to her husband that he sought to rape her, and her husband will kill him, and there would be no one to impede him, because he is his slave. Nevertheless, he did not allow her to fulfill her desire because of that evil matter that she threatened to do to him. That is why it says: “Do not remain in a bad situation, as God will do what He wills” (Ecclesiastes 8:3). From where do you derive that she threatened him in that manner? It is from the end of the matter. When she saw that her actions were to no avail, look at what she did: “She called to the people of her household, and spoke to them, saying.… It was, when he heard.… She placed his garment [beside her, until his master’s arrival home]. She spoke to him…[saying: The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came to me to mock me]. It was, as I raised my voice [and cried out, that he left his garment with me, and fled outside]” (Genesis 39:14–18). “Since authority is by the king’s word…” (Ecclesiastes 8:4) – what reward did the Holy One blessed be He give him for this? He placed him in a position of authority in the land of Egypt. That is what is written: “Since [authority is] by the king’s word…,” just as it says: “Pharaoh spoke to Joseph: In my dream, behold, I am…” (Genesis 41:17). “Authority” – just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). “Who will say to him: What are you doing?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4), just as it says: “Go to Joseph; what he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). Why to that extent? It is because he observed the mitzvot. That is what is written: “One who observes a mitzva will know no evil matter” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). What is “will know no evil matter”? It is this evil matter that the butler said, just as it says: “There with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief executioner…” (Genesis 41:12). He said three matters here in Joseph’s regard: “Lad” – that he was a fool, just as it says: “Folly is bound in the heart of a lad” (Proverbs 22:15); “Hebrew” – an enemy; “slave” – that he is not worthy of kingship. Nevertheless, Joseph knew no evil matter. In other words, the matter did not affect him, as he ruled. “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this was Joseph, who was called wise, just as it says: “There is no one as wise and understanding as you” (Genesis 41:39). He knew that he would be held accountable had he touched Potifar’s wife; that is why he withdrew from her. That is what is written: “He did not heed her [to lie with her, to be with her]” (Genesis 39:10); “to lie with her” in this world; “to be with her” in the World to Come. Another matter: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5) – this is the Holy One blessed be He, in whose regard it is written: “Wise of heart and mighty of power” (Job 9:4). He brought about a time to reward Joseph on the basis of measure for measure. How so? He ruled over his inclination and did not touch her; therefore, he became a ruler, just as it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land” (Genesis 42:6). He did not heed her, just as it says: “He did not heed her” (Genesis 39:10); therefore, the Holy One blessed be He crowned him as king over Egypt in its entirety, and everyone heeded his words, just as it says: “What he says to you, you shall do” (Genesis 41:55). His mouth [piv] did not kiss [nashak] in transgression; therefore, “at your directive [pikha] my entire people will be sustained [yishak]” (Genesis 41:40). He said: “There is no one greater in this house than I…” (Genesis 39:9) in order to rebuff her; therefore, “you will be in charge of my house” (Genesis 41:40). He did not seize her, but she seized him with her hands, just as it says: “She seized him by his garment…” (Genesis 39:12); therefore, “Pharaoh removed his signet ring from upon his hand, and he placed it upon Joseph’s hand” (Genesis 41:42). He left his garment in her hand; therefore, “he dressed him in linen garments” (Genesis 41:42). He did not bend his neck toward her; therefore, “he placed a gold chain on his neck” (Genesis 41:42). He did not mount [rakhav] her; therefore, “he had him ride [vayarkev] in the second chariot that he had” (Genesis 41:43). She called the people of her household in this regard, just as it says: “She called the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14); therefore, “they called before him: Kneel” (Genesis 41:43). He was relegated to the prison for this, just as it says: “He relegated him [vayitenehu] to the prison” (Genesis 39:20); therefore, “he appointed him [venaton oto] over the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:43). He did not direct his glance toward her, and not toward the Egyptian women when he ruled, just as it says: “Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful bough alongside a spring [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22), as he averted his eye [she’ilem eino] from Potifar’s wife and from the Egyptian women. “Branches [banot] (Banot can also mean women.) ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22). Therefore, alei shur. Rabbi Reuven said: What is alei shur? The Holy One blessed be He said: It is incumbent upon me to pay a reward for that eye. How so? The Rabbis taught that in the Temple they would eat offerings of lesser sanctity within the wall, within the wall of Jerusalem. But in Shilo, which was in the portion of Joseph, they would eat it within eyeshot. (Within eyeshot of the Tabernacle (Rambam, Mishna Zevaḥim 14:6).) That is alei shur, just as it says: “The eye of one who sees me will not behold me [teshureni]” (Job 7:8). Rabbi Azarya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Joseph: You observed the mitzva of: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), which is the seventh of the Commandments, and you did not commit adultery with Potifar’s wife. And you observed the mitzva of: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13), which is the eighth of the Commandments, as you did not steal Potifar’s property and you did not “steal” his wife, just as it says: “The eye of the adulterer observes the night, saying: No eye will behold [teshureni] me…” (Job 24:15). The time will come when I will repay you for them. Tomorrow, when the princes come to bring [offerings] for the dedication of the altar, the princes of your two sons, one will present his offering on the seventh day, and the second on the eighth day. And no other tribe will interpose between your two sons, just as you did not interpose (Namely, you did not differentiate between them. You observed both of them. As a reward, Benjamin did not interpose between Ephraim and Manasseh.) between “you shall not commit adultery” and “you shall not steal,” as it is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim.… On the eighth day, prince of the children of Manasseh…” (Numbers 7:48–54) That is why it is written: “A wise man’s heart will know the time and judgment” (Ecclesiastes 8:5).

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:7

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:55). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]…” – do not read it as kaarat, but rather as akart, corresponding to Jacob, who extracted [akar] the birthright (The birthright refers to the extra portion of the inheritance that the eldest son received.) from Reuben and gave it to Joseph: “I have given you one portion more than your brothers…” (Genesis 48:22). “Silver” – just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20), just as he (Silver alludes to the statement made by Jacob, who was righteous.) said: “Ephraim and Manasseh will be for me like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – when Jacob descended to Egypt on account of Joseph, he was one hundred and thirty years old, as it is stated: “Jacob said to Pharaoh: The days of the years of my residence are one hundred and thirty years” (Genesis 47:9). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – corresponding to Joseph, who was cast [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “Silver” – after: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20) – what he said to his father (Silver alludes to the statement made by Joseph, who was righteous.) : “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn; place your right hand upon his head” (Genesis 48:18). “Seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” – as it was through him that seventy people descended to Egypt. “Both of them full…” – Jacob and Joseph, both of them were full-fledged righteous men and both produced tribes. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:56). “One gold ladle of ten shekels…” – corresponding to the ten districts of Manasseh, as it is stated: “Ten districts fell to Manasseh” (Joshua 17:5). “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:57). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:58). “One young bull, one ram [one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering]; one goat…” – these (This is a reference to the three burnt offerings.) are three corresponding to the three generations that Joseph saw from Manasseh that received a portion in the land, (This is a reference to the fact that there were three major families named after the three generations following Manasseh, in addition to the family which was named after Manasseh himself. Therefore, the phrase “the sons of Makhir” refers to Makhir himself, Gilad, and Iezer.) as it is stated: “The children of Makhir son of Manasseh, too, were born at Joseph’s knees” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise, it says: “The sons of Manasseh: For Makhir, the family of the Makhirites, and Makhir begot Gilad.… These are the sons of Gilad: Of Iezer…” (Numbers 26:29–30). Makhir, Gilad, and Iezer – these are three generations that were patrilineal houses that were attributed to Joseph, as Manasseh is attributed to Jacob, just as it says: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before my coming to you to Egypt, they are mine” (Genesis 48:5). The fourth, this was Ya’ir son of Manasseh, who received a portion in the land, just as it says: “Ya’ir son of Manasseh went and captured their villages [ḥavot], and he called them Ḥavot Ya’ir” (Numbers 32:41). The three species of burnt offerings corresponded to the sons of Makhir son of Manasseh. (This is referring to what was mentioned above, and is mentioned again since the midrash now also explains what the sin offering signifies.) The goat sin offering corresponded to Ya’ir, who did not bequeath his portion to his sons, because he did not have sons. That is why he called them (The villages.) by his name, because he did not have any remnant, and the sons of his brother Makhir inherited his portion. “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Gamliel son of Pedatzur” (Numbers 7:59). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the tribe of Manasseh, which split into two and received two portions in the land, half of it on the east bank of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan. “Five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year” – these are three species, corresponding to three things that Joseph did on behalf of Manasseh, whom he sought to elevate over his brother Ephraim. The first: “Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim in his right hand to the left of Israel, and Manasseh in his left hand to the right of Israel” (Genesis 48:13). The second: “He supported his father’s hand, to remove it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh” (Genesis 48:17). The third: “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn…” (Genesis 48:18). Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five women from the tribe of Manasseh who took a portion in the land. These were Tzelofḥad’s five daughters, just as it says: “Tzelofḥad’s daughters speak justly; give them a holding for inheritance…” (Numbers 27:7). They were five, as it is stated: “These are the names of his daughters: Maḥla, Noa, Ḥogla, Milka, and Tirtza” (Numbers 27:1). Likewise, Jacob mentioned them in the blessing of Joseph, as it is stated: “Branches [banot] ran atop the wall [alei shur]” (Genesis 49:22); these are Tzelofḥad’s daughters [banot], who received a portion in the land. Alternatively, why were they five each? It corresponds to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “May they proliferate like fish in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16), and fish were created on the fifth day. “This was the offering of Gamliel…” – since the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented the offering in this order, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Gamliel…”

Bereshit Rabbah 87:9

“It was when his master heard the words of his wife that she spoke to him, saying: Your slave did to me in this manner. His wrath was enflamed” (Genesis 39:19). “It was when his master heard…in this manner” – Rabbi Abahu said: It was during intercourse. (As Potiphar and his wife engaged in intimate conduct, she would say to him: This is what your slave would do to me. ) “Joseph's master took him, and placed him in the prison, the place where the king's prisoners were incarcerated, and he was there in the prison” (Genesis 39:20). “Joseph's master took him” – he said to him: ‘I know that you did not do this, (If he had believed his wife, he would, no doubt, have killed Joseph.) but it is so I will not attach stigma to my children.’ (If I do not punish you, everyone will know that I know that my wife is a harlot, and that stigma will affect my children.) .

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Pischa 14:19

And thus do you find, that whenever Israel is in bondage, the Shechinah is with them, viz. (Exodus 24:10) "And they saw the G–d of Israel, and under His feet, as the work of a sapphire brick" (the sign of that bondage). And what is written of their redemption? (Ibid.) "and as the appearance of the heavens in brightness." And it is written (Isaiah 63:9) "In all of their sorrows, He sorrowed." This tells me only of communal sorrows. Whence do I derive (the same for) those of the individual? From (Psalms 91:15) "He will call upon Me and I will answer Him; I am with him in sorrow," and (Genesis 39:20-21) "And Joseph's master took him and placed him in the prison house … and the L–rd was with Joseph, etc.", and (II Samuel 7:23) "… before Your people whom You have redeemed from Egypt, a nation and its G–d."

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 16:4

(Gen. 39:1, cont.:) < POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH AND > CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD, < BOUGHT HIM >; nevertheless (according to vs. 2): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH, < AND HE WAS A SUCCESSFUL MAN >. R. Abbahu said: Do I only have < evidence that the Lord was with him > in prosperity? Where is it shown < that the Lord was with him >, even in trouble? See, he wrote (in vs. 20): SO JOSEPH'S MASTER TOOK HIM AND PUT HIM IN PRISON. Nevertheless (according to vs. 21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH. R. Abbahu said: You have someone who loves his friend in prosperity. When trouble came to him, he acted as though he did not know him. But the Holy One is not like that. Rather (according to Gen. 39:20-21): WHILE HE WAS THERE IN PRISON, THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH. < Both > in trouble and in prosperity, he was with him.

Sifrei Bamidbar 84:4

"and let Your haters flee before You": Now are there "haters" before Him who spoke and brought the world into being? The intent is, rather, that all who hate the righteous are, as it were, haters of the L-rd. Similarly, (Shemot 15:7) "and in the greatness of Your grandeur you destroy those who rise against You." Now are there any who "rise" before the L-rd? The intent is, rather, that all who rise against the righteous are, as it were, "rising" against the L-rd. And, similarly (Psalms 74:23) "Forget not the voice of Your adversaries, the ever rising roar of those who rise against You," and (Psalms 83:3) "For Your foes are tumultuous; Your haters have raised their heads," and (Psalms 4) "They have been subtle in counsel against Your people," and (Psalms 138:21-22) "Will I not hate Your haters, O L-rd? Will I not battle with those who rise up against You? I have hated them to the heights of hatred. I have deemed them my (own) enemies." And thus is it written (Zechariah 2:12) "Whoever touches you (Israel) touches the pupil of His eye": It is not written "the pupil of the eye," but "the pupil of His eye" — that of the L-rd, as it were, Scripture resorting to a euphemism (for "the eye of the L-rd"). Similarly, (Job 7:20) "Why do You make me Your target for Yourself, and a burden to myself?" — ("myself") a euphemism (for "to You"?) Similarly, (Ezekiel 8:17) "and they thrust the branch to their nostrils" — a euphemism for ("My"). Similarly, (Chabakkuk 1:12) "Are You not of yore, O L-rd, my holy G-d, and we shall not die" — a euphemism (for "You"). Similarly, (Psalms 106:20) "They exchanged their glory for the image of a bull feeding on grass" — a euphemism (for "G-d"). Similarly, (Bamidbar 11:15) "And if You will do thus to me, kill me, I pray You, if I have found favor in Your eyes, and let me not witness my evil" — a euphemism (for "them" and "their," respectively). Similarly, (Ibid. 12:12) "who comes out of his mother's womb, and half his flesh being consumed" — a euphemism (for "our"). And if one helps the righteous, it is as if he is helping the L-rd, viz. (Judges 5:23) "'Curse Meroz!' said the angel of the L-rd. 'Bitterly curse her dwellers. Because they do not come to the holy of the L-rd, to the help of the L-rd among the mighty.'" R. Shimon b. Elazar says: There is nothing more "beloved" in a man's body than his eye. When a man is hit on his head, he closes only his eyes. And Israel is thus compared, viz. (Zechariah 2:12) "Whoever touches you (Israel) touches the pupil of His eye." R. Yossi b. Elazar says: He (the "toucher") is regarded as one who sticks a finger into His eye and gouges it out. Pharaoh, who "touched," what did I do to him? (Shemot 15:4) "Pharaoh's chariots and his army He cast into the sea." Sisra, who "touched," what did I do to him? (Judges 5:20) "From heaven the stars fought. From their courses they fought against Sisra." Sancherev, who "touched," what did I do to him? (II Kings 19:35) "And an angel of the L-rd went out and smote in the camp of Ashur, etc." Nevuchadnezzar, who "touched," what did I do to him? (Daniel 4:30) "and he ate grass like cattle." Haman, who "touched," what did I do to him? (Esther 8:7) "and they hanged him on a tree." And thus you find that as long as Israel were subjugated in Egypt, the Shechinah was with them in their servitude, viz. (Shemot 22:10) "And they saw the G-d of Israel, and under His feet, the likeness of a sapphire brick" (viz. Ibid. 1:14) "And thus is it written (Isaiah 63:9) "In all of their afflictions, He was afflicted." This tells me only of communal afflictions. Whence do I derive (the same for) individual afflictions? From (Psalms 91:15) "When he calls Me, I will answer him. With him will I be in affliction." And it is written (Bereshit 39:20-21) "And Joseph's master took him in and the L-rd was with Joseph." And thus is it written (II Samuel 7:23) "… before your people whom You redeemed from Egypt — a nation and its G-d" (together with them). R. Akiva says: If it were not explicitly written, it would be impossible to say it — Israel said before the L-rd: "You have redeemed Yourself!" You find that whenever they were exiled, the Shechinah was exiled with them, viz. (I Samuel 2:27) "Was I not exiled to your father's house when they were in Egypt in the house of Pharaoh?" When they were exiled to Bavel, the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 43:14) "For your sake I was sent to Bavel." When they were exiled to Edom, the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Ibid. 63:1) "Who is this, coming from Edom, etc.?" And when they return, the Shechinah will return with them, as it is written (Devarim 30:3) "And the L-rd will return, etc." It is not written "and the L-rd will return your captivity," but "and the L-rd will return with your captivity." And it is written (Song of Songs 4:8) "With Me, from Levanon, My bride, with Me from Levanon will you come."

Quoting Commentary

Joseph is falsely accused of rape by Potiphar's wife and thrown into prison, despite no violence occurring in the incident (Gen. 39:6-20).

Covenant and Conversation; Leviticus; The Book of Holiness, Tazria, Circumcision, Sex, and Violence 42

The sixth occurs when Joseph is left alone with Potiphar’s wife, who attempts to seduce him, and when she fails, brings against him a false accusation of rape. There is no violence in this case, but Joseph is thrown into prison, ostensibly for life, for a crime he did not commit (Gen. 39:6–20).

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 16:8:3

בעלי גוים The chief of nations. (A. V., The lords of the heathen.) Comp. (The instances quoted are to prove the use of the plural of nouns denoting master or lord in reference to an individual.) אדני יוסף the master of Joseph (Gen. 39:20). לבעליו to his owner (Ex. 21:34). The king (The Hebrew text has והם מלכי אשור, The kings of Assyria are meant, but the instances quoted by I. E. show that בעלי signifies chief, not chiefs. We must therefore read either והוא מלך אשור, And this is the king of Assyria, or או הם מלכי אשור, or the kings of Assyria are meant thereby. In the latter case a second explanation is given, which leaves to the plural בעלי its proper meaning chiefs.) of Assyria is meant by בעלי הגוים the chief of nations.

Rashi on Genesis 20:13:2

כאשר התעו WHEN GOD (CAUSED ME TO WANDER — The verb is in the plural. Do not be surprised at this for in many passages words denoting Godship or denoting Authority are grammatically treated as plural, e. g., (2 Samuel 7:23) “Whom God went (הלכו plural) to redeem”; (Deuteronomy 5:23) “the living (חיים adjective, plural) God”; (Joshua 24:19) “a Holy (קדושים adjective, plural) God”. So, too, the idea of Authority is expressed by the plural form, as (39:20) “And the master of (אדני construct plural) Joseph took him” and as (Deuteronomy 10:17) “Lord of (אדני) lords (האדנים)”, and (42:30) “the lord of (אדני) the land”; as well as (Exodus 22:14) “if its owner (בעליו) be with it”, and (Exodus 21:19) “and warning has been given to its master (בעליו)”. If you ask why does it here use the term התעו, I reply, anyone who is exiled from his home and has no settled abode may be styled תועה a wanderer (or “one moving about aimlessly”), as (21:14) “And she, Hagar, went and strayed about (ותתע) in the wilderness”; (Psalms 119:176) “I have gone astray (תעיתי) like a lost sheep”, and (Job 38:41) “they wander (יתעו) through lack of food”, i.e. they go out and wander about to seek their food.

Talmud

Various words in the Hebrew Bible are spelled with a waw but read with a yod, including prisoners, Abigail, chief men, cistern, and dung, among others. This discrepancy in spelling and pronunciation is highlighted in Tractate Soferim 7:4 from the Talmud.

Tractate Soferim 7:4

The following are spelt with a waw but read with a yod: prisoners; (Gen. 39, 20, written ’asurë and read ’asirë.) Abigail; (1 Sam. 25, 18, written Abugail and read Abigail.) I make thee … go up and down; (2 Sam. 15, 20, written anu‘aka and read ani‘aka.) chief men; (2 Kings 24, 15, written ’ulë and read ’elë.) I will … make … straight; (Isa. 45, 2, written ’aushir and read ’ayashsher.) I will … make them run away; (Jer. 50, 44, written ’aruẓem and read ’ariẓem.) on mine eye; (2 Sam. 16, 12, written ba‘awoni and read be‘eni.) cistern; (Jer. 6, 7, written bor and read bayir.) in their march; (Nahum 2, 6, written bahalokotham and read bahalikotham.) set apart; (2 Chron. 26, 21, written haḥofshuth and read haḥofshith. V inserts here another example, viz. ‘my way’, but N.Y. declares it to be incorrect and H omits it.) wilt thou set; (Prov. 23, 5, written hata‘uf and read hata‘if.) ye might provoke Me; (Jer. 25, 7, written hik‘oseni and read hak‘iseni.) make straight; (Ps. 5, 9, written haushar and read hayeshar.) who were set; (Ezra 8, 17, written hannethunim and read hannethinim.) that taught; (2 Chron. 35, 3, written hammebonim and read hammebinim.) Birzaith; (1 Chron. 7, 31, written Birzoth and read Birzaith.) will greatly rejoice; (Prov. 23, 24, written gol yagul and read gil yagil.) Dehites; (Ezra 4, 9, written Dehawë and read Dehayë.) bring forth; (Gen. 8, 17, written hawẓë’ and read hayẓë’.) Harsith; (Jer. 19, 2, written haḥarsoth and read haḥarsith.) Luhith; (ibid. XLVIII, 5, written halluḥoth and read halluḥith.) the entry; (Ezek. 42, 9, written hammebo’ and read hammebi’.) the strong; (Zech. 11, 2, written habbaẓur and read habbaẓir.) made to murmur; (Numb. 14, 36, written wayyillonu and read wayyalinu.) and Shahazim; (Josh. 19, 22, written weshaḥaẓumah and read weshaḥaẓimah.) and a royal diadem; (Isa. 62, 3, written uẓenuf and read uẓenif.) and a thing of nought and the deceit; (Jer. 14, 14, written we’elul wetarmuth and read we’elil wetarmith.) and the swallow; (ibid. VIII, 7, written wesus and read wesis.) and the galleries thereof; (Ezek. 41, 15, written we’attoḳeha and read we’attiḳeha.) and Tilon; (1 Chron. 4, 20, written wetolon and read wetilon.) Jehiel; (2 Chron. 29, 14, written Jeḥu’el and read Jeḥi’el.) and prepare ye; (ibid. XXXV, 4, written wehikkonu and read wehakkinu.) thy bosom; (Ps. 74, 11, written ḥoḳeka and read ḥeḳeka.) a side-structure; (1 Kings 6, 5, written yaẓu‘a and read yaẓi‘a.) Jair; (1 Chron. 20, 5, written Ya‘or and read Ya‘ir.) alienate; (Ezek. 48, 14, written ya‘abor and read ya‘abir.) Jeiel; (1 Chron. 9, 35, written Je‘u’el and read Je‘i’el.) they wander up and down; (Ps. 59, 16, written yenu‘un and read yeni‘un.) let … cover them; (ibid. CXL, 10, written yekassumo and read yekassemo.) they cause … to fall; (Prov. 4, 16, written yiksholu and read yakshilu.) to strive; (Judg. 21, 22, written larub and read larib.) singing; (1 Sam. 18, 6, written lashur and read lashir.) Laish; (2 Sam. 3, 15, written Lush and read Layish.) for fishers; (Jer. 16, 16, written ledogim and read ledayyagim.) dross; (Ezek. 22, 18, written lesog and read lesig.) for a spoil; (Isa. 42, 24, written limshoseh and read limshissah.) their furrows; (Ps. 129, 3, written lema‘anotham and read lema‘anitham.) Mephaath; (Jer. 48, 21, written mopha‘ath and read mepa‘ath.) from Naioth; (1 Sam. 20, 1, written minnawoth and read minnayoth.) stretched-forth; (Isa. 3, 17, written neṭuwothn and read neṭioth.) fruit; (ibid. LVII, 19, written nob and read nib.) Nebai; (Neh. 10, 20, written Nubai and read Nebai.) Nephishesim; (ibid. VII, 52, written Nefushesim and read Nefishesim.) leave; (2 Sam. 14, 7, written sum and read sim.) ready dressed; (1 Sam. 25, 18, written ‘asuwoth and read ‘asiyoth.) Ephai; (Jer. 40, 8, written ‘ufai and read ‘ephai.) Ephrain; (2 Chron. 13, 19, written ‘Efron and read ‘Efrain. V incorrectly reads ‘Abarim.) the second (This excludes the first ready in Esth. 3, 14.) ready; (Esth. 8, 13, written ‘athudim and read ‘athidim.) their lads; (Jer. 14, 3, written ẓe‘orehem and read ẓe‘irehem.) her little ones; (ibid. XLVIII, 4, written ẓe‘oreha and read ẓe‘ireha.) dung. (Ezek. 4, 15, written ẓefu‘ë and read ẓefi‘ë.) [38b]

Targum

Joseph's master placed him in the prison where the king's prisoners were jailed, according to Onkelos [Genesis 39:20]. The priests advised to spare Joseph's life and he was placed in the house of the bound, as mentioned in Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:20. Targum Jerusalem on Genesis 39:20 simply states that Joseph was in the prison house.

Onkelos Genesis 39:20

Yoseif’s master took him and placed him in [appointed him over] the prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were jailed. He remained there in the prison.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 39:20

In the prison house.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:20

And Joseph's master took counsel of the priests, who ____ put him not to death, but delivered him into the house of the bound, where the king's prisoners were bound; and he was there in the house of the bound.

וַיְהִ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֔ף וַיֵּ֥ט אֵלָ֖יו חָ֑סֶד וַיִּתֵּ֣ן חִנּ֔וֹ בְּעֵינֵ֖י שַׂ֥ר בֵּית־הַסֹּֽהַר׃ 21 J יהוה was with Joseph—extending kindness to him and disposing the chief jailer favorably toward him.
Joseph found favor in the eyes of those around him, even in prison, due to divine protection and influence, allowing him to oversee all activities in the prison. Moses seeks to understand God's ways and find favor, leading to promises of miraculous distinctions and blessings. The Midrash draws parallels between Joseph and Zion, highlighting their experiences and divine favor. Fathers are encouraged to teach their sons Torah and mitzvot for lasting success. Or HaChaim emphasizes the removal of barriers between Israel and God's favor, while Targum highlights the Lord's support and kindness towards Joseph.

Commentary

In Genesis 39:21, the text discusses how Joseph found favor in the eyes of those around him, even in prison, due to divine protection and influence. Despite the typically cruel nature of prisoners, they treated Joseph with kindness. This favor extended to the prison governor, who delegated control to Joseph and allowed him to oversee all activities in the prison, a situation considered miraculous due to the governor's character. This favor was attributed to God being with Joseph and granting him success in all his endeavors.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:21:1

Scripture then goes on to relate: ‘And the Almighty was with Joseph and extended grace towards him, and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison governor’ (39:21). We should note that, whereas in regard to Joseph’s master (Potiphar), who was a high-ranking official, Scripture (deliberately) employs the (more neutral) expression ‘he found favor in his sight’, in the case of the governor of the jail, who was cruel by nature, showing neither pity nor mercy [such a nature well suited his job, as he would inevitably be in the company of wrongdoers and sinful men all day long], – so that Joseph’s finding favor with him would be truly miraculous – Scripture relates: ‘The Almighty was with Joseph and extended him grace, granting him favor (even) with the governor of the jail’. This was nothing less than a miracle, taking into account the governor’s base character. Indeed, (Joseph found favor with him) to such an extent that the governor delegated control of all the prisoners to him, and he was appointed to watch over all their comings and goings. Now, since the poorest element amongst a group of prisoners continue with the performance of their regular occupations whilst in jail so as to allow them to earn some money, and it would be risky to permit outsiders to visit them to buy such items from them as they had made themselves, in case the prisoners plotted an escape, all their business affairs and dealings were directed through Joseph. This, then, is the underlying meaning of the phrase (39:22): ‘and everything they did there was done by him’ – as they carried out all their activities under his supervision. Rashi states in his commentary on this verse that everything was done at Joseph’s command and with his permission; and undoubtedly Joseph too obtained some personal benefit from this arrangement; hence the next verse goes on to say: (39:23): ‘The prison governor saw nothing of all that passed through (Joseph’s) hand’ – as he did not bother to check whether Joseph would obtain material benefit from it or not.

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 39:21:2

The same verse then records that all these benefits flowed from the prison governor, despite this being totally out of character for him; and we may ascribe this to two reasons; first, because God was with Joseph, causing him to find favor in his sight; and secondly, because the Almighty granted Joseph success in regard to anything to which he turned his hand; and such success allowed him permanently to retain the governor’s favor.

Haamek Davar on Genesis 39:21:1

And extended kindness to him. The word “extended” implies more than was natural. Even the prisoners, who are usually cruel individuals, treated Yoseif with kindness and respect.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 39:21:1

PRISON. We can not ascertain whether bet ha-sohar (the prison) is a Hebrew or Egyptian word in view of the fact that the Bible goes on to explain its meaning (Were it a Hebrew word there would be no reason to explain the place where the King’s prisoners were bound.) as it does with the Persian word ha-achashteranim (that were used in the King’s service) which is followed by the Hebrew bene ha-rammakhim (bred of the stud) (According to I.E. bene ha-rammakhim is Hebrew for achashteranim.) (Est. 8:10).

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:21:1

ויהי ה׳ את יוסף. G'd was with Joseph. The meaning of this verse is that when a human being enjoys divine protection people around him are also influenced by the fact that such a person enjoys G'd's help. It was natural then that Joseph should find favour in the eyes of those who came into contact with him. G'd had to especially influence the warden of the prison to take a liking to Joseph as a righteous person [and therefore innocent, the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Ed.]

Rashi on Genesis 39:21:1

ויט אליו חסד AND CAUSED HIM TO FIND FAVOUR — so that he was liked by all who saw him. We have the expression חסד in a like sense in the Mishna (Baraitha): “a handsome bride liked by all (חסודה)” (Ketubot 17a).

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:21

The Lord was with Joseph, and granted him appeal, and put his favor in the eyes of the commandant of the prison. Joseph had the ability to ingratiate himself with people outside of his family.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 115

“The Lord was with Joseph” [39:21]. The Holy One was with Joseph in the prison.

Jewish Thought

Moses argues that G-d is still angry and entrusting supervision to someone equivalent to those of other nations, asking to know G-d's ways to find favor and demonstrate that the people are truly His. G-d responds by promising miraculous distinctions for both Moses and the people, revealing His name and attributes, while explaining that man cannot comprehend His essence. The priests remind people of G-d as the source of blessings, with the third blessing of peace being the most important, maintaining harmony even for sinners. The completion of the tabernacle symbolizes the restoration of the broken relationship between G-d and man, with Moses hearing three voices representing material, spiritual, and ultimate well-being. G-d assures Moses of His goodwill towards His children, emphasizing the importance of blessings and the completion of the tabernacle in restoring the broken thread of harmony.

Akeidat Yitzchak 54:1:13

(1) Moses argues, that after confession of the sin and an advocate such as himself of whom G-d had said "I have known you by name," no further lack of grace should exist. Nevertheless, You have said "I will send an angel before you," i.e. not like the angel mentioned in Parshat Mishpatim. When talking about the function of this angel, no mention was made by You, that he would be like the angel that accompanied us up to now. Of the previous angel, the Torah had said "and the Lord was walking ahead of them by day and by night in a pillar of cloud...and during the night in a column of fire." (Exodus 13,21) (2) Now however, Moses argues "You state for I will not go up in your midst." (33,3) All this points to the fact that You are still angry, and that You are entrusting the supervision of my people to someone who is equivalent to those who supervise the fate of all other nations. Therefore, Moses asks "let me know Your ways, so that I will know You and be able to find favour in Your eyes, and this will demonstrate that this people is really YOUR people." G-d responds "My face, i.e. My personal hashgachah will lead you." Moses continues that G-d should not think that he was unaware that without "YOUR Presence we cannot even progress one step on the way," but I wanted You to assure me that by teaching me Your ways we qualify for the superior type of hashgachah reserved for the tzaddikim. How else would I know that not only I, personally, but also Your people have found favour in Your eyes? This could only be by means of veniflinu ani ve-amcha that both I and Your people will be granted miraculous distinctions! (3) G-d responded by saying that He would perform miracles in the presence of both Moses and His people, the like of which had never been performed. (34, 10) This would prove that all the Jewish people are under the protection of the third and most exclusive type of hashgachah peratit the most personalised supervision by G-d. This is also the meaning of "I will be gracious to whomever I choose to be gracious to;" (33, 19) it will be an act of grace, not entitlement or automatic response by Me. Since G-d had explained His response to the needs of the people already twice, Moses asks for a personal favour, an act of grace for himself, when he says "please show ME Your glory." He wanted to be shown this at once, not to have to wait until some future national crisis would trigger the need for that kind of revelation of G-d’s Majesty. The word na, is frequently used as prefacing a request for immediate fulfilment. Examples are Numbers 12, 13, "heal her now!," or Exodus 11,2, "speak now!" (4) G-d responds by saying "I will let all My goodness pass before you." You will then understand the relationship of all the things that exist, and how they are all traced back to Me, the original Cause of all existence and all happenings. I will proclaim the four lettered name before you" i.e. I will use the four lettered name of which I once said to you "this is My name and this is My memorial." (Exodus 3, 15) "I will reveal the significance of this name so that you will know that whosoever knows it and calls upon it, I will respond to such a person by performing miracles in this (otherwise) orderly world. In this manner I will demonstrate that I will bestow grace on those I decide to grant grace to." When G-d says "you cannot see My face," this is not to be construed as a denial of Moses’s request, but as a teaching and an instruction. The ultimate wisdom of the sage is to know what element of theology needs to remain beyond his understanding. This is the difference between a chacham, a wise man and someone who is still wiser than a chacham. The latter can add to his knowledge of "causes" without getting to know the essence. This is why G-d tells Moses that the highest level of his perception is to know that one cannot see "MY FACE," i.e. understand "My" attributes in a manner that would form a composite picture of "My" essence. As long as a human being is alive, i.e. ha-adam vechay, such perceptions are not possible. The nature of your life, Moses is told is the combination of matter and spirit. This precludes the comprehension of the essence of the pure spirit. Once you are no longer part of an earthly shell, part of a primitive form of life, you would be able to realise some of My positive attributes. Berachot 17, phrases it "In the world of the future, the righteous will sit with their crowns on their heads, and enjoy the outpourings of the Divine Presence." Put another way: as long as man has a normal intellect, cognition of My essence is beyond him, as we find in Numbers 21, 9, "when he would look at the copper snake he would live." When looking at the copper snake, some people were under the illusion that they had seen G-d. A blind man who has never seen light, sometimes imagines himself as competetnt to define light because he is not satisfied with his state of blindness and longs to advance beyond that stage. This may be what the prophet Isaiah 6,5, refers to when he said "woe unto me: I thought I was a person of unclean lips, dwelling amongst a people that are impure, for I have seen the Lord of hosts with my eyes." What is described here is a reference to this vision of the Divine entourage, merkavah which the prophet had experienced, in which he saw the throne of G-d. As Maimonides comments, the power of the prophet is that he can make relevant comparisons between the form and the Creator, between exterior form and inner content. (5) "He said, here there is a place near Me, stand there on the rock etc." Afterwards G-d said "you cannot see." G-d now explains how these matters relate to one another. "I can elevate you to a place from which you can look down on earth, then when My majesty passes, you will stand in this highest place that it is possible for man to achieve, and I will cover you with My hand." This will act as a lid to protect you from that part of Me that is not given to mortal man to understand. But afterwards, "I will remove My hand, and you will see My rear, "meaning the negative aspects of Me. This is the most any human can do. (33,22-23) In chapter 60 of his "Moreh," Maimonides explains this in the famous parable with the ship. The nikrat hatzur, is understood as the summit of the rock. Moses’s vantage point will be above the earth, so to speak. Since things created by G-d directly have no lasting existence, i.e. are by (6) their very nature created only for the brief moment they are needed, such as the manna in the desert, and since the second set of tablets needed to endure, they had to be constructed by human hands. As long as G-d contributed only the writing, the continued existence of these tablets was assured. The reason no one was to accompany Moses to the mountain was, that since the first time the objective had been to let the people hear "so that the people will hear when I speak with you," Aaron and the elders were to accompany Moses part of the way. The fact that Moses would be addressed directly by G-d had been demonstrated already, there was therefore no need for Aaron or elders to accompany Moses again. Animals also were not allowed on the mountain, to underline the sanctity of the site. After this, the Torah says "Moses rose early and ascended the mountain," conclusive proof of Rashi's opinion that conversation between G-d and people up to that time had taken place within his tent. Now Moses took with him the tablets which had as yet not been inscribed. G-d descended on the mountain, that is to the place previously defined as "there is this place with Me." Moses stood on the rock. "He proclaimed in the name of G-d," i.e. G-d now proceeded to instruct him in the thirteen attributes." G-d passed in front of him." This is the fulfilment of "I will let all My goodness pass before you." Normally, Moses would have experienced a transient revelation to be immediately forgotten, dreamlike; however, because G-d had added the words "I will remove My hand," He granted Moses a much longer lasting impression of the revelation that was to follow. Had G-d only stated "I will cover you with My hand," this would not have been the case. The whole revelation would be an indirect (negative) revelation, not a direct (positive) one, as would have been the case had there been a vision of G-d’s "face." At any rate, the comment "I will grant grace to whomsoever I shall decide to grant grace to," is the reference to the instruction in the thirteen attributes as outlined in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 17. Rabbi Yonathan comments there that if it had not been for that verse, I would not have been permitted to explain it in that vein. G-d instructed Moses how to pray, wore a tallit and showed Moses that whenever Israel sinned, he should likewise drape himself in such a prayer shawl and G-d would be willing to forgive Israel. Rabbi Yehudah says that G-d made a contract with Moses that he would not return empty handed from any entreaty incorporating mention of G-d’s thirteen attributes. This is the meaning of "Here I conclude a covenant in the presence of the people." (34, 10)

Akeidat Yitzchak 74:1:9

(1,2,3) Just as man is not allowed to enjoy nature's blessings without first reciting an appropriate benediction acknowledging G'd as the source, so the priests remind people of that fact when they say "may the Lord bless you." Constant reminders that G'd is the source of all blessings and well being are important. This too is the purpose of "they will place My name on the children of Israel and I will bless them." The priests' function is to keep Israel aware of this cardinal fact. The function of the priest in relation to G'd, is parallel to the aggadah about Moses assisting G'd in His task of tying the crowns to the letters of the Torah, that we mentioned earlier. The first part of the priests' blessing is essentially material in nature. The additional word "and may He preserve you," is the difference between human and Divine blessings. The former, however generous in nature, does not carry with it the guarantee that it will endure. G'ds blessings however, includes the blessing that it will endure. The second blessing revolves essentially around spiritual matters, the important feature being that the attitude of others towards you will be positive, generous, acknowledge your worth. The third section, "Peace," is relatively the most important of the blessings, as documented by many of the sayings of our sages. They teach that even in death, shalom, peace, is an indispensable attribute. "You will join your fathers in peace." (Genesis 15, 15) See also Jeremiah 34, 4, concerning the death of king Tzidkiyahu. We find a somewhat puzzling statement by Rabbi Eleazar Hakappor, who is quoted as saying "peace is great because even if Israel worships idols, as long as they have harmony, Satan does not touch them.” He bases himself on the verse in Hoseah 4, 17, "as long as the idol worshipping Ephrayim live in unity, leave them alone;" but it continues in chapter 10, 2, "when their heart is divided, now they will receive their punishment." How strange that those who destroy the fabric that binds them to their Creator by worshipping idols, should not also burst the fabric of harmony, peace? But the lesson is that the merit of maintaining harmony gives even sinners an extension before G'ds justice is executed. The three blessings then are 1) Provision of material needs including a healthy body. 2) Provision of the needs of the spirit and soul. 3) Assistance in establishing harmony between man and his Maker, which is true harmony. The tabernacle represents the totality of this world, a microcosm. The beriach hatichon, the central bolt joining all forty eight boards comprising the walls, are the thread shalom, i.e. "peace" that bonds everything together in harmony. When the Midrash says that when G'd created the world, He desired a dwelling down here, just as He has in the Heavens, the meaning is none other than that He wished to supervise and assist man's activities, just as He supervises all that goes on in Heaven. To that end, He endowed the world with blessings. Adam, unfortunately forfeited that relationship through his sin, and until the arrival of Abraham on the stage of history, the broken thread did not begin to mend. Finally, at the completion of the tabernacle, this thread had been fully restored. This is the reason the Torah records the blessings at this juncture. For this reason also, the Midrash talks about Moses hearing three voices. He called the first voice hadar, to paraprase material well being. He called the second voice naeh, to parapharase spiritual and mental well being. The third voice he called meshubach, "choice," since it is the crowning achievement of all. Moses was anxious to have G'ds message spelled out. G'd obliged, saying "I speak shalom, I harbour no ill feelings against My children." (Psalms 85,9.) Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says that there is no need at all to quote a verse from the book of Psalms, since the verse in the Torah is perfectly adequate. Since the Torah tells us about blessings, and continues with the line "it was the day the tabernacle had been completed," the word va-yehee, it was, always refers to the reestablishment of a situation that had existed at one time, but had been interrupted.

Midrash

The Midrash discusses parallels between Joseph and Zion, highlighting similarities in their experiences and blessings. The text emphasizes how both figures faced challenges and received divine favor, drawing connections between their stories and highlighting the theme of redemption and grace in various contexts, such as Torah study, prophethood, and divine protection.

Aggadat Bereshit 68:2

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Bamidbar Rabbah 11:6

“May the Lord shine His countenance to you, and be gracious to you” (Numbers 6:25). “May the Lord shine [yaer] His countenance to you” – may He grant you brightness [meor] of the eyes. Alternatively, “may the Lord shine…” – may He look upon you with a bright countenance and not with an angered countenance. Another matter: “May…shine [yaer]” – this is the light of Torah; He will enlighten your eyes and your heart in the Torah, and grant you sons who are devoted to Torah, just as it says: “For mitzva is a lamp, and Torah is light [or].” (Proverbs 6:23). “May the Lord shine [yaer] His countenance” – may He produce from you priests who kindle the altar, just as it says: “So you will not kindle [ta’iru] My altar in vain” (Malachi 1:10). And it says: “The fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it; it shall not be extinguished” (Leviticus 6:5). “And be gracious to you” – they are blessed and protected, and the Divine Presence is in their midst, from where is it derived that they are graced with knowledge and understanding? The verse states: “And be gracious to you” – just as we pray: You grace man with knowledge and teach a person understanding. Another matter: “And be gracious to you” – He will instill knowledge in you so that you will be gracious to one another and have mercy upon one another, like the matter that is stated: “And He will give you mercy…” (Deuteronomy 13:18). Another matter: “And be gracious to you” – He will grace you with children, just as it says: “The children with whom God has graced your servant” (Genesis 33:5), and it says: “God be gracious to you, my son” (Genesis 43:29). (The second verse from Genesis refers to Benjamin, whereas the first verse from Genesis refers to all the other tribes, as at that point Benjamin had not yet been born.) Another matter: “And be gracious to you” – just as it says: “May God be gracious to us and bless us; may He shine His countenance upon us, Selah” (Psalms 67:2). Another matter: “And be gracious to you [viḥuneka]” – he will grant you [yoḥnekha] your wishes. Likewise it says: “He will show grace to you [yoḥnekha] at the sound of your outcry; upon His hearing, He will answer you” (Isaiah 30:19). Another matter: “And be gracious to you” – Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great taught: The Lord will encamp [yaḥaneh] in your midst. Another matter: “And be gracious to you” – He will produce prophets from you, just as it says: “I will pour a spirit of grace and supplication upon the house of David [and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem]” (Zechariah 12:10). Another matter: “And be gracious to you [viḥuneka]” – He will place His grace upon you everywhere that you go, just as it says: “He placed his favor [ḥino] in the eyes of [the prison warden]” (Genesis 39:21), “Esther found favor [ḥen] [in the eyes of everyone who saw her]” (Esther 2:15), “God granted Daniel kindness (The term in the verse is ḥesed, which the midrash considers synonymous with ḥen.) and compassion [before the chief of the chamberlains]” (Daniel 1:9), “and you will find grace and approbation [in the eyes of God and man]” (Proverbs 3:4). Another matter: “And be gracious to you” – regarding Torah study. Likewise it says: “It will give your head an adornment of grace…” (Proverbs 4:9), “for they will be a graceful adornment for your head…” (Proverbs 1:9). Another matter: “And be gracious to you” – with gratuitous gifts; likewise it says: “Be gracious to us, Lord; be gracious to us…” (Psalms 123:3), “so our eyes are to the Lord our God until He will be gracious to us” (Psalms 123:2). Another matter: “And be gracious to you” – to take you from subjugation to the kingdoms, just as it says: “Be gracious to us, Lord; be gracious to us, for we are sated with scorn” (Psalms 123:3). Another matter: “And be gracious to you” – to redeem you, just as it says: “Lord, be gracious to us; [we have longed] for You. [Be…our salvation in a time of suffering]” (Isaiah 33:2).

Bereshit Rabbah 87:10

“The Lord was with Joseph, and extended him kindness, and placed his favor in the eyes of the commander of the prison” (Genesis 39:21). “The commander of the prison placed in Joseph's charge all the prisoners who were in the prison, and everything that they did there, he would determine” (Genesis 39:22). “The Lord was with Joseph...the commander of the prison placed…” (Rav Huna understands that the commander of the prison was none other than Potiphar himself. This is based on the fact that Joseph was in the prison of the chief executioner (Genesis 40:3), an appellation earlier applied to Potiphar (Genesis 39:1). Rav Huna asserts that Potiphar still had Joseph go and attend to a variety of tasks in his own home, where his wife would continue to harass Joseph (Maharzu). ) – Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: His service was pleasant for his master, and he would go out and rinse his drinking glasses, set the tables, and make the beds. She would say to him: ‘In this matter, I mistreated [ashaktikha] you. As you live, I will mistreat you regarding other matters.’ (She continued to proposition him and to threaten him if he would not submit to her demands.) He would say to her: ‘[God] “Performs justice for the oppressed [laashukim]”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will reduce your sustenance.’ He would say to her: ‘[God] “Provides food for the hungry”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will shackle you.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord frees the imprisoned”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will cause you to be bent over.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord straightens the bent”’ (Psalms 146:8). [She would say:] ‘I will blind your eyes.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord opens the eyes of the blind”’ (Psalms 146:8). How far did she go? Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: She placed an iron bar beneath his neck until he would direct his glance toward her and look at her. Nevertheless, he would not look at her. That is what is written: “They tortured his legs with chains; his body was placed in iron” (Psalms 105:18). “The commander of the prison did not oversee anything that was in his charge, for the Lord was with him, and everything that he did, the Lord made successful for him” (Genesis 39:23). “The commander of the prison did not…” – until now, [this has been stated] regarding times of trouble; from where is it derived that [God was with Joseph] even in times of prosperity? The verse states: “And everything that he did, the Lord made successful for him.”

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Pischa 14:19

And thus do you find, that whenever Israel is in bondage, the Shechinah is with them, viz. (Exodus 24:10) "And they saw the G–d of Israel, and under His feet, as the work of a sapphire brick" (the sign of that bondage). And what is written of their redemption? (Ibid.) "and as the appearance of the heavens in brightness." And it is written (Isaiah 63:9) "In all of their sorrows, He sorrowed." This tells me only of communal sorrows. Whence do I derive (the same for) those of the individual? From (Psalms 91:15) "He will call upon Me and I will answer Him; I am with him in sorrow," and (Genesis 39:20-21) "And Joseph's master took him and placed him in the prison house … and the L–rd was with Joseph, etc.", and (II Samuel 7:23) "… before Your people whom You have redeemed from Egypt, a nation and its G–d."

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayigash 11:1

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 10:2

Everything fortunate that occurred to Joseph likewise happened to Zion. It is written of Joseph: And Joseph was of beautiful form and fair to look upon (Gen. 39:6), and of Zion it is stated: Fair in situation, the joy of the whole earth (Ps. 48:3). Concerning Joseph it is written: He is not greater in this house than I (Gen. 39:9), and of Zion: The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former (Hag. 2:9). Joseph: The Lord was with him (Gen. 39:2), Zion: And My eyes and My heart shall be there (II Chron. 7:15). Joseph: And showed kindness unto him (Gen. 39:21), Zion: I remember for thee the affection of thy youth (Jer. 2:2). Joseph: And he shaved himself and changed his raiment (Gen. 41:14), Zion: And the Lord shall have washed away (Isa. 44:4). Joseph: Only in the throne will I be greater than thou (Gen. 41:40), Zion: At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord (Jer. 3:17). Joseph: And arrayed him in vestures of fine linen (Gen. 41:42), Zion: Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments (Isa. 52:1). Joseph: He sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:29), Zion: Behold, I send My messenger (Mal. 3:1).

Midrash Tehillim 86:3

"For You, Lord, are good and forgiving." Rabbi Pinchas HaKohen said that a scale is tipped here with sins on one side and merits on the other. What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He takes one note of debt and immediately puts it on the side of merit, as it is said, "And He extended loving-kindness to him" (Genesis 39:21). And the Rabbis say that He supports the scale of sins and raises it, and immediately the merits outweigh them, as it is said, "Who is a God like You, forgiving iniquity and remitting transgression" (Micah 7:18).

Sifrei Bamidbar 41:1

(Bamidbar 6:25) "The L-rd cause His countenance to shine upon you": He will give you "light" of the eyes. R. Nathan says: This refers to the light of the Shechinah, as it is written (Isaiah 60:1-2) "Arise, shine, for your Light has come. For the darkness will cover the earth, and a thick mist, the peoples, but upon you the L-rd will shine, and His glory will be seen upon you," (Psalms 67:2) "G-d will favor us and bless us. He will cause His countenance to shine upon us, Selah," (Ibid. 118:27) "… and He shone for us." Variantly: "The L-rd cause His countenance to shine upon you": This refers to the light of Torah, as it is written (Proverbs 6:23) "For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah, light." "and be gracious to you": in (the granting of) your requests, as it is written (Shemot 33:19) "And I shall be gracious to whom I shall be gracious, and I shall be merciful to whom I shall be merciful." Variantly: Let Him grant you grace in the eyes of man, as it is written (Bereshit 39:21) "And He granted him grace in the eyes of the overseer of the prison," and (Esther 2:14) "And Esther found favor in the eyes of all who saw her," and (Daniel 1:9) "And G-d granted Daniel grace and mercy," and (Proverbs 3:4) "You will find favor and goodly wisdom in the eyes of G-d and man." Variantly: "and be gracious to you": with understanding, insight, mussar, and wisdom. Variantly: "and be gracious to you": in Torah study, as it is written (Proverbs 4:9) "It (Torah) will set a chaplet of grace upon your head," and (Ibid. 1:9) "For they (words of Torah) are a chaplet of grace to your head and a necklace to your throat." Variantly: "and be gracious to you": with gifts of "grace," as it is written (Psalms 123:2) "Behold, as the eyes of servants to their masters; as the eyes of a maidservant to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes to the L-rd our G-d, until He grants us grace," and (Ibid. 3) "Grant us grace, O L-rd, grant us grace, for we are fully sated with contempt, and (Isaiah 33:2) "O L-rd, grant us grace, for in You have we hoped."

Musar

Fathers should teach their sons Torah and mitzvot until they are twenty-one, even if they later serve in secular roles. The holiness of Torah learned in youth will remain with them and bring success. By following in the footsteps of Jacob, one can achieve integrity in all deeds and stand before God as a holy individual.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book I, The Gate of Torah 9:6

Now we, who always bring to remembrance the merit of the fathers [on our behalf] must walk, likewise, in the footsteps of Jacob our father, may peace be upon him. And every father must see to it to habituate his son to Torah and to mitzvoth so long as he is at his table; that is, until he is twenty-one years of age. And then, even if his lot falls to serve his majesty, the emperor, and he certainly will not be able to study Torah at that time, still, there will not depart from him the holiness of the Torah that he had learned until then. [And certainly the Holy One Blessed be He will prosper him and will incline the hearts of the king and his counselors and his princes to him for the good, as it is written in regard to Joseph (Bereshith 39:21): "And the L-rd was with Joseph, and He conferred grace upon him, and He granted him favor, etc."] And also, at the end of his term of service, when he returns home, all of his deeds will be done with integrity and his father will not be ashamed of him, and the Holy One Blessed be He will prosper him for this in this world, as he did with Jacob our father at the end of his term of service with Lavan, as written in the Torah. And also, in the celestial world, when he merits standing before the throne of honor of the Blessed One, he will be one of the "holy ones" of the L-rd in the merit of having singled out the L-rd to be his G-d, as it is written (Devarim 16:17-19): "The L-rd did you single out this day to be to you as a G-d, and to walk in His ways, and to keep His statutes, and His mitzvoth… And the L-rd did single you out this day… and to be a holy people to the L-rd your G-d, etc."

Quoting Commentary

Or HaChaim emphasizes the removal of any barrier between Israel and God's favor, with His face shining upon them. Rav Hirsch delves into the circular nature of prisons in biblical times and the significance of Joseph being placed in one. Ramban discusses the concept of finding grace in God's eyes, contrasting Noah's righteousness with the sins of his generation. Additionally, Ramban interprets the term "chesed" in Leviticus to mean shame and discusses the implications of uncovering a sister's nakedness in a familial context.

Or HaChaim on Numbers 6:25:1

יאר ה׳ פניו, "May the Lord make His face shine upon you." This means that there should not be a "curtain" dividing between Israel and their Father in Heaven.

Or HaChaim on Numbers 6:25:2

ויחנך, "and be gracious unto you." Please refer to what I have explained on the meaning of the word חן in my commentary on Genesis 39,21, "G'd was with Joseph and he caused him to enjoy grace, etc."

Ramban on Genesis 6:8:1

BUT NOAH FOUND GRACE IN THE EYES OF THE ETERNAL. The meaning thereof is that all his deeds were pleasing and sweet before Him. Similarly: For thou hast found grace in My sight, and I know thee by name. (Exodus 33:17.) This is like the verses: And He gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison; (Genesis 39:21.) And Esther obtained favor in the sight of all of them that looked upon her. (Esther 2:15.) Scripture mentions this in contrast to what it said concerning his [Noah’s] generation, namely, that all their deeds brought grief before Him, blessed be He. But of Noah it says that he found grace in His eyes, and afterwards it tells (In the following Seder Noach.) why he was pleasing before G-d: because he was a perfectly righteous man. Noach

Ramban on Leviticus 20:17:2

IT IS ‘CHESED.’ In the opinion of the commentators (Rashi and R’dak (in Sefer Hashorashim, root chesed).) chesed here means “shame,” because all people will naturally be ashamed of this ugly sin, this being used here as in the Aramaic language, for Onkelos translated, for that were ‘a disgrace’ unto us, (Genesis 34:14.) “for that were chisudo unto us.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated and I will lay it for ‘a reproach,’ (I Samuel 11:2.) “[and I will lay it for] chisudo.” And in the language of the Sages [we find]: (Ruth Rabbah 7:11.) “Because shechasdo (he shamed him) in public.” Similarly, lest he that heareth it ‘y’chasedcha’ (Proverbs 25:10.) means “lest he cause you shame upon your revealing the secret of another.” And they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. The intention thereof is as follows: “You have done this secretly, but G-d will reveal your sin by bringing upon you a punishment before all the children of your people.” He mentioned this with reference to a sin which is done in utmost secrecy, but it applies as well to all [sins punishable by] excision, as I have mentioned. He hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. This means that if he had uncovered his sister’s nakedness against her will, he alone shall bear his iniquity, as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented. But in my opinion the expression he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity means that each one of those mentioned [will bear the iniquity], just like the expression for he hath made naked his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity. (Verse 19.) The correct interpretation of the word chesed [it is ‘chesed’] appears to me to be according to its plain sense [“goodness,” “kindness”]. So also is the opinion of our Rabbis. (Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 11:9. “It is ‘chesed.’ And if you should say: ‘But Cain did marry his sister!’ It is for this reason that Scripture states, it is ‘chesed’ [an act of kindness — done by the Creator in order that the world be built up], for the world from its very start was created only by kindness, as it is said, The world was built up through kindness” (Psalms 89:3).) The verse is thus stating that the brother’s kinship is kindness, (I.e., a brother’s kinship to his sister should express itself in kindness, as that is the essence of kinship, whereas he has acted to the contrary.) and it is not proper for the uncovering of nakedness. Thus in the case of other relations Scripture mentions that the reason [for the prohibition of sexual intercourse] is because they are next of kin, but in the case of a brother [and sister] it mentions as the reason the kindness which should be among them. The word ish [and if ‘a man’ shall take his sister] thus draws along with it a similar word [so that the expression it is ‘chesed’ becomes “it is ish chesed,” meaning: “it is a man who should have acted kindly to her, but he did the contrary, and hence his punishment is severe”]. Or it may be that [the expression it is ‘chesed’] is like: and I am prayer (Psalms 109:4.) [which means: “and I am ‘a man of’ prayer”; for thou art precious things (Daniel 9:23.) [which means: “for thou art ‘a man of’ precious things”]; Behold, I am against thee, O arrogance (Jeremiah 50:31.) [which means: “‘man of’ arrogance”], in all of which cases the word ish (man) is missing [and here too that word is omitted, as if it were to say: “it is ish chesed,” as explained above]. Or it may be that Scripture in these cases refers to these men by their qualities [as if to say, “kindness personifies the brother,” “I am all prayer,” “he is all preciousness,” or “arrogance personified”. Thus Scripture is stating, And if a man shall take his sister … and see her nakedness … he is [to have been] the man of kindness, and they shall be cut off, for he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. Thus He mentioned that the brother should have been the merciful man who doeth good to his own soul, but he was cruel and troubled his own flesh. (Proverbs 11:17.) For he should have done the kindness to her that brothers do, to give her in marriage to a husband, but he blemished and troubled her. Scripture ascribes the fault in such cases to the male, just as it is said, he hath uncovered his brother’s [wife’s] nakedness; they shall be childless (Verse 21.) [and likewise here too it states, ‘he’ hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness]. Similarly it is my opinion that the expression, lest he that heareth it ‘y’chasedcha’ (Proverbs 25:10.) means “lest he that hears it will remove from you all kindness, because you have not shown kindness to your friend who entrusted you with his secret.” [The word y’chasedcha here meaning “remove kindness”] is like: l’dashno (Exodus 27:3.) [the root of which deshen in its primary sense means “to cover with ashes,” but also has the opposite meaning of “removing the ashes”]; and all mine increase ‘t’shareish’ (Job 31:12.) [which, in its ordinary form, would mean “to take root,” but also has the opposite meaning of “rooting out”], and similar cases. [Likewise, y’chasedcha which is of the root chesed, kindness, means in the verse quoted “remove kindness,” and does not mean “shame.”] For it appears to me unlikely that the word chesed in the Sacred Language should bear such opposite meanings [as “kindness” and “shame”], when Scriptural texts abound in the praise of chesed and use it in prayers. The term chisudo, however, in Aramaic is another matter. Even that language differentiates between the two usages; “kindness” is translated chisdo, (Genesis 39:21: and He showed him ‘chased’ Onkelos translates: “and He showed him [Joseph] chisdo” (mercy, kindness).) and “shame” is translated chisudo. (As Onkelos translated in Genesis 34:14 [mentioned above].) Now Rabbeinu Chananel (See Exodus, Vol. II, p. 106, Note 45, on Rabbeinu Chananel. It is of interest here to add that in view of the fact that Ramban quotes an interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel on a verse in the Book of Proverbs, it would seem to indicate that Rabbeinu Chananel’s exegetic activity extended also to the Scriptural books in the division of the Writings, in addition to those on the Pentateuch and the Prophets. See my introduction to “Peirushei Rabbeinu Chananel al Ha’torah,” Mosad Harav Kook, 1972.) wrote that ‘chesed’ to any people is sin (Proverbs 14:34.) means “reproach” [i.e., that sin is “a reproach” to any people]. But in my opinion this too is an expression of contrast [as will be explained]. For “righteousness” and chesed are mentioned in that verse [thus: Righteousness exalteth a nation, but ‘chesed’ to any people is sin], these being twin terms mentioned in all places, as for example: he that followeth after righteousness and ‘chesed;’ (Ibid., 21:21.) that I am the Eternal who exercises ‘chesed,’ justice, and righteousness in the earth. (Jeremiah 9:23.) Rather, the meaning of the verse in my opinion is as follows: “Righteousness if practiced exalteth a nation, but ‘chesed’ (mercy, kindness) is a reproach to any people if it fails to practice it.” Thus the verse is stating that upon righteousness and mercy depends the elevation or the decline of any people. Or it may be [that the verse is] stating: “Righteousness exalts any individual nation that practices it, while many nations sin by their failure to do mercy.” A similar example of such a verse is the one immediately preceding it: In the heart of him that hath discernment, wisdom resteth; but in the inward part of fools it maketh itself known, (Proverbs 14:33.) the meaning of which is that “it makes itself known that [wisdom] is not there,” for all who see them recognize by their deeds that they are fools and there is no understanding in them. (Deuteronomy 32:28.) These two verses [thus express their thoughts in their second half] in a negative manner. (Thus: Mercy is a reproach to any people if it does not practice it. In the inward part of fools it makes itself known that wisdom does not rest therein.) Emor

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:20:1

סחר ,זהר ,צהר ,סהר usw. סחר: im Kreise herumziehen. זהר und צהר: einen Strahlenkreis um sich bilden, einen Hof um sich bilden. סהר: ein umschließender Raum. Ob ihre Gefängnisse rund gewesen? Es scheint so, da auch בור, der gewöhnliche Name für Gefängnis, rund war. Siehe Bawa Kama 50b. Die Verwandtschaft von סהר, die Kreislinie, mit סור weichen, gibt den Begriff der Kreislinie als eine solche, die in jedem Punkt ihrer Fortbewegung von der eingenommenen Richtung weicht. Sie verändert unaufhörlich ihre "Berührende", ihr Tangente, d. h. sie weicht unaufhörlich. — ויתנהו אל בית הסהר וגו׳ ויהי שם בבית הסהר. Wenn das erste schon hieß, er gab ihn ins Gefängnis, so wäre der Schlusssatz, dort war er im Gefängnis, völlig überflüssig. Potiphar hatte auch das Staatsgefängnis unter sich (siehe folgendes Kap. V. 3). Dorthin, אל בית הסהר gab er ihn, versetzte ihn dorthin, damit er dort sich nützlich mache wie bisher in seinem Hause, und auf diese Weise war er dort Gefangener. Es würde dies voraussetzen, daß er in seinem eigenen Innern von Josefs Unschuld überzeugt gewesen, und nur um seiner Ehre willen also handeln musste. — אָסִיר ist Hauptwort, also ein bleibender Charakter, Gefangener, אָסור als Zeitwort bezeichnet nur einen zeitweiligen Charakter. Ein Untersuchungsgefangener ist אָסור, ein Strafgefangener: אָסִיר. Durch Keri und Ketib steht hier beides. Es war das ein Gewahrsam, wohin sowohl Straf- als Untersuchungsgefangene kamen. Auf diesen Umstand scheint der weitere Verfolg zu beruhen. Dadurch konnte Josef mit Männern in Berührung kommen, die, nur zeitweilig interniert, wieder zu einer bedeutenden Stellung zurückkehrten. In der Tat scheinen der Fürst der Bäcker und der der Schenke nur in Untersuchungshaft gewesen zu sein. 
Raw Hirsch on Genesis 39: 21. ויט אליו חסד, nicht der Menschen, sein, Gottes Wohlwollen neigte Er ihm zu. Es war dies die tiefste Stufe, auf welche Josef sinken sollte. Von nun an wandte Gott ihm חסד zu. — ׳שר ב׳ה. Wiederum ein שר. Je knechtischer und gefesselter ein Volk ist, umsomehr "Fürsten" hat es. Wer nur ein bißchen höher steht, wird gleich ein "Fürst".

Targum

The Lord supported Joseph and showed him kindness, leading the prison chief to favor him.

Onkelos Genesis 39:21

[The Word of] Adonoy was with Yoseif[’s support], and extended kindness to him, granting him favor in the eyes of the prison chief.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:21

And the Word of the Lord was Joseph's Helper, and extended mercy to him, and gave him favour in the eyes of the captain of the prison.

וַיִּתֵּ֞ן שַׂ֤ר בֵּית־הַסֹּ֙הַר֙ בְּיַד־יוֹסֵ֔ף אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָ֣אֲסִירִ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּבֵ֣ית הַסֹּ֑הַר וְאֵ֨ת כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֤ר עֹשִׂים֙ שָׁ֔ם ה֖וּא הָיָ֥ה עֹשֶֽׂה׃ 22 J The chief jailer put in Joseph’s charge all the prisoners who were in that prison, and he was the one to carry out everything that was done there.
Joseph was the supervisor of the other prisoners in jail, overseeing their work and daily routines, evidence of his good character and ability to manage effectively. Despite Potiphar's wife's persistent attempts to seduce him, Joseph remained faithful to God, with God ensuring his success in times of trouble and prosperity. The Israelites were punished for making the golden calf, not for worshiping it, as they did not actually make it, with the plague being a partial punishment for their sin. Joseph was appointed by the prison chief to be in control of all the prisoners and tasks in the prison.

Commentary

Joseph was considered the supervisor of the other prisoners in the jail, overseeing their work and daily routines, as indicated by various interpretations from commentators such as Ibn Ezra, Or HaChaim, Siftei Chakhamim, Rav Hirsch, Rashi, and Steinsaltz. This position of authority was evidence of Joseph's good character and ability to manage the other inmates effectively.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 39:22:1

AND WHATSOEVER THEY DID THERE, HE WAS THE DOER OF IT. Some interpret this to mean that Joseph, like all the other prisoners, was engaged in work to support himself. (That is, whatever they did he did.) However, I believe that the meaning of our verse is: and whatsoever they had to do there he was, as it were, the doer of it, because he was their supervisor. The next verse bears out the latter interpretation. (Verse 23 relates that the keeper of the prison looked not to anything that was under his hand, which implies that Joseph did not actually do any work, but supervised the others.)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 39:22:1

הוא היה עושה, which he was doing. Onkelos translates: על מימריה הוה מתעבד, that what was done inside the jail was done at Joseph's instructions. If that was so, why does the Torah not say so outright, i.e. ועל פיו היו עושים? Perhaps the Torah wanted to hint that though Joseph enjoyed great authority within the jail, he did not use it to make the other inmates feel as if he dictated to them. He did not claim any special privileges for himself either. All this was evidence of his good character.

Rashi on Genesis 39:22:1

הוא היה עושה HE WAS THE DOER OF IT — understand this as the Targum does: it was done at his command.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 39:22:1

Alles, was sie dort taten, hatte er getan, oder tat es. Entweder war es eigentlich durch ihn geschehen, er hatte es versorgt, oder: was sonst viele tun mussten, tat er allein.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:22:1

As Onkelos translates it: It was done at his command. It means he had slaves under him, whom he told what to do — i.e., “It was done at his command.” It does not mean that he did what had to be done, for then he would be their servant. And that is not, “Granting him favor in the eyes of the prison chief.”

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:22

Joseph’s charm was effective even on the commandant of the prison. He took notice of Joseph, and after some time the commandant of the prison put in Joseph’s charge all the prisoners that were in the prison. Even though Joseph was still a prisoner, he again earned an administrative position. He was considered a loyal and trustworthy prisoner, and an excellent administrator. He was therefore appointed to oversee all the other prisoners. And everything that they did there, he, Joseph, would determine. Joseph was in charge of the daily routine of the prison: meal times, recreational times, and all other daily activities of the prisoners.

Midrash

Potiphar placed Joseph in charge of the other prisoners in the prison, where Joseph continued to serve Potiphar's household. Despite Potiphar's wife's persistent attempts to seduce him, Joseph remained faithful to God. She went as far as threatening and physically harming him, but he continued to resist. The text emphasizes that God was with Joseph, ensuring his success even in times of trouble and prosperity.

Bereshit Rabbah 87:10

“The Lord was with Joseph, and extended him kindness, and placed his favor in the eyes of the commander of the prison” (Genesis 39:21). “The commander of the prison placed in Joseph's charge all the prisoners who were in the prison, and everything that they did there, he would determine” (Genesis 39:22). “The Lord was with Joseph...the commander of the prison placed…” (Rav Huna understands that the commander of the prison was none other than Potiphar himself. This is based on the fact that Joseph was in the prison of the chief executioner (Genesis 40:3), an appellation earlier applied to Potiphar (Genesis 39:1). Rav Huna asserts that Potiphar still had Joseph go and attend to a variety of tasks in his own home, where his wife would continue to harass Joseph (Maharzu). ) – Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: His service was pleasant for his master, and he would go out and rinse his drinking glasses, set the tables, and make the beds. She would say to him: ‘In this matter, I mistreated [ashaktikha] you. As you live, I will mistreat you regarding other matters.’ (She continued to proposition him and to threaten him if he would not submit to her demands.) He would say to her: ‘[God] “Performs justice for the oppressed [laashukim]”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will reduce your sustenance.’ He would say to her: ‘[God] “Provides food for the hungry”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will shackle you.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord frees the imprisoned”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will cause you to be bent over.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord straightens the bent”’ (Psalms 146:8). [She would say:] ‘I will blind your eyes.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord opens the eyes of the blind”’ (Psalms 146:8). How far did she go? Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: She placed an iron bar beneath his neck until he would direct his glance toward her and look at her. Nevertheless, he would not look at her. That is what is written: “They tortured his legs with chains; his body was placed in iron” (Psalms 105:18). “The commander of the prison did not oversee anything that was in his charge, for the Lord was with him, and everything that he did, the Lord made successful for him” (Genesis 39:23). “The commander of the prison did not…” – until now, [this has been stated] regarding times of trouble; from where is it derived that [God was with Joseph] even in times of prosperity? The verse states: “And everything that he did, the Lord made successful for him.”

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that the Israelites were punished for making the golden calf, not for worshiping it, as they did not actually make it; the plague was a partial punishment for their sin, but God was partially appeased due to the merit of the patriarchs. Haamek Davar discusses how God's work in creation is to bring the world to its ultimate purpose of being filled with His glory. Ramban explains the details of Joseph being sold to the Ishmaelites and Midianites, with the Rabbis suggesting he was sold multiple times. Chizkuni notes a similar construction in Numbers 4:26:2 as in Genesis 39:22 regarding Joseph's duties.

Chizkuni, Numbers 4:26:2

ואת כל אשר יעשה בהם, “and whatever was to be done with them;” we find this type of construction also Genesis 39,22. in connection with Joseph’s duties in the house of Potiphar.

Haamek Davar on Genesis 2:3:2

The plain meaning is that certain things in Creation were not yet complete. It was God's intention to create those things and then do the changes later. However, a deeper explanation of the word "to do" is that "doing" sometimes implies bringing an object to its ultimate purpose. This stage is the true "creation" of something because without its purpose it cannot be said to exist. (See also Bereshit 39:22 and 41:34.) Now the purpose of Creation is God's glory as Isaiah (43:7) says: "Everyone that is called by My name, and whom I created for My glory, I formed him, yea I made him." I have explained in Bamidbar (14:21) on the verse "However, as surely as I live, and as the glory of the Lord fills the earth" that God truly lives when Creation achieves its purpose and the world is filled with His glory. This goal is reached, however, only when God makes changes in Creation, either temporarily or permanently, which reveal Him as the Creator and Sustainer of the world. God causes those changes which are needed in each hour of need. All this is included in the words "His work that God created to do." God's personal Providence continues to create changes which bring the world to its ultimate perfection- being filled with His glory. See also the Introduction to H.D. (d) where I explain that man is commanded to bring glory to God by releasing the forces of nature contained in all things.

Ramban on Exodus 32:35:2

BECAUSE THEY MADE THE CALF. This means that they were not amongst those who worshipped it or sacrificed to it, (Above, Verse 8.) but they were the men who “made” it, that is to say, they were the ones who gathered around Aaron and brought him the gold. Now since Scripture states that they were punished for making the calf, not for worshipping it, and in reality they did not make it, it explains further, which Aaron made, meaning that Aaron made it at their command. But Onkelos translated [the expression, because they ‘made’ the calf], “because they ‘worshipped’ the calf which Aaron made.” By this Onkelos intended to explain that the ones who died in the plague were those who embraced and kissed it, and were pleased with the calf. Now [although the same term asah (“did”) is mentioned in both cases, because they ‘made’ the calf, which Aaron ‘made’], Onkelos did not feel obliged to translate both alike [but instead he translated: “because they ‘worshipped’ the calf, which Aaron ‘made’ “]. A similar case [of Onkelos’ rendition] is the verse, and whatsoever they ‘did’ there, he was the ‘doer’ of it, (Genesis 39:22.) which he translated: “and whatsoever they did there ‘was done’ by his command.” (Thus Onkelos translated the same form of the verb once in the active tense and once in the passive.) This plague occurred after Moses had punished the worshippers and prayed for Israel, saying, and if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book. (Verse 32.) For because Moses had shown his readiness to give his life for them, the Holy One, blessed be He, had mercy upon them, and told him to bring them up to the Land, and that He would send an angel before them; (Further, 33:2.) but since He wanted to take away from them part of the great sin, in order that they should be worthy [to go up to the Land], He sent upon them this plague. Or it may be that He had decreed this plague upon them [before Moses’ prayer] and the plague had already begun, and after that He said again to Moses, Go up hence, thou and the people, (Ibid., Verse 1.) meaning, that the plague will not blot out their sin from before Me so that I should again dwell in their midst. He mentioned though, unto the land of which I swore unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, (Ibid., Verse 1.) and further said, and I will drive out the Canaanite, etc.; (Further, 33:2.) for on account of the plague which He brought or decreed upon them, part of their sin was blotted out, and He was partially appeased to them, in remembering the merit of the patriarchs, and [promising] that He would fulfill to them the oath He had taken to bring them unto a good land, a land flowing with milk and honey. (Above, 3:8.) Thus He hinted to Moses that the earth [i.e., the land of Canaan] would not become corrupt (See Genesis 6:11.) nor would it be defiled under the inhabitants thereof (Isaiah 24:5.) on account of their sin, and that He would drive out all the six nations whose land they were originally promised. (Above, 3:8.) And He also said by way of pacification, for I will not go up in the midst of thee, (Further, 33:3.) this being to your benefit, lest I consume thee in the way, (Further, 33:3.) because of your stiff-neckedness. Thus there were here two punishments for Israel: firstly, that He would not cause His Divine Glory to dwell amongst them, and secondly, that He would send an angel before Moses until the nations would be driven out; but He did not promise them after they would inherit the Land even an angel to help them, for this is why He mentioned in the way [lest I consume thee ‘in the way’]. It is with reference to all this that Scripture says, And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned; and no man put on him his ornaments (Ibid., Verse 4.) — just as mourners. But G-d is merciful, abounding in compassion, and when He saw that they mourned, He said again by way of mercy, Say unto the children of Israel etc., (Ibid., Verse 5.) for up till now He had used the terms, thy people, (Above, 32:7.) and the people, (Ibid., Verse 1.) but now He mentioned them by their beloved name, and He commanded Moses to tell them that it was to their benefit that He would not go up in their midst, in order that He should not consume them in one moment. However, they have done well in repenting and mourning for their sin. So should they always do, and I will know what to do unto them. (Ibid., Verse 5.) That is to say, I will visit their sin in accordance with My knowledge of their mourning and repenting their sin, since it is I Who tries the heart and searches the kidneys. (See Jeremiah 17:10.) By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the expression, that I may know what to do unto thee (Ibid., Verse 5.) means that He will do unto them in the knowledge of mercy, similar to what is said, and if not, I will know, (Genesis 18:21.) as I have already explained. (Ibid., Verse 20. Vol. I, p. 245.)

Ramban on Genesis 37:25:1

AND, BEHOLD, A CARAVAN OF ISHMAELITES CAME FROM GILEAD. When they looked up and saw at a distance men approaching from the direction of Gilead, (Ramban’s intent is to explain why Scripture refers to these men first as Ishmaelites, then as Midianites (Verse 28), and again as Ishmaelites (ibid.), and finally as Midianites (Verse 36).) they recognized them as a camel caravan of Ishmaelites on their way to Egypt, for it was from Gilead that balms and spices came, and it was their custom to bring it to Egypt. This was why Judah said to them, “Behold these men come from afar and are travelling to a distant country. Let us sell him to them so that the matter should not become known.” And when they came near they discovered them to be merchants of spices and balms — Midianites, merchantmen (Verse 28 here.) — who had hired the camels from the Ishmaelites. They sold Joseph to the Midianites who purchased him for profit, but the company of Ishmaelites, the lessors of the camels, would not purchase him for their own investment purposes. The verse which states, And they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, (Verse 28 here.) means that it was to them that the Midianites who bought him turned him over, for they were the ones who transported the merchandise to Egypt. This is also the meaning of the verse, From the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither, (39:1.) for he was in their care. But the Midianites were his masters, and they made trade with him. This is the sense of the verse, And the Midianites sold him to Egypt. (Verse 36 here.) All stories in Scripture are written in this manner: sometimes it is told in the name of the authority who commands that it be done, and other times in the name of the agent who performs the act. Such a case is the verse, All the great work of the Eternal which He did, (Deuteronomy 11:7.) while elsewhere it states, Which Moses did in the sight of all Israel. (Ibid., 34:12.) Similarly it says, Thus all the work that king Solomon did in the house of the Eternal was finished, (I Kings 7:51.) but it was Hiram that did it, as it is written, And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work. (Ibid., Verse 14.) In the case of Joseph himself, the verse says, And whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it, (Further, 39:22.) thus ascribing the action both to he who commanded it and the one who did it. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that the Midianites are called Ishmaelites, just as Scripture, in speaking of Midianite kings, says, Because they were Ishmaelites. (Judges 8:24.) But the matter is not as Ibn Ezra considered it to be since the verse which states, For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites, (Judges 8:24.) alludes to “the children of the east” whose war it was, as it is written, Now all the Midianites and Amalekites and the children of the east assembled themselves together, (Ibid., 6:33.) and “the children of the east” are Ishmaelites, for concerning all the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, it is said, And he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. (Above, 25:6.) It is also possible that the kings were Ishmaelites who ruled over Midian. Otherwise, why should “kings of Midian” (Judges 8:26.) be called by the name of Ishmael their brother? In line with the literal sense of Scripture the correct interpretation concerning the sale of Joseph is as we have said. But our Rabbis have said (Bereshith Rabbah 84:2.) that he was sold several times [and have thereby explained why his captors are alternately referred to as Midianites and Ishmaelites].

Targum

The prison chief appointed Joseph to be in control of all the prisoners and tasks in the prison, with everything being done by his command.

Onkelos Genesis 39:22

The prison chief gave [appointed] Yoseif [to be in] control over all the prisoners in the prison, and everything that had to be done there, he was the one who did it [it was done by his word].

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:22

And the captain of the prison confided all the prisoners who were in the house to Joseph's hands, and whatsoever was done there he commanded to be done.

אֵ֣ין ׀ שַׂ֣ר בֵּית־הַסֹּ֗הַר רֹאֶ֤ה אֶֽת־כׇּל־מְא֙וּמָה֙ בְּיָד֔וֹ בַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אִתּ֑וֹ וַֽאֲשֶׁר־ה֥וּא עֹשֶׂ֖ה יְהֹוָ֥ה מַצְלִֽיחַ׃ 23 J The chief jailer did not supervise anything that was in Joseph’s (Joseph’s Lit. “his.”) charge, because יהוה was with him, and whatever he did יהוה made successful.
Joseph's success in prison was attributed to God's presence with him, leading the commandant to trust him completely. Despite being falsely accused and pursued by Zulycah, Joseph remained steadfast in his faith. The story in Genesis 39 reflects a pattern of success, imprisonment, and rise to power, with key words connecting different elements. The Targum emphasizes that the prison chief trusted Joseph due to seeing no fault in him, attributing his success to the Word of the Lord.

Commentary

Joseph's success in everything he did while in prison was attributed to God being with him, as indicated by the phrase "באשר ה' אתו" in Genesis 39:23. This divine presence led the commandant to trust Joseph completely and not question his actions, ultimately resulting in Joseph's success and charm captivating those around him.

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 39:1

Lit. “his.”

Rashi on Genesis 39:23:1

באשר ה' אתו — means BECAUSE THE LORD WAS WITH HIM (i.e. באשר means because).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 39:23:1

Because God was with him. [Rashi knows this] because the ב of באשר ה' אתו cannot follow its usual meaning, [“when Hashem was with him”]. For it says afterwards, “Whatever he did, Hashem made him succeed” — not sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 39:23

Eventually, the commandant of the prison did not oversee anything in his charge. The commandant trusted Joseph completely and did not scrutinize his actions, for all could see that the Lord was with him. That which he did, the Lord made successful. Joseph was not simply a man of fine appearance. His charm captured everyone around him: Potifar, Potifar’s wife, and the commandant of the prison. Later in the narrative, others are also captivated by his charm. Aside from his extraordinary effectiveness, something about Joseph’s personality conveyed to those around him that God was with him, and that he was somehow connected to supreme holiness.

Midrash

Zulycah attempted to seduce Joseph, but he resisted her advances despite her persistent efforts. She falsely accused Joseph of trying to assault her, leading to him being unjustly punished and thrown into prison. Even in prison, Zulycah continued to pursue Joseph, threatening him with harm if he did not comply with her desires. Joseph remained steadfast in his faith and refused to give in to her, choosing to remain in prison rather than sin against God.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:3

“On the seventh day…” – that is what is written: “Lift your heads, gates…” (Psalms 24:7). You find that when Solomon built the Temple, he sought to bring the Ark into the chamber of the Holy of Holies. At that moment, the gates clung together. Solomon uttered twenty-four supplications, from the verse “For will God indeed dwell…” (II Chronicles 6:18) until “Now, rise, Lord God, to Your resting place, You, and the ark of Your might…” (II Chronicles 6:41), twenty-four verses, but he was not answered. He then said: “Lift your heads, gates; be raised, [everlasting portals, so the King of glory may enter]” (Psalms 24:7), but was not answered. He then said: “Lift your heads, gates; raise yourselves, [everlasting portals, so the King of glory may enter]” (Psalms 24:9), but he was not answered. When he said: “Lord God, do not turn away the face of Your anointed; remember the acts of kindness of David Your servant” (II Chronicles 6:42), he was immediately answered, and the gates lifted their heads, the Ark entered, the Divine Presence rested in the Temple, and fire descended from heaven, as it is written thereafter: “When Solomon had concluded praying, the fire descended from heaven, and it consumed the burnt offering and the peace offerings, and the glory of the Lord filled the Temple” (II Chronicles 7:1). Why was Solomon tormented? It is because he had been arrogant and said: “I have built [ You an abode…” (I Kings 8:13). What is “I have built”? Rabbi Yaakov son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel said: I built a built building. (Solomon took credit for building a building in which his role was very limited.) Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: Everyone assists the king, all the more so that everyone assists the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, even spirits, even demons, and even angels. Rabbi Berekhya said: “The Temple in its construction…” (I Kings 6:7) – it is not written, “that they were building,” but rather, “in its construction” – it was constructed on its own. “Was built of whole stones that were transported” (I Kings 6:7) – it teaches that the stone would transport itself, ascend, and be placed atop the course of stones. Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not wonder; is it not written: “One stone was brought and was placed over the mouth of the den” (Daniel 6:18). Are there stones in Babylon? (There are no mountains there from which to hew stones.) Rather, it teaches that it stood from the Land of Israel and came and settled over the mouth of the den. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Yosef: An angel descended at that moment and appeared in the image of a stone lion and settled on the mouth of the pit. That is what is written: “My God sent His angel, and he shut the lions’ mouths, and they did not harm me” (Daniel 6:23). If for the glory of flesh and blood one stone was brought, for the glory of the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He all the more so. That is why it is stated: “Lift your heads, gates” (Psalms 24:7). What is, “so the King of glory [hakavod] may enter” (Psalms 24:9)? Rabbi Simon said: Why is the Holy One blessed be He called the King of glory? He is the King who accords honor [kavod] to those who fear Him. Rabbi Simon said: It is written: “The people did not travel until Miriam’s readmission” (Numbers 12:15) – it teaches that the cloud lingered on her account. Rabbi Luleyani in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: It is written: “Moses would speak, and God would respond to him with a voice” (Exodus 19:19). It is not written here, “God would speak, and Moses would respond to him with a voice,” but rather, “Moses would speak, and God would respond to him with a voice.” It teaches that He would speak with him in Moses’ voice. Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Simon: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). What is written? “God was with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Aivu: I have derived only in good times, in times of trouble from where is it derived? “The warden of the prison did not oversee anything that was in his (Joseph’s) charge, for the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39:23). Another matter: “King of glory” (Psalms 24:9) – all the Tabernacle vessels were covered with taḥash hides on top of them. Regarding the Ark, it is written: “They shall spread an entirely sky-blue woolen cloth over it” (Numbers 4:6). Why to that extent? It is so the Ark would be distinctive. That is, “so the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9). Another matter: “King of glory” (Psalms 24:9) – Ḥizkiya said: In what way is the sky-blue dye different from all other dyes, that the Holy One blessed be He commanded that it should be in ritual fringes? It is because the sky-blue dye [tekhelet] is like grass, (While tekhelet is usually translated as “sky-blue,” tekhelet can also encompass the color green.) grass is like the sea, the sea is like the firmament, the firmament is like the rainbow, the rainbow is like the cloud, the cloud is like the Throne, and the Throne is like the Glory, as it is stated: “Like the appearance of the rainbow that is in the cloud…[thus…the likeness of the appearance of the Glory of God]” (Ezekiel 1:28). He allotted to those who fear Him sky-blue dye, which is a microcosm of His glory, as it is stated: “They shall place on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread” (Numbers 15:38). That is, “so the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9), as He accords glory to those who fear Him. Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – Rabbi Avin said: He allots of His glory to those who fear Him. A king of flesh and blood, one may not ride his horse, one may not sit on his throne, one may not use his scepter, one does not wear his garment. But the Holy One blessed be He is not so. Regarding the Holy One blessed be He it is written: “He soared on wings of wind” (Psalms 18:11), and it says: “In a storm and in a tempest is His way” (Nahum 1:3), and he gave it to Elijah, as it is stated: “Elijah went up in a tempest to the heavens” (II Kings 2:11). A king of flesh and blood, one may not sit on his throne, but regarding Solomon it is written: “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23). He gave His scepter to Moses, as it is stated: “Moses took the staff from before the Lord” (Numbers 20:9). The garment of the Holy One blessed be He is glory and grandeur, as it is stated: “You donned glory and grandeur” (Psalms 104:1), and he gave it to the messianic king, as it is stated: “You bestow glory and grandeur upon him” (Psalms 21:6). Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – as He accorded honor to Joseph the righteous because he feared God, as it is stated: “God I fear” (Genesis 42:18), as it was on his behalf that the Lord rested [His Divine Presence] upon his master, as it is stated: “His master saw that the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39:3). Rabbi Avin HaLevi ben Rabbi said: Joseph would bless the Holy One blessed be He for each and every act that he would perform. His master would see him whispering with his mouth and would say to him: What are you saying? He would respond to him and say: I am blessing the Holy One blessed be He. He said to him: I wish to see Him. Joseph said to him: The sun is one of several of His attendants, and you are unable to look at it; how will you be able to look at His glory? The Holy One blessed be He said to him: As you live, in your honor, I will reveal Myself to him, as it is stated: “His master saw that the Lord was with him.” Another matter: “So the King of glory may enter” (Psalms 24:9) – as He accorded honor to those who fear Him. Joseph the righteous feared the Holy One blessed be He, just as it says: “How could I perform this great evil, and sin against God” (Genesis 39:9)? He accorded honor to the Holy One blessed be He in that he did not touch her, because of his fear of Him. He said to him: As you live, I will repay your descendant, as I will grant him permission to present his offering on My holy day, and he will not be harmed. That is what is written: “On the seventh day, prince of the children of Ephraim…”

Bereshit Rabbah 87:10

“The Lord was with Joseph, and extended him kindness, and placed his favor in the eyes of the commander of the prison” (Genesis 39:21). “The commander of the prison placed in Joseph's charge all the prisoners who were in the prison, and everything that they did there, he would determine” (Genesis 39:22). “The Lord was with Joseph...the commander of the prison placed…” (Rav Huna understands that the commander of the prison was none other than Potiphar himself. This is based on the fact that Joseph was in the prison of the chief executioner (Genesis 40:3), an appellation earlier applied to Potiphar (Genesis 39:1). Rav Huna asserts that Potiphar still had Joseph go and attend to a variety of tasks in his own home, where his wife would continue to harass Joseph (Maharzu). ) – Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: His service was pleasant for his master, and he would go out and rinse his drinking glasses, set the tables, and make the beds. She would say to him: ‘In this matter, I mistreated [ashaktikha] you. As you live, I will mistreat you regarding other matters.’ (She continued to proposition him and to threaten him if he would not submit to her demands.) He would say to her: ‘[God] “Performs justice for the oppressed [laashukim]”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will reduce your sustenance.’ He would say to her: ‘[God] “Provides food for the hungry”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will shackle you.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord frees the imprisoned”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will cause you to be bent over.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord straightens the bent”’ (Psalms 146:8). [She would say:] ‘I will blind your eyes.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord opens the eyes of the blind”’ (Psalms 146:8). How far did she go? Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: She placed an iron bar beneath his neck until he would direct his glance toward her and look at her. Nevertheless, he would not look at her. That is what is written: “They tortured his legs with chains; his body was placed in iron” (Psalms 105:18). “The commander of the prison did not oversee anything that was in his charge, for the Lord was with him, and everything that he did, the Lord made successful for him” (Genesis 39:23). “The commander of the prison did not…” – until now, [this has been stated] regarding times of trouble; from where is it derived that [God was with Joseph] even in times of prosperity? The verse states: “And everything that he did, the Lord made successful for him.”

Midrash Tehillim 24:8

“You gates, lift your heads…” (Tehillim 24:7/9) You find that at the time when Shlomo built the Holy temple he wanted to bring the ark into the Holy of Holies, but the gate was too small. It was five cubits long and two and a half cubits wide, while the ark was one and a half cubits long, one and a half wide and one and a half tall. Can’t one and a half cubits fit into two and a half?! Rather, at that moment the gates cleaved to one another. Shlomo said twenty four songs of joy and was not answered, he said ‘you gates lift up your heads’ and was not answered. He tried again and said “You] gates, lift your heads…so that the King of Glory may enter. Who is this King of Glory?” (Tehillim 24:7-8) He was not answered. Once he said “O Lord God, do not turn back the face of Your anointed one; remember the kind deeds of David Your servant,” (Divre HaYamim II 6:42) immediately the gates lifted up their heads, the ark entered and fire descended from heaven. Why did Shlomo suffer all of this? Because he was filled with pride and said “I have surely built You a house to dwell in…” (Melachim I 8:13) Since all of Israel saw this, they immediately said ‘it is certain that the Holy One has given atonement for that sin of David.’ Immediately their expression turned black like the bottom of a pot and they were ashamed. This is what is written “Grant me a sign for good, and let my enemies see [it] and be ashamed, for You, O Lord, have helped me and comforted me.” (Tehillim 86:17) ‘Helped me’ in this world and ‘comforted me’ in the world to come.

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 15

And she continued: Oh how beautiful is the hair of thy head! Go and take the golden comb ‎which is in the house and dress thy hair with it. And he said unto her: How long wilt thou ‎continue to speak unto me in such words. Cease talking unto me and attend to thy work about ‎the house. And she replied: There is no work to be done by me about the house, save what ‎thou mightst bid me do. And in spite of all that, she could not attract Joseph, nor would he look ‎up unto her but he kept his eyes fixed upon the ground. And Zulycah's heart was yearning for ‎Joseph to lie with her, and once upon a time when Joseph attended to his duties within the ‎house, Zulycah came and seated herself before him, and she continually tempted and enticed ‎him, but he would not lie with her, nor even look up unto her. And she said unto him: If thou ‎wilt not do according to my wishes, I will punish thee with the judgment of death and I will ‎place an iron yoke upon thee. And Joseph replied unto her: Verily, God who hath created me ‎releases the captives, and he will deliver me from thy prison and from thy judgment. And ‎when she saw that it was impossible to persuade Joseph, her heart was full of desire, for her ‎soul was fixed upon Joseph, and she fell into a hard sickness. And all the women of Egypt came ‎to visit her and they said unto her: Why art thou so pale and emaciated? Surely thou lackest ‎nothing, for is not thy husband an honored officer and very great in the eyes of the king, and ‎can it be that thou lackest the least thing that thy heart may desire? And Zulycah answered ‎unto them: This day shall it be known unto you what hath reduced me to this sad condition, in ‎which you see me now. And Zulycah ordered her maidens to set meat before all the women ‎and to prepare a great feast for them, and all the women ate in Zulycah’s house, and she gave ‎them knives to peel their oranges and to eat them. And she commanded that Joseph be put ‎into costly garments and that he should appear before them. And Joseph came before them, ‎and behold, when the women saw him they could not turn their eyes from him, and all of ‎them cut their hands with the knives and the oranges were full of blood. And they noticed not ‎what they had done, being so deeply absorbed in admiring Joseph’s beauty, and they could ‎not turn their eyelids from Joseph’s face. And Zulycah saw what they had done and she said ‎unto them: What is it that you are doing? Behold, I have given you oranges that ye might eat ‎and now you have cut your hands all of you. And they looked at their hands and behold they ‎were bleeding and blood was flowing down upon their garments. And they said unto her: It is ‎because of this servant which thou hast in thy house, who hath charmed us and we could not ‎turn our eyelids from him through his beauty.‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 16

And she said unto them: Behold in the short moment that you have seen him this hath ‎occurred unto you and you could not withstand him, how much less can I do it, being always in ‎the house with him. And I see him day after day coming in and going out about the house, can ‎I then help my sickness or even my death on his account? And they said: Thy words are true, ‎for who can see this beautiful figure in the house and be indifferent. But is he not thy slave ‎and servant, wherefore then dost thou not tell what thou hast in thy heart, and why allowest ‎thou thy soul to perish on that account? And she said unto them: I am forcing myself daily to ‎entice him, but he does not heed my words, and I assure him of all that is good, but he does ‎not mind, and therefore I have fallen sick even as you see me this day. And Zulycah was very ill ‎through her desire for Joseph, and her love sickness weighed heavily upon her, but the people ‎of Zulycah's household, and her husband knew nothing of the matter and that Zulycah was sick ‎out of her love to Joseph. And all the people of her household asked her: Why art thou so ‎emaciated and sick whereas thou lackest not the least thing? And she said unto them: I know ‎not the illness that is growing upon me day after day. And all the women and her friends came ‎to visit her daily and they spoke unto her, saying: This is certainly caused through thy love for ‎Joseph; entice him then and use force against him, peradventure he will listen unto thee and ‎remove thy impending death. And Zulycah became more seriously ill and she grew poorer with ‎every coming day until she had no more strength in her to stand up. And one day, while ‎Joseph was attending to his work in the house, Zulycah came in secretly and threw herself ‎suddenly upon him, and Joseph used force to free himself from her and he cast her to the ‎ground. And Zulycah wept before him on account of the passion within her heart, and she ‎entreated him, and tears gushed down her cheeks, and she spoke unto him in weeping and ‎supplication, saying: Hast thou ever seen, or heard, or known of a woman more beautiful or ‎better than myself, that she would speak unto thee day after day and become so reduced by ‎sickness through love to thee, and ready to bestow all these honors upon thee, and still thou ‎dost not listen unto my voice? And if thou be afraid of thy master, that he might punish thee, ‎as the king liveth no harm shall befall thee in this matter. Do then listen unto me and gratify my ‎desire for the honor which I have shown thee, and free me from this disease; for why should I ‎die on thy account? And when she ceased speaking Joseph answered unto her saying: Get ‎thee from me and leave that matter to my master. Behold my master wotteth not what is with ‎me in the house and he hath committed all that he hath into my hand. And he hath bestowed ‎upon me great honors in his house and he hath made me overseer over his house and he hath ‎elevated me, for there is none greater in this house than I. Neither hath he kept back anything ‎from me but thou, because thou art his wife, and how then can I do this great wickedness and ‎sin against God and against thy husband, to do this thing in my master's house? ‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 17

Now ‎therefore abandon me, and do no more speak unto me such words, for I will surely not listen ‎unto thy voice. And Zulycah would not hearken unto his voice, but she enticed him day after ‎day to give ear unto her. And after this the river of Egypt became full above all its sides, and all ‎the people of Egypt, and the king with his princes, went out to see it amidst music and dancing, ‎for there is great rejoicing and a great holiday in Egypt whenever the sea Shichor overfloweth ‎and they go thither to make merry the whole day. And when the Egyptians went forth to the ‎river, to rejoice according to their custom all the people of Potiphar’s house hold went along. ‎But Zulycah would not go, for she said: I am quite ill, and she remained at home all alone in ‎order to find an opportunity of meeting Joseph that day. And when all had left and Zulycah ‎was alone in the house, she arose and went up into the temple of the house, and she put on ‎her garments, like the garments of a queen, and she placed upon her head an ornament of ‎precious stones, made of onyx stones set in silver and gold and she beautified her face and ‎body with all sorts of mixtures used by women, and she perfumed the temple and the entire ‎house with cassia and frankincense, and she scattered myrrh and aloes all over the temple, ‎and then she seated herself at the door of the temple in the passage of the house where ‎Joseph had to pass in order to do his work. And behold Joseph returned from the field to do ‎his master's work in the house and he entered his house, and when he came to the place ‎where he had to pass, he saw Zulycah’s work and he turned backwards. And when Zulycah ‎saw that Joseph went back she called unto him saying: What is the matter with thee Joseph 2 ‎Come to do thy work, and I will clear the way before thee until thou shalt have passed unto ‎thy seat. And Joseph returned to the house and passed on to his seat to do the work of his ‎master as usual, and behold Zulycah came and stood before him in queenly garments and the ‎perfume of her clothes reached into the distance. And she seized Joseph suddenly and she ‎said unto him: As the king liveth, if thou wilt not gratify my desire thou shalt die this day.‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 18

And she stretched out her other hand hastily and she drew a sword from under her garments ‎and she placed it upon Joseph’s neck and she said: Arise now and gratify my wishes or else ‎thou diest this very day. And Joseph was afraid of her and her action and he rose up to flee ‎from her. But she had taken hold upon the front of his garments and when Joseph fled in ‎terror, the garment which Zulycah had seized was torn, and Joseph left the garment in ‎Zulycah’s hand and ran away into the street, because he was afraid. And when Zulycah saw ‎that Joseph’s garments were torn and he had left them in her hands and fled, she was afraid ‎lest the matter might become known concerning her, and she rose up and acted cunningly, ‎and she removed the costly garments from herself and put on her other garments. And she ‎took Joseph’s garment and laid it near her and she went back to the place where she sat ‎during her sickness, before the people of her household had gone to the river, and she called ‎unto a youth who came into the house and she commanded him to go and summon the ‎people of her household into her presence. And when she saw them she spoke unto them in ‎a loud lamenting voice: Behold the Hebrew whom your master hath brought into my house ‎hath come to me this day to lie with me. And when you had left he came into the house, and ‎seeing that no one was in the house with me he came to forcibly lie with me. And I took hold ‎upon his garments and tore them and I cried out against him with a loud voice. And when I had ‎lifted up my voice he was in fear of his life and he left his garments before me and he fled into ‎the street. And the people of the house said not a word, but their anger was burning within ‎them against Joseph, and they went to their master and they told unto him the words of his ‎wife. And Potiphar came home with a raging wrath and his wife cried out to him saying: What is ‎it that thou hast done unto me, to bring into my house a Hebrew servant, for he came unto ‎me this day to sport with me, and after this manner did thy servant do unto me? And when ‎Potiphar heard the words of his wife he commanded his servants to take Joseph to give unto ‎Joseph a terrible beating and they did so unto him. And whilst they were beating him Joseph ‎cried out with a loud voice and he lifted up his eyes unto the heavens and he said: Oh Lord my ‎God thou knowest that I am innocent in this matter and why shall I die this day through a ‎falsehood by the hands of these uncircumcised and wicked men whom thou knowest? And ‎whilst Potiphar’s men were beating Joseph he kept on weeping and crying. And there was ‎present a child only eleven months old, and the Lord opened the mouth of that child and he ‎spoke these words before the men of Potiphar who were beating Joseph: What have you to ‎do with this man and why do you inflict upon him this great evil? My mother hath spoken ‎falsehoods and hath stated lies for such was the translation. And the child related unto them ‎correctly all the things that had happened and all the words which Zulycah spoke unto Joseph ‎day after day he told unto them.‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 19

And when the child had finished speaking he became silent. And all - the men heard the words ‎of the child and they were greatly astonished at the child’s words. And Potiphar was ‎exceedingly ashamed at the words of his son and he ordered his men not to beat Joseph any ‎longer, and the men ceased beating him. And Potiphar took Joseph and he had him brought ‎for judgment before the priests, the king’s judges, and he said unto them: Pronounce ye ‎judgment over this slave for thus was his behavior. And the priests said unto Joseph: Why hast ‎thou done this thing unto thy master? And Joseph answered them, saying: Not so my lords, ‎but such is the matter. And Potiphar said unto Joseph: have I not put into thy hands all that is ‎mine? and I have not kept from thee the least thing but my wife; and how could thou do unto ‎me this evil? And Joseph replied, saying: Not so my lord, as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul ‎liveth, oh my master, there is no truth in the words, which thou hast heard from thy wife, but ‎these are the facts. Behold it is now a full year that I have been in thy house, hast thou seen in ‎me anything wrong, or the slightest thing whereby I could summon guilt upon my head? And ‎the priests said unto Potiphar: Do thou send we pray thee and let them bring the torn garment ‎of Joseph before us and let us see the rent within it. And if the garment be torn in front, ‎before his face, then she has seized upon him forcibly, to draw him unto her, and all that thy ‎wife hath spoken is a matter of deceit. And they brought Joseph’s garment before the priests, ‎that were the judges, and they examined it and behold the tear was in front of Joseph. And all ‎the priests who were the judges, knew at once that she hath assaulted him, and they said: ‎This slave is not under the judgment of death, for he hath not done anything wrong. But we ‎will sentence him to be cast into the prison on account of the report which hath gone forth ‎against thy wife through him. And Potiphar harkened unto their words, and he took Joseph ‎and placed him into the prison house, the place where the prisoners of the king were bound; ‎and he was in the prison for twelve years. And for all that, the wife of his master did not turn ‎from him, and she never ceased speaking unto Joseph day after day, that he should listen ‎unto her. And at the end of three months, Zulycah went once more unto Joseph into the ‎prison house, and she persuaded him to listen unto her. And Zulycah said unto Joseph: How ‎long wilt thou remain in this house? do but listen unto my voice, and I will release thee from ‎thy prison. “And Joseph answered unto her saying: It is better for me to remain in this house, ‎than to listen unto thy words, and transgress against God.‎

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 20

And she said unto him: If thou wilt not do my wishes, I will put out thine eyes, and I will put ‎additional chains upon thy feet, and I will surrender thee into the hands of such as thou hast ‎not known, neither yesterday nor day before yesterday. And Joseph replied unto her saying: ‎Behold the God of all the earth, he is able to deliver me from all that thou wouldst do unto me. ‎For he giveth sight to the blind and he freeth the captives and he preserveth the strangers ‎that are in the land they never knew. And it came to pass, when Zulycah saw that she could ‎not succeed in persuading Joseph to listen unto her, she ceased from going after him to entice ‎him. And Joseph was still bound in the prison house, and Jacob, the father of Joseph and all his ‎brothers, were still mourning and weeping for Joseph in those days; for Jacob refused to be ‎comforted concerning Joseph his son. And Jacob was crying and weeping and mourning for ‎Joseph all the time. And at that time in the year of Joseph’s going down to Egypt after his ‎brothers had sold him, Reuben the son of Jacob went to Timnah and he took unto him for a ‎wife Eliuram, the daughter of Avi the Canaanite, and he came to her. And Eliuram the wife of ‎Reuben conceived and bare him Hanoch, and Palu, and Chetzron and Carmi, four sons. And ‎Simeon his brother took his sister Dinah for a wife, and she bare unto him Memuel, and Yamin, ‎and Ohad, and Jachin and Zochar, five sons. And he came afterward to the Canaanitish Bunah, ‎the same Bunah whom Simeon took captive from the city of Shechem, and Bunah was before ‎Dinah and attended upon her, and Simeon came to her, and she bare unto him Saul. And ‎Judah went at that time to Adulam, and he came to a man of Adulam, and his name was Hirah. ‎And Judah saw there the daughter of a man from Canaan, and her name was Aliyath, the ‎daughter of Shua, and he took her, and came to her, and Aliyath bare unto Judah, Er, and ‎Onan and Shiloh; three sons. And Levi and Issachar went into the land of the east, and they ‎took unto themselves for wives the daughters of Jobab the son of Yoktan, the son of Eber. ‎And Jobab, the son of Yoktan, had two daughters; the name of the older was Adinah, and the ‎name of the younger was Aridah. And Levi took Adinah, and Issachar took Aridah, and they ‎came unto the land of Canaan, to their father's house, and Adinah bare unto Levi, Gershon, ‎and Kehath and Merari; three sons. And Aridah bare unto Issachar, Tola, and Puvah, and Job ‎and Shomron, four sons.‎

Quoting Commentary

Yosef's story in Genesis 39 prefigures his rise to power and his lowest point, with a pattern of success leading to authority, imprisonment, and then back to authority. This mirrors the larger narrative of his progression from favorite son to slavery to viceroy of Egypt, with key words like "hand" and "eyes" connecting different elements of the story. Yosef's downfall is seen as a punishment for his past behavior, with his words and a garment once again playing a role in his troubles (Fox). In a similar vein, the Torah uses different expressions to describe the righteous and the wicked, such as "with him" for the righteous and "with us" for the wicked (Bahya).

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 32:7:2

וארבע מאות איש עמו., “and four hundred (armed) men with him.” These men were all ready for combat. The reason the Torah did not describe these men as coming with Esau by the word אתו rather than עמו, is that the expression אתו is reserved for the righteous. We find it in connection with the righteous Joseph such as in Genesis 39,23 באשר ה' את, seeing that G’d was with him.” The reverse is true of the wicked when we read in Chronicles 2,32,8 עמו זרוע בשר, ועמנו ה' אלוקינו לעזרנו, “with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our G’d.”

The Five Books of Moses, by Everett Fox, Genesis, Part IV; Yosef, Yosef; Rise and Fall 1

Genesis 39:1-23

The Five Books of Moses, by Everett Fox, Genesis, Part IV; Yosef, Yosef; Rise and Fall 2-4

This chapter prefigures Yosef’s eventual rise to power and simultaneously chronicles his lowest point, literally and figuratively. The two strands of the plot are woven together into a pattern of success/authority → imprisonment → success/authority. This also mirrors the larger story, which progresses from favorite son → slavery → viceroy of Egypt. The integration takes place partly through the medium of a key word, “hand”—which also occurred four times at the end of Chap. 38 and thus acts as a further textual connector. Yosef’s success is tied six times to the phrase “in his hands” (vv.3, 4, 6, 8, 22, 23); he is thrown into prison because of the garments that he left in his mistress’s “hands” (vv.12, 13). Similarly, the movement of the chapter is mirrored in the word “eyes,” which is linked first to the theme of authority (v.4), then to the attempted seduction (v.7), and finally to authority again (v.21) (Alter). The chapter also repeats the phrase “And it was” (in one form or another) some twelve times, as a distinct stylistic pattern. Yosef’s temporary downfall occurs here for reasons beyond literary balance or suspense. It is in a very real sense the punishment for the bratty behavior of his adolescence. Once again words (this time not his own) get him into trouble (vv.17, 19), as they did in 37:8. And once again a garment is displayed as proof of a fabricated crime.

Targum

The prison chief did not have to supervise Joseph because he saw no fault in him, as the Word of the Lord supported Joseph and made him successful in all his endeavors (Onkelos Genesis 39:23; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:23).

Onkelos Genesis 39:23

The prison chief did not have to look after anything that was under [see any offense committed by] his hand, because [the Word of] Adonoy was with him [his support] and whatever he did, Adonoy made him succeed.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 39:23

It was not needful for the captain of the prison to watch Joseph, after the custom of all prisoners, because he saw that there was no fault in his hands; for the Word of the Lord was his Helper, and that which he did the Lord made it to prosper.

Genesis:40:1

וַיְהִ֗י אַחַר֙ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה חָ֥טְא֛וּ מַשְׁקֵ֥ה מֶֽלֶךְ־מִצְרַ֖יִם וְהָאֹפֶ֑ה לַאֲדֹנֵיהֶ֖ם לְמֶ֥לֶךְ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ 1 E Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt gave offense to their lord the king of Egypt.
The Chief of the cup-bearer and the Chief of the bakers sinned by committing offenses against the King of Egypt, leading to their imprisonment and the baker being hanged. The Torah hints at the future downfall of the King of Egypt, showcasing God's power over earthly rulers. The butler and baker sinned in different ways, with the butler having a fly in his goblet and the baker having a pebble in his loaf. Joseph's righteousness is highlighted in his refusal to sin with Potiphar's wife, and lashon hara is considered a serious transgression with corresponding punishment. The Egyptian king's butler and baker conspired to poison their master, the king of Egypt.

Commentary

The Chief of the cup-bearer and the Chief of the bakers sinned by committing offenses against the King of Egypt, with the cup-bearer allowing a fly to fall into the cup of Pharaoh and the baker having a pebble found in one of the rolls served to Pharaoh. This led to them being imprisoned, with the baker ultimately being hanged for negligence. The Torah hints at the future downfall of the King of Egypt through the distinction between Pharaoh and the King of Egypt, showcasing the power of God over earthly rulers. The offenses of the nobles were orchestrated by God to shift the focus away from Joseph, who was being spoken about discreditably, and towards their own fate.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:1:1

חטאו משקה מלך מצרים, “the cup bearer and the baker of the King of Egypt committed a transgression. The former had mixed water in the king’s cup, the latter had mixed some stones in the dough of the King’s bread. According to Rashi, the former was guilty of allowing a fly to settle on the brim of the king’s cup פיילי פושרין, but פושרין seems to be a copyist error, since in the Arukh it is said that one calls a cup in the Greek language פוטירי, and this is the correct form (Compare Bereshit Rabba 88,1 where this subject is discussed)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:1:1

OFFENDED. They committed an offense (chet) in a matter of state. (According to Cherez. Weiser suggests rendering: They committed an offense punishable by the state.)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:1:1

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, “it was after these events, (words), etc.” After the cursed woman had caused the subject of Joseph and his supposed misdemeanors to become the talk of the town, G’d wanted that subject to take a back seat. He therefore contrived to have the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers put in jail so that their fate would become the talk of the town, and in order that both these prisoners would have to turn to Joseph whose esteem in the eyes of his contemporaries would rise as a result of his ability to interpret the dreams of these two prisoners correctly.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:1:2

חטאו שר המשקה מלך מצרים והאופה, “The chief butler of the king of Egypt and the baker sinned.” The Torah does not specify their sins, but our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 88,2 state that the Chief butler was guilty of allowing a fly to fall into the cup of Pharaoh, whereas the baker was guilty of a pebble which was found inside one of the rolls served to Pharaoh This is why Pharaoh was angry at both of them. The pebble in the roll was a clear case of negligence on the part of the baker, and this is why he was hanged. The fly which fell into the cup could not be accounted as negligence on the part of the butler as it fell into the cup after the butler had mixed the wine. It was an accident.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:1:3

לאדוניהם למלך מצרים, “against their master, the King of Egypt.” Actually, the Torah should have added the word לפרעה, before the words למלך מצרים. In the next verse the Torah mentions Pharaoh as being angry without saying that “Pharaoh” and the “King of Egypt” were one and the same person. We may explain this apparent inconsistency in the syntax of the Torah as the Torah giving us a hint of what would be in store for the King of Egypt at the hands of the Israelites at a future time. This is why the Torah made a distinction between the Kingdom of Egypt as such and between the person of Pharaoh as an individual in his own right. You will find that the Torah makes a similar distinction at the time the Israelites were engaged in crossing the sea of reeds with Pharaoh in hot pursuit. In Exodus 14,5 the Torah writes ויגד למלך מצרים כי ברח העם ויהפך לבב פרעה, “the King of Egypt was told that the people had fled, and Pharaoh’s heart was completely changed, etc.,” whereas the Torah should have written ויגד לפרעה מלך מצרים, “Pharaoh the King of Egypt was told, etc.” The reason the Torah separated these two “titles,” was to hint that the individual Pharaoh would be deprived of his title “King of Egypt” at a future time. On the other hand, when the Torah describes Pharaoh’s obstinacy such as in Exodus 14,8 we read ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה מלך מצרים, “G’d strengthened the heart of Pharaoh the King of Egypt.” At that point in time, the Torah was intent on demonstrating that Pharaoh, though himself a powerful man as well as in charge of a powerful country, Egypt, was no match for G’d who proved that He was many times more powerful than the combined might of both Pharaoh and the Egyptian Empire. Solomon alluded to this in Proverbs 21,1 פלגי-מים לב מלך ביד ה', “the king’s heart is in the Lord’s hands like channels of water.” [According to Rabbi Moshe Alshich, kings do not enjoy the freedom of choice enjoyed by private citizens as they are G’d’s representatives on earth, not unlike angels who do not enjoy any freedom of choice for that very reason. Hence the words פלגי מים are a reference to “channels” within which water run; the waters must not leave the channels assigned to them. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 40:1:1

לאדניהם, the stress is on the letter (syllable) א.

Rashi on Genesis 40:1:1

אחר הדברים האלה AFTER THESE THINGS — Because this malignant woman made the righteous man (Joseph) a familiar topic of conversation with every one so that he was spoken about discreditably the Holy One, blessed be He, brought about the offences of these men in order that people should turn their attention to them and not to him (Genesis Rabbah 88:1), and also in order that relief should come to the righteous man by their agency (Genesis Rabbah 88:3).

Rashi on Genesis 40:1:2

חטאו HAD SINNED — in the case of the one, a fly was found in the goblet of aromatic wine, in the case of the other, a pebble was found in the loaves he baked (Genesis Rabbah 88:2).

Rashi on Genesis 40:1:3

והאפה AND THE BAKER of the king’s bread. The root (אפה) is only used of baking bread. old French pistor; English, kneader.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:1:1

(1-2) Im ersten Vers werden sie einfach Schenk und Bäcker genannt, im zweiten "Fürst" der Schenke und "Fürst" der Bäcker. Darin liegt der ganze Hohn und die Erbärmlichkeit einer solchen Fürstenschaft. Nach unten, dem Volke gegenüber, ist er ein שר, nach oben aber ist er ein tieferer Sklave als der Gassenkehrer. Eben weil seine ganze "fürstliche Würde" nur in der unendlichen Ehre, dem Könige zu schenken und Konfekt zu bringen, somit rein nur in dem persönlichen Verhältnisse des Königs zu dem gefürsteten Diener besteht, so wird dieser, der ärgste Sklave, völlig abhängig von dessen Gunst. Der König gebietet vollständig über Freiheit und Leben der "Fürsten" wie über einen Leibeigenen. Der König sieht in ihm nicht den Fürsten, sondern nur den Bäcker und Schenk. Es ist sein "Herr", und wenn dieser zürnt, so bekommt er einen Fußtritt und wandert ins Gefängnis.

Sforno on Genesis 40:1:1

חטאו משקה מלך מצרים והאופה, the underlings of the chief cup-bearer and the underlings of the Chief of the bakers were guilty of a misdemeanour.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:1:1

One, a fly was found in his cup... פיילי means cup in Aramaic. Then Rashi explains that in Greek, cup is פוטירין.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:1:2

A pebble was found in the bread of the other. You might ask: Perhaps it was the opposite? The answer is: It must have happened this way, because the other way a question arises — why was this one hanged, and the other, not? It is understandable if the fly was the butler’s. He was not hanged because it was beyond his control; he could not prevent a fly from suddenly falling into the cup. The baker, however, whose bread had a pebble, was negligent. He should have cleaned out the oven thoroughly, so that no pebble remained.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:1

It was after these matters, after Joseph received an important position in the prison, that the butler of the king of Egypt, who was responsible for providing the king with drink, and the baker of the king, sinned against their master, against the king of Egypt.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 116

“Some time later, the cupbearer of the king gave offense” [40:1]. As a result of Potiphar’s wife, all the people spoke about Joseph. The Holy One caused the nobles of the king to do bad things to the king, so the people would forget about talking about Joseph. The king’s cupbearer gave him a beaker of wine and the king had him put in prison. However, afterwards the king let him go free, since the noble was not responsible that a fly fell into it. Who can protect themselves from this, when he gives it into the hand of the king? The other noble was the bread baker to the king. The king found a piece of earth in the bread and the king also put him into prison. However, afterwards the king killed him. He could have been careful that a pebble and piece of earth should get into the bread. The two nobles were put in the prison where Joseph was. The head of the prison told Joseph to serve the two nobles, and the nobles were in the prison for a whole year. (Bahya, Genesis, 40:1.)

Midrash

The Midrash Tanchuma discusses three faithful men, including Joseph who resisted temptation, and the dangers of women as seen in the story of the golden calf. In Bereshit Rabbah, it is explained that suffering individuals exist among the nations to prevent taunting of Israel, and Joseph's righteousness is highlighted in his refusal to sin with Potiphar's wife. Additionally, the butler and baker sinned in different ways, with the butler having a fly in his goblet and the baker having a pebble in his loaf.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:1

“It was after these matters; the butler of the king of Egypt and the baker sinned against their master, against the king of Egypt” (Genesis 40:1). “It was after these matters…sinned.” “Deliver me from all my transgressions; do not disgrace me among the scoundrels” (Psalms 39:9) – Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman, Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: The nations of the world were not fit to have anguished and despised individuals in their midst. (Since they are rewarded for their good deeds in this world and punished in the next world, it would have been fitting for them to not have individuals who suffer in this world (Yefeh To’ar). ) Why, then, do they have anguished and despised individuals in their midst? It is so they will not taunt Israel and say to them: ‘You are a nation of anguished and despised people.’ This is in accordance with [the verse]: “Do not disgrace me among the scoundrels.” Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: The nations of the world were not fit to have those who develop scabs in their midst. Why, then, do they have those who develop scabs in their midst? It is so they will not taunt Israel and say to them: ‘Are you not a nation of lepers?’ This is in accordance with [the verse]: “Do not disgrace me among the scoundrels.” Another matter, “deliver me from all my transgressions…” – this is Joseph. Because it is written in his regard: “She called to the people of her household…” (Genesis 39:14) – she placed him in the mouths of all of them, (The wife of Potiphar caused everyone to talk about how improper it was that Joseph had received so much from his master and had reciprocated by attempting to seduce his wife.) the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘It is preferable that they turn against one another and not turn against this righteous one.’ That is what is written: “It was after these matters…sinned….” (Genesis 40:1). (God arranged for people to be distracted by the next sensation, the incarceration of the butler and baker. )

Bereshit Rabbah 88:2

The Rabbis say: The butler – a fly was found in his goblet; (A fly was found in the goblet he served to Pharoah. ) the baker – a pebble was found in his loaf. That is what is written: “The butler of the king of Egypt and the baker sinned against their master” – in the service of their master. Rabbi Evyatar said: They sought to consort with the king’s daughter. Here it is stated: “Sinned” and elsewhere it is stated: “[How can I do this wicked thing] and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). (This verse was stated by Joseph as part of his refusal to commit adultery with Potiphar’s wife. )

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 5:1

And it came to pass after these things (Gen. 40:1). May our master teach us which men are counted among the most faithful. Thus did our master teach us: There are three men who are considered most faithful. The householder who sets aside the proper amount for his tithe and is never suspected of neglecting to pay either the terumah or the tithe. No one is more faithful than he. The poor man who is entrusted with a deposit and is not suspected of withholding the deposit. No one is more faithful than he. And the bachelor who lives in a red-light district and does not sin. No one is more faithful than he. You find that no one was more faithful than Joseph, who, though only a lad of seventeen years, lived among Egyptians, concerning whom it is written: Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses (Ezek. 23:20). He was never suspected of immorality. What is more, the mistress of the house in which he lived endeavored every day to entice him by her comments and by changing her clothes three times a day. The clothes she put on in the morning, she would not wear in the afternoon, and those she wore in the afternoon she would not wear in the evening. Why did she do this? So that he should notice her.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 6:1

And it came to pass after these things (Gen. 40:1). Scripture states elsewhere in reference to this verse: And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands; whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her (Eccles. 7:26). R. Judah the son of Shalum said: Nothing is more troublesome to a man than a woman. A proof of this is the incident of the golden calf. It is written concerning that event: When the golden calf was erected, there fell of the people that day about three thousand men (Exod. 32:28), while because of a single woman twenty-four thousand perished at Shittim. (Twenty-four thousand of the tribe of Simeon died at Shittim because Zimri had sexual relations with Cozbi, the daughter of the Moabite king, Balak. See Num. 25:1–9, 14–15)) Therefore Scripture says: I find more bitter than death the woman (Eccles. 7:26). What is meant by her hands as bands? If it had not been written about woman that her hands as bands, she would grasp men in the marketplace.

Musar

Lashon hara is a serious transgression, with twelve months of punishment corresponding to the judgment in Gehinnom. Joseph was suspected due to his previous suspicion of his brothers, but after his punishment, he was raised in glory and renown as a holy man of God.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:25

From all this, we see the gravity of the issur of lashon hara, twelve months for each man having been decreed upon him, corresponding to the [time of] the judgment in Gehinnom. And while he sat there all of Egypt spoke about his being suspect [with Potiphar's wife], as Rashi explains on the verse (Ibid. 40:1): "And it was after these things that there sinned, etc.", and this [(his being suspected)] was because he had suspected his brothers. But after his punishment was completed, the Holy One Blessed be He remembered his righteousness and raised him higher and higher until he was publicized throughout the land of Egypt in glory and renown as a holy man of G-d, as it is written (Ibid. 41:38): "Can there be found such a one! a man invested with the spirit of G-d?"

Quoting Commentary

Pharaoh's dream occurred two years after the reinstatement of the chief cupbearer, leading to Joseph spending a total of 12 years in jail before interpreting the dream. The Midrash suggests the cupbearer and chief baker sinned to avoid slandering Joseph, but were not jailed until later. In Nehemiah 1:11, the term "butler" is explained as "Hattirshatha" being Nehemiah, according to the Sages.

Rashi on Nehemiah 1:11:4

butler Heb. מַשְּׁקֶה, like (Gen. 40:1): “...the butler of (מַשְּׁקֶה) the king of Egypt.” This is what I explained above (Ezra 2:63) according to the words of our Sages, that Hattirshatha is Nehemiah.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 41:1:1

ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים, “it was at the end of two years.” Pharaoh’s dream occurred two years after the reinstatement of the chief of the cupbearers. Although the Torah did not specify when the two years which it describes as having ended commenced, it is reasonable to assume that they commenced at the time the cupbearer had been released. The Torah implies that although the time had come then for Joseph to be released also, the fact that he pinned his hopes on the goodwill of the cupbearer whose good fortune he had foretold caused G’d to keep him in jail for another two years. As a result, he spent a total of 12 years in jail. He had served in the house of Potiphar for only one year. We arrive at this conclusion by the verse which says “the blessing of G’d was on the house of the Egyptian both in the field and in the house, the field being a reference to the summer, and “the house” being a reference to winter, the season when most people in temperate climates spend most of their time indoors. He had already been in jail for 9 years before the king’s prisoners joined him there. This is clear from the verse (Genesis 40,4) “they had been in jail for one year.” (a reference to the two ministers.) These ten years were followed by another two years that ended at the beginning of our portion. This account is difficult to reconcile with a statement in the Midrash Hagadol on Genesis 40,1 that the cupbearer and the chief baker sinned [in the sense that the Satan encouraged them to sin, Ed.] in order that they should have reason to bemoan their own fates instead of slandering Joseph, etc.” If the Midrash is correct, it is strange that they were not jailed many years previously. Perhaps one could say that though both the cupbearer and the chief baker committed a variety of sins against their king much earlier, the identity of these sinners had not been discovered until much later so that they were not jailed until Joseph had already been in jail for nine years.

Targum

The Egyptian king's butler and baker conspired to poison their master, the king of Egypt, in an attempt to kill him (Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:1).

Onkelos Genesis 40:1

After these events, an offense was committed by the Egyptian king’s butler and baker against their master, the king of Egypt.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:1

And after these things it was shown, saying The chief of the butlers of the king of Mizraim, and the chief of the bakers, have offended; having taken counsel to throw the poison of death into his food, and into his drink, to kill their master the king of Mizraim.

וַיִּקְצֹ֣ף פַּרְעֹ֔ה עַ֖ל שְׁנֵ֣י סָרִיסָ֑יו עַ֚ל שַׂ֣ר הַמַּשְׁקִ֔ים וְעַ֖ל שַׂ֥ר הָאוֹפִֽים׃ 2 E Pharaoh was angry with his two courtiers, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker,
Pharaoh was angry at his two courtiers, who were castrated and held distinguished offices, because they had not supervised their underlings carefully, which was divinely orchestrated to save Joseph from the dungeon. The Torah instructs remembrances to be tied to acts of observance to prevent forgetting important commandments, as seen in the case of the chief cupbearer who forgot Joseph's request. Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel said a one-day-old baby can violate Sabbath if necessary to preserve his life, but Sabbath cannot be violated for King David once he is dead. Ramban explains that Joseph was placed in the king's prison due to the love his master had for him, caused by God. The weak-willed incontinent soul is served by three servants: the chief baker, the chief butler, and the chief cook, as mentioned by Moses.

Commentary

Pharaoh was angry at his two courtiers, who were castrated and held distinguished offices, because they had not supervised their underlings carefully. The Torah repeated their titles to show Pharaoh was angry at their supervisors, not the actual offenders. This anger was divinely orchestrated to save Joseph from the dungeon. The term "saris" implies a distinguished office, although some interpret it literally as "eunuchs" due to their duties in the women's quarters. The expression "sarisim" is not used in modern Hebrew in that manner.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:2:1

The fact that the samekh of sarisav (his officers) retains its kamatz is proof that the resh of saris (officer) should have received a dagesh, and since it cannot the samekh was vocalized with a long kamatz to compensate for the missing dagesh. (Words vocalized with a kamatz beneath their first letter in the singular are vocalized with a sheva under their first letter in the plural; i.e., nagid becomes negidim. Saris does not follow this rule. Its plural is sarisim, not serisim. Hence the word presents a problem. I.E. suggests that saris belongs to the group of nouns vocalized pattach-chirik. The latter retain their pattach in the plural; i.e., kabbir becomes kabbirim. I.E. points out that saris should have been vocalized with a pattach beneath the samekh but due to the fact that a resh cannot receive a dagesh (a dagesh usually follows a pattach), the samekh was vocalized with a kamatz to compensate for the missing dagesh. Hence saris retains its kamatz in the plural.)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:2:1

ויקצוף פרעה על שני סריסיו, “Pharaoh was angry at his two courtiers.” G’d contrived to make Pharaoh angry at his servants in order to rescue the righteous Joseph from the dungeon. We see that history repeated itself in Shushan when G’d contrived to make Achashverosh angry at Haman in order to save Mordechai and the Jewish people (Bereshit Rabbah 88,2). [I suppose the point of the Midrash is the superfluous word שני, “two,” before the word סריסיו. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 40:2:1

ויקצף, the Torah appears to have unnecessarily repeated the words על שר המשקים ועל שר האופים, seeing that they had both been mentioned already in the previous verse. What the Torah wanted us to know was that Pharaoh was not angry at the actual people who had committed a misdemeanour, but at their supervisors who had allowed such a thing to happen. Joseph attended to the needs of these supervisors as he had been assigned to attend to only the highest ranking prisoners.

Ramban on Genesis 40:2:1

AGAINST TWO ‘SARISAV’ (OF HIS EUNUCHS). These two lords were both castrates, for as they also acted as the chiefs of the butlers and bakers in the women’s quarters in the royal apartments, the kings would customarily castrate them. Onkelos’ opinion though is that sarisim means lords and chiefs. Thus he says of Potiphar, who is called sris par’oh, (Above, 37:36.) “the officer of Pharaoh,” and in the present verse he similarly translates, “against his two officers.” And so did the Targum Yonathan translate: And they shall be ‘sarisim’ in the palace of the king of Babylon. (II Kings 20:18. Yonathan translated this as: “And they shall be officers.”)

Sforno on Genesis 40:2:1

ויקצף פרעה על שני סריסיו, because they had not supervised their underlings carefully, as was their task.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:2

Pharaoh became angry at his two courtiers, at the chief butler and at the chief baker. The Torah does not elaborate as to why he was angry at them. The Midrash relates that Pharaoh became angry because he discovered foreign objects in his bread and wine. 34

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:2:1

על שני סריסיו. “at his two ministers.” The expression סריס implies: “holder of distinguished office.” This is why Onkelos translates it in this fashion. [the term is not used in that manner in modern Hebrew. Ed.] Some commentators understand the word here literally, i.e. “eunuchs.” The reason why these officials had to be castrated was that they performed their duties also in the palaces set aside for Pharaoh’s women.

Jewish Thought

The Torah instructs remembrances to be tied to acts of observance, such as Sabbath, Passover, and Purim, in order to trigger memory cells and prevent forgetting of important commandments. Failure to remember a commandment that mentions remembrance is considered culpable, as seen in the case of the chief cupbearer who forgot Joseph's request. Swearing oaths to oneself to keep commandments can help reinforce memory and ensure observance, as seen in the examples of David and Solomon.

Akeidat Yitzchak 51:1:6

This problem is solved when the Torah instructs remembrances together with things which we had to learn. The Talmud (Berachot 20) says "everything which is subject to observance,becomes subject to remembrance." This means that every act such as Sabbath observance, triggers memory cells which reminds the one performing the commandment of the purpose of the Sabbath legislation and the process of creation by G-d. "Observe the month of spring, for during it you came out of Egypt" (Exodus 13,4) This means that the Passover observances will trigger memories related to the Exodus. Or, regarding the observance of Purim "these days will be remembered through their observance." (Esther 9,28) Remembering Amalek is especially underlined, since no specific act triggers the memory. This is why the commandment ends with the words "do not forget!" In the absence of a mitzvah act, the danger of forgetting is much greater. Reading the portion of the attack of Amalek substitutes for an act. In all the foregoing situations, the Torah provides the antidote to forgetting. In view of these memory aids provided, not remembering a commandment which mentions remembrance becomes culpable. People who fail to make notations of important events in their calendar can be faulted for not remembering them. This is why the chief of Pharaoh's cupbearers, of whom the Torah says that "he did not remember Joseph but forgot him," refers to this a a sin. (Genesis 41,9) One of the sins of the cupbearer referred to, was not remembering Joseph's request to be mentioned to Pharaoh as deserving release from prison. When David says in Psalms 119,45, "I swore I will keep Your words," he did so to remind himself of commandments he might otherwise have overlooked. The Talmud Baba Metzia 5, states that though a man's honesty may be suspect, his oath is believed. David swore to himself that if he were to be remiss, he would bear the additional burden of a false oath, a severe enough sin to jog his memory not to forget to observe the mitzvot in question. When Solomon says in Proverbs 10,5, "he who accumulates in summer is a wise person," he would apply this same kind of reasoning to him who reinforces his memory by vowing not to forget to keep the mitzvah. He who feels bothered by the fact that a certain mitzvah is incumbent upon him, has already reason to rejoice over taking the oath, just as a person taking a laxative realises joyfully that the medicine is about to help as soon as his stomach starts convulsing.

Midrash

Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel said a one-day-old baby can violate Sabbath if necessary to preserve his life, but Sabbath cannot be violated for King David once he is dead. R. Jochanan said once a man dies, he is freed from all commandments. R. Simon b. Elazar said a live baby need not be watched for attacks by animals, but a dead giant like Og must be. R. Papa said a lion does not attack two men, and Rami b. Chama said a beast cannot destroy a man unless the man looks like a beast.

Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Shabbat 23:6

We are taught that Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel said: "For a baby, one day old, if it still have life, it is allowed to violate the Sabbath if necessary, for the Torah said, 'You may profane one Sabbath on his behalf, in order that he may be preserved to keep many Sabbaths.' No one is however allowed to profane the Sabbath for the sake of David, the King of Israel, if dead; for as soon as a man dies, he is freed from the commandments." This is in accordance with the saying of R. Jochanan: "It is written (Ps. 88, 6) Free among the dead, i.e., as soon as a man is dead, he is free from all commandments." Again it was taught that R. Simon b. Elazar said: "A live baby, even but one day old, need not be watched for fear of an attack by a cat or a mouse; but Og, the King of Bashan [although the largest man in the world] if dead, must be watched for fear of an attack by a cat or a mouse, for it is said (Gen. 9, 2.) And the fear of you and the dread of you. shall be, i.e., as long as a man (shall be) his fear will be thrown upon the beasts, but when dead, the fear of him ceases." R. Papa said: "We have a tradition that a lion does not attack two men." But we see that he does do so? Rami b. Chama said: "A beast cannot succeed in destroying a man unless the man looks like a beast, for it is said (Ps. 49, 21.) Nevertheless man in (his) splendor endureth not; he is like the beasts (that) perish."

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that Joseph was placed in the king's prison, where the king's prisoners were bound, due to the love his master had for him, which was caused by God. Linguists suggest that "sohar" refers to an underground house with a small opening for light, derived from the Aramaic word for light. Rashi comments on Pharaoh's anger towards his two officials in Genesis 40:2.

Ramban on Genesis 39:20:1

AND HE PUT HIM INTO PRISON, THE PLACE WHERE THE KING’s PRISONERS WERE BOUND. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that the verse itself explains that a beth haso’ar (prison) is “a place where the king’s prisoners were bound.” The reason this is stated in the verse itself is that beth haso’ar is an Egyptian word, for it is the style of Scripture to explain foreign words just as, they cast pur, that is the lot. (Esther 3:7.) This interpretation is of no significance. Rather, And he put him into the prison, means that he put him into a certain prison recognized as the royal prison, which was the place where the king’s prisoners were bound. The sense of the verse is thus to state that this was the cause of the butler and the baker being imprisoned with him. It is possible that the term, “the king’s prisoners,” means his servants and attendants who have sinned against him in matters of state, as other prisoners of the people sentenced by judges and officers were placed in another prison house. Scripture relates that they placed Joseph in the king’s prison because of his master’s love for Joseph, all of which was caused by G-d. Linguists (Here referring to R’dak, who so writes in his Book of Roots, under the term sohar.) explain sohar as an arched chamber, similar in expression to, agan hasohar (a round goblet). (Song of Songs 7:3.) In my opinion it is an underground house having a small opening above ground, through which the prisoners are lowered and from which they have light. The word sohar is thus derived from the word sihara (light) in Aramaic, just as in Hebrew, Scripture says; A transparency (‘tzohar’) shalt thou make to the ark, (Above, 6:16.) the word tzohar being derived from tzaharayim (mid-day — when the light reaches its zenith). The difference between tzohar and sohar is that tzohar connotes an abundance of light, while sohar connotes minimal light.

Rashi on Megillah 13b:8:1

A master with his servants: "And Pharaoh was enraged at his two officials" (Genesis 40:2).

Second Temple

The weak-willed incontinent soul is served by three servants: the chief baker, the chief butler, and the chief cook, as mentioned by Moses. These servants are referenced in Genesis as eunuchs of Pharaoh, with the chief cook also being a eunuch.

On Drunkenness 51:1

[210] The weak-willed incontinent soul has three servants who provide its feasts, the chief baker, the chief butler and the chief cook, whom our most admirable Moses mentions in these words, “And Pharaoh was wroth with his two eunuchs, with the chief butler and the chief baker, and he put them in prison under the chief gaoler” (Gen. 40:2, 3). But the chief cook is also a eunuch, for we have in another place, “and Joseph was brought down into Egypt and became the property of the eunuch of Pharaoh, the chief cook” (Gen. 39:1), and again “they sold Joseph to the eunuch of Pharaoh, the chief cook” (Gen. 37:36).

Targum

Pharaoh was angry with his two officials, the chief butler and the chief baker.

Onkelos Genesis 40:2

Pharaoh was enraged at his two officials, the chief butler and the chief baker.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:2

And Pharoh was angry when he heard concerning his two servants, the chief cup--bearer and the chief baker.

וַיִּתֵּ֨ן אֹתָ֜ם בְּמִשְׁמַ֗ר בֵּ֛ית שַׂ֥ר הַטַּבָּחִ֖ים אֶל־בֵּ֣ית הַסֹּ֑הַר מְק֕וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יוֹסֵ֖ף אָס֥וּר שָֽׁם׃ 3 E and put them in custody, in the house of the prefect, (prefect See note at 37.36.) in the same prison house where Joseph was confined.
Joseph placed the courtiers in custody in the house of the chief executioner to prevent their escape, leading to his interpretation of their dreams and eventual release from prison as part of the divine plan. The prison held distinguished prisoners with special privileges, while Joseph's interpretation of dreams for the butler and baker showed that interpretations belong to God. The Targums state that the chief executioner placed them in the same prison where Joseph was already imprisoned. Rashbam explains the term "משרת" in Numbers 6:3 as related to being freed from chains.

Commentary

Joseph placed the courtiers in custody in the house of the chief executioner to prevent their escape, as this was a place where prisoners were guarded and held under protective custody pending judgment. This location ultimately led to Joseph interpreting their dreams, which played a role in his eventual release from prison. The arrangement was part of the divine plan to bring about the descent of Jacob and his family to Egypt, fulfilling the prediction in Genesis 15:13, without overt interference with free choice. The prison held distinguished prisoners, as the courtiers of Pharaoh were men of status who were given special privileges in anticipation of their potential return to lofty positions.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:3:1

ויתן אותם במשמר בית שר הטבחים, “He placed them under protective custody in the house of the chief of the executioners.” This was the customary place where prisoners whose crime carried the death penalty if proven guilty would be placed pending judgment.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:3:1

AND HE PUT THEM IN WARD IN THE HOUSE OF THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD. A place where they would be guarded so they would not escape.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:3:1

מקום אשר יוסף אסור שם, “the place where Joseph was kept imprisoned.” All of these “coincidences” were designed to bring about the descent to Egypt by Yaakov and his family in accordance with the prediction in Genesis 15,13 “for your descendant will be a stranger, etc.” [without overt interference with the free choice of either party. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 40:3:1

מקום אשר יוסף אסור שם, the Torah had to write this so that we understand how these prisoners came to tell Joseph their dreams, the dreams which became instrumental in Joseph being released from prison, eventually. The word מקום here is in a construct mode to the word אשר. Hence we have only a sheva under the letter מ instead of the full vowel kametz. Similar constructions are found in Job 18,21 מקום לא ידע א-ל, “a place for people who did not know G’d. (no kametz under the מ in the word מקום. The same applies to Isaiah 8,6 ומשוש את רצין, where the word משוש does not have the vowel kametz under the letter מ as it is in a construct mode to רצין בן רמליהו.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:3:1

במשמר. Auch bei מקושש ist משמר nur eine Untersuchungshaft. Im Hause des Fürsten der Köche war ein Gefängnis. Ihm wurden sie anvertraut. Er konnte sie, wo ihm beliebt, bewahren. Siehe oben zu V. 20.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:3

He placed them in custody in the household of the chief executioner , 35 in the prison, the place where Joseph was incarcerated. This prison held distinguished prisoners. Since the courtiers of Pharaoh were men of status who might someday return to their lofty positions, they were provided special privileges.

Midrash

Joseph's interpretation of dreams for the butler and baker in prison shows that interpretations belong to God. Despite being mistreated by Potiphar's wife, Joseph remained faithful to God, quoting Psalms to resist her advances. The Lord was with Joseph in both times of trouble and prosperity, ensuring his success in all he did.

Bereshit Rabbah 87:10

“The Lord was with Joseph, and extended him kindness, and placed his favor in the eyes of the commander of the prison” (Genesis 39:21). “The commander of the prison placed in Joseph's charge all the prisoners who were in the prison, and everything that they did there, he would determine” (Genesis 39:22). “The Lord was with Joseph...the commander of the prison placed…” (Rav Huna understands that the commander of the prison was none other than Potiphar himself. This is based on the fact that Joseph was in the prison of the chief executioner (Genesis 40:3), an appellation earlier applied to Potiphar (Genesis 39:1). Rav Huna asserts that Potiphar still had Joseph go and attend to a variety of tasks in his own home, where his wife would continue to harass Joseph (Maharzu). ) – Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: His service was pleasant for his master, and he would go out and rinse his drinking glasses, set the tables, and make the beds. She would say to him: ‘In this matter, I mistreated [ashaktikha] you. As you live, I will mistreat you regarding other matters.’ (She continued to proposition him and to threaten him if he would not submit to her demands.) He would say to her: ‘[God] “Performs justice for the oppressed [laashukim]”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will reduce your sustenance.’ He would say to her: ‘[God] “Provides food for the hungry”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will shackle you.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord frees the imprisoned”’ (Psalms 146:7). [She would say:] ‘I will cause you to be bent over.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord straightens the bent”’ (Psalms 146:8). [She would say:] ‘I will blind your eyes.’ He would say to her: ‘“The Lord opens the eyes of the blind”’ (Psalms 146:8). How far did she go? Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: She placed an iron bar beneath his neck until he would direct his glance toward her and look at her. Nevertheless, he would not look at her. That is what is written: “They tortured his legs with chains; his body was placed in iron” (Psalms 105:18). “The commander of the prison did not oversee anything that was in his charge, for the Lord was with him, and everything that he did, the Lord made successful for him” (Genesis 39:23). “The commander of the prison did not…” – until now, [this has been stated] regarding times of trouble; from where is it derived that [God was with Joseph] even in times of prosperity? The verse states: “And everything that he did, the Lord made successful for him.”

Bereshit Rabbah 88:4

“He placed them in custody in the household of the chief executioner, in the prison, the place where Joseph was incarcerated” (Genesis 40:3). “The chief executioner assigned Joseph to them, and he served them, and they were in custody one year” (Genesis 40:4). “They dreamed a dream, both of them, each man his dream during one night, each man in accordance with the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were incarcerated in the prison” (Genesis 40:5). “He placed them in custody…the chief executioner assigned…they dreamed a dream, both of them…” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba said: The dream, and the interpretation of his counterpart’s dream. “Joseph came to them in the morning, and saw them, and, behold, they were distressed” (Genesis 40:6). “They said to him: We dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter for it. Joseph said to them: Are interpretations not for God? Please, relate it to me” (Genesis 40:8). “Joseph came to them…they said…we dreamed a dream…are interpretations not for God?” He attributed the greatness to its Owner.

Quoting Commentary

Rashbam explains that the term "משרת" in Numbers 6:3 is related to the root שרת, meaning to assist or serve, but in this context it refers to something separated from grapes that has fallen down, similar to a person being freed from chains. This concept is also seen in other biblical verses and Talmudic references.

Rashbam on Numbers 6:3:1

משרת ענבים, according to Menachem the word משרת is derived from the root שרת, as in Numbers 8,26 ושרת את אחיו, “he (the Levite) will assist his brethren (the priests) in the service, i.e. he will not be allowed to substitute for him.” The letter מ at the beginning of the word משרת would then have to be understood like the letter מ in מרמס In Isaiah 10,6 or as in the word משמר in Genesis 40,3, i.e. as a letter which converts a verb into a noun. It is not possible to explain the word משרת as related to שרת, in the sense of assist, serve, except when it occurs in connection with service performed by human beings for their masters. Therefore, I believe that the word משרת belongs to a category of verbs which have the peculiarity that the last letter of their root disappears when the verb (or noun derived from it) appears in the construct mode. An example is the verb קנה, acquired, or מקנה, acquisition, which when in the construct form becomes מקנת, “acquisition of.” (compare Exodus 12,44) Although this expression is not found elsewhere in the Torah it does occur in the Talmud, always referring to something which had been soaked in water, such as in Nazir 36 where it describes a Nazirite who had soaked his bread in grape juice. We also find an expression in Jeremiah 15,11אם לא שריתיך לטוב, which is explained there by Rashi as similar to Daniel 5,12 משרא, being freed form shackles. The word שריתיך in Jeremiah is understood as “I have scattered you,” if instead of with the letter ש it had been spelled with the letter ז. Compare Maleachi 2,3 where it appears as “I will strew, scatter, etc.” You will find this word in this sense in Numbers 17,2 when Eleazar is told to scatter the fire which had been on the pans on which the congregation of Korach had offered their incense. משרת ענבים in our verse also means anything which separated from the actual grapes and fell down. It is like a person after he had been freed from the chains that had held him captive.

Targum

Both Targums state that the chief executioner placed Pharaoh's cupbearer and baker in the same prison where Joseph was already imprisoned in Genesis 40:3.

Onkelos Genesis 40:3

He placed them under guard in the house of the chief executioner, in the prison, where Yoseif was imprisoned.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:3

And he gave them in ward in the house of the chief executioner, the prison house where Joseph was confined.

וַ֠יִּפְקֹ֠ד שַׂ֣ר הַטַּבָּחִ֧ים אֶת־יוֹסֵ֛ף אִתָּ֖ם וַיְשָׁ֣רֶת אֹתָ֑ם וַיִּהְי֥וּ יָמִ֖ים בְּמִשְׁמָֽר׃ 4 E The prefect assigned Joseph to them, and he attended them. When they had been in custody for some time,
Joseph was brought to the captain of the guard's house and placed in a dungeon with the butler and baker, serving them for a year before interpreting their dreams. Rashbam compares Joseph's role with Aaron and his sons' leadership over the Levites, while Tur HaArokh explains Joseph spent a total of 12 years in jail, with 9 years before the king's prisoners joined him. Targum states Joseph was appointed by the chief of the slaughterers to serve with them in the house of custody.

Commentary

The captain of the guard remembered Joseph's abilities and brought him to his house, placing him in a dungeon with the butler and baker, who were high-ranking officers. Joseph served them for a year, as the word "yamim" is interpreted to mean a year in Leviticus 25:29.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:4:1

AND THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD CHARGED. When these two officers were put in a ward in the house of the captain of the guard, the latter remembered (pakad) (In this interpretation va-yifkod (charged) is translated as remembered. Thus according to this interpretation, And the captain of the guard charged (va-yifkod) Joseph is to be rendered: And the captain of the guard remembered (va-yifkod) Joseph.) Joseph; i.e., he recalled his abilities (He remembered that Joseph was able to relate to nobles (Weiser). Filwarg interprets: remembered the Jospeh episode, i.e., that Joseph, like the butler and the baker, offended his master. Krinsky explains: he remembered Joseph’s words protesting his innocence and decided to place him in a prison whose conditions were better. The Hebrew reading of I.E. is zakhar devarav.) and brought him to his house (According to this interpretation Joseph was originally in a different prison and was now brought to the one in the home of the captain of the guard.) and placed him in a dungeon (Cf. verse 15.) which is the ward spoken of in our verse. The latter is the opinion of the great grammarian. (Jonah Ibn Janah.) However, I believe that the prison was in the house of the captain of the guard and Joseph was there to begin with. Proof of this is Scripture’s explicit statement, And he put them…into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound. What our verse relates is that the captain of the guard commanded (charged) (I.E. so translates va-yifkod as charged.) Joseph to be with the butler and baker and serve them because they had high status in Pharaoh’s palace insomuch as they were officers of the king.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:4:1

ויהיו ימים במשמר, ”they remained in custody for a year.” The word ימים meaning “year” appears in Leviticus 25,29 “its period of redemption is a full year.”

Radak on Genesis 40:4:1

ויפקוד, he appointed Joseph to be their constant companion and personal valet. We are told this so that we can understand why Joseph enjoyed their confidence and they told him their dreams.

Radak on Genesis 40:4:2

ימים, the Torah does not give further details about how many days. It is possible that the word ימים means “a year,” as it appears in that sense in Leviticus 25,29.

Rashbam on Genesis 40:4:1

ויפקד שר הטבחים, he appointed him to look after all the needs of the various prisoners in that jail.

Rashbam on Genesis 40:4:2

ויהי ימים, he remained in that position for a whole year. We know that the word ימים means “a year,” from Leviticus 25,29 ימים תהיה גאולתו, “it (the house) may be redeemed for up to one year.” Also in Genesis 24,55 the words ימים או עשור meant “a year, or at least 10 months.”

Rashi on Genesis 40:4:1

ויפקד שר הטבחים את יוסף AND THE OFFICER OF THE EXECUTIONERS APPOINTED JOSEPH — to be WITH THEM (i.e. supply the word להיות to complete the sense).

Rashi on Genesis 40:4:2

ויהיו ימים במשמר AND THEY WERE A YEAR IN WARD — ימים means twelve months (cf. Rashi on Genesis 24:55).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:4:1

To be with them. I.e., the verse seems to imply that the chief of the slaughterers appointed Yoseif along with them, and they too had been appointed over something. Had Scripture previously written that the butler and baker received appointments, this would be understandable. But now that Scripture did not [write this], what is the meaning of, “With them?” Therefore Rashi explains that it means, “To be with them.”

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:4:2

ימים refers to twelve months. Rashi deduces this from (Vayikra 25:29), ימים תהיה גאולתו, through a gezeirah shavah between ימים and ימים. We need not ask: Perhaps they were there for two days [because ימים literally means “days” and implies a minimum of two], and they dreamt on the second night? For [the answer is:] If so, why would Yoseif say (v. 13): “In another three days,” [if three days had not yet past]? He should have simply said, “After three days.”

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:4

The chief executioner, Potifar, charged Joseph with them, and he served them, and they were in custody one year . 36

Midrash

Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba explains that each of the two men dreamed a dream and the interpretation of his counterpart's dream. Joseph, recognizing the interpretations come from God, offers to interpret their dreams, attributing the greatness to its Owner.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:4

“He placed them in custody in the household of the chief executioner, in the prison, the place where Joseph was incarcerated” (Genesis 40:3). “The chief executioner assigned Joseph to them, and he served them, and they were in custody one year” (Genesis 40:4). “They dreamed a dream, both of them, each man his dream during one night, each man in accordance with the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were incarcerated in the prison” (Genesis 40:5). “He placed them in custody…the chief executioner assigned…they dreamed a dream, both of them…” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba said: The dream, and the interpretation of his counterpart’s dream. “Joseph came to them in the morning, and saw them, and, behold, they were distressed” (Genesis 40:6). “They said to him: We dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter for it. Joseph said to them: Are interpretations not for God? Please, relate it to me” (Genesis 40:8). “Joseph came to them…they said…we dreamed a dream…are interpretations not for God?” He attributed the greatness to its Owner.

Quoting Commentary

Rashbam explains that Aaron and his sons were appointed to be in charge of the Levites, similar to Joseph being appointed in charge of prisoners. Tur HaArokh discusses how Joseph spent a total of 12 years in jail, with 9 years before the king's prisoners joined him, due to G'd's plan and the timing of events. The account is difficult to reconcile with the Midrash Hagadol's statement about the cupbearer and chief baker sinning.

Rashbam on Numbers 3:10:1

ואת אהרן ואת בניו תפקד, you shall appoint Aaron and his sons to be in charge of the Levites, as in the word ויפקד in Genesis 40,4 where the warden of the jail appointed Joseph to be in charge of all the prisoners.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 41:1:1

ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים, “it was at the end of two years.” Pharaoh’s dream occurred two years after the reinstatement of the chief of the cupbearers. Although the Torah did not specify when the two years which it describes as having ended commenced, it is reasonable to assume that they commenced at the time the cupbearer had been released. The Torah implies that although the time had come then for Joseph to be released also, the fact that he pinned his hopes on the goodwill of the cupbearer whose good fortune he had foretold caused G’d to keep him in jail for another two years. As a result, he spent a total of 12 years in jail. He had served in the house of Potiphar for only one year. We arrive at this conclusion by the verse which says “the blessing of G’d was on the house of the Egyptian both in the field and in the house, the field being a reference to the summer, and “the house” being a reference to winter, the season when most people in temperate climates spend most of their time indoors. He had already been in jail for 9 years before the king’s prisoners joined him there. This is clear from the verse (Genesis 40,4) “they had been in jail for one year.” (a reference to the two ministers.) These ten years were followed by another two years that ended at the beginning of our portion. This account is difficult to reconcile with a statement in the Midrash Hagadol on Genesis 40,1 that the cupbearer and the chief baker sinned [in the sense that the Satan encouraged them to sin, Ed.] in order that they should have reason to bemoan their own fates instead of slandering Joseph, etc.” If the Midrash is correct, it is strange that they were not jailed many years previously. Perhaps one could say that though both the cupbearer and the chief baker committed a variety of sins against their king much earlier, the identity of these sinners had not been discovered until much later so that they were not jailed until Joseph had already been in jail for nine years.

Targum

Yoseif was appointed by the chief of the slaughterers to serve with them, and they were under guard for a period of time in the house of custody (Onkelos Genesis 40:4, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:4).

Onkelos Genesis 40:4

The chief of the slaughterers appointed Yoseif to be with them and he served them. They were under guard for a period of time.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:4

And the chief executioner intrusted Joseph with them, and he served them, and they were certain days in the house of custody.

וַיַּֽחַלְמוּ֩ חֲל֨וֹם שְׁנֵיהֶ֜ם אִ֤ישׁ חֲלֹמוֹ֙ בְּלַ֣יְלָה אֶחָ֔ד אִ֖ישׁ כְּפִתְר֣וֹן חֲלֹמ֑וֹ הַמַּשְׁקֶ֣ה וְהָאֹפֶ֗ה אֲשֶׁר֙ לְמֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲסוּרִ֖ים בְּבֵ֥ית הַסֹּֽהַר׃ 5 E both of them—the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were confined in the prison—dreamed in the same night, each his own dream and each dream with its own meaning.
Various commentators offer different interpretations of Genesis 40:5:1, with Ramban suggesting consistency between the dreams and their interpretations, Ibn Ezra pointing out details that could predict the future, Rashbam indicating easy interpretability, Radak highlighting personalization, and Tur HaArokh emphasizing emotion-based interpretation. Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba from the Midrash explains the interconnectedness of the dreams of the butler and baker, as Joseph served them in prison before interpreting their dreams, directing them to God for interpretations. Ramban and Ibn Ezra discuss Joseph's association with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah due to his brothers' mistreatment, and Targum notes that both the butler and baker had dreams with individual interpretations while imprisoned in Egypt.

Commentary

Various commentators provide different interpretations of Genesis 40:5:1. Ramban suggests that each dream was consistent with its interpretation, while Ibn Ezra states that each dream contained details that could be interpreted to foretell the future. Rashbam indicates that each dream was easily interpretable, Radak notes that each dream was tailored to the individual, and the Tur HaArokh explains that Joseph interpreted the dreams based on the emotions they evoked. Siftei Chakhamim and Chizkuni also emphasize the personal nature of the dreams and their interpretations.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:5:1

איש כפטרון חלומו, “Each one interpreted his dream in accordance with what he thought was applicable to his personality,” as opposed to interpretations that seemed irrelevant. [As a result they were very disturbed. Ed.]

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:5:1

AND THEY DREAMED. The meaning (Reading ta’am rather than ke-ta’am (Filwarg, Krinsky). The aforementioned is borne out by Vat. Ebr. 38 which reads, ve-ta’am.) of each man according to the interpretation of his dream is that each one of them saw in his dream details that could be interpreted to foretell what would happen in the future. (There was no part of the dream that did not allude to something. There was no nonsensical part in the dream. Every part of the dream had a meaning and was interpretable (Filwarg based on the reading of I.E. quoted by Nahmanides which is borne out by Vat. Ebr. 38). Our printed texts read, “Each one saw the interpretation of the dream and what happened to him” The problem with this reading is, if they saw the interpretation of their dream in their nocturnal vision why, then, did they turn to Joseph for its interpretation? Hence we have translated according to Vat. Ebr. 38.)

Radak on Genesis 40:5:1

איש כפתרון חלומו, each one would have his dream interpreted as an individual dream forecasting his particular fate. The interpretations were tailored to measure.

Radak on Genesis 40:5:2

המשקה והאופה, these words have been repeated although they have been written before, seeing that each one of them saw in his dream something related to his vocation. The Torah added the words אשר למלך מצרים, seeing that the dream had come about not just because of their vocation but because they had practiced their vocation as direct employees of the King of Egypt, they had risen to the top of their profession. The Torah further adds the word אשר אסורים בבית הסהר, seeing that they would leave the prison as a result of what they had dreamt.

Ramban on Genesis 40:5:1

EACH MAN ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HIS DREAM. The expression “interpreting dreams” means relating the events which will happen in the future, and he who foretells that future is called potheir (interpreter). In the opinion of many scholars the word pithron signifies “meaning.” (But it does not signify the foretelling of future events.) And the interpretation of the verse, Each man according to the interpretation of his dream, is that each dreamed a dream consistent with the interpretation (The butler dreamed of wine, the symbol of joy, while the baker dreamed of a bird snatching the food he was bringing to the king, an event which signifies grief. (Tur.)) which foretold the future that was to befall them. This is Rashi’s language. Now what sense does it make for Pharaoh’s chief butler to say, “We have dreamed a dream consistent with the interpretation,” thereby minimizing the wisdom of the interpreter. Besides, Pharaoh’s dream [related later on] may not have been so, [that is, consistent with the interpretation], and Joseph would not know it. (Why then did he recommend Joseph as being able to interpret the king’s dream? The king had not yet related his dream, and it could be that that dream might not be consistent with its interpretation, as was the case in his own dream. Why then did he not fear for his life in recommending Joseph to the king?) Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says in explanation of the verse that each saw in his dream the truth concerning the future as the interpretation would indicate, meaning that it was a true dream, not the kind which comes from many worries, of which only a part is fulfilled. This is the correct interpretation.

Rashbam on Genesis 40:5:1

איש כפתרון חלומו, the line means that each of them dreamt a dream which lent itself to interpretation. It did not appear to be one of the many dreams that defy making sense of it.

Rashi on Genesis 40:5:1

ויחלמו חלום שניהם means AND BOTH OF THEM DREAMED A DREAM — This is the real meaning (that שניהם is the subject of ויחלמו and is not to be connected with חלום). A Midrashic explanation is, taking חלום as construct case: each dreamed the dream of both of them — i.e. he dreamed his own dream and the interpretation of the other’s dream. This is what it means when it states (v. 16) “And the chief baker saw that he had interpreted well”). (Genesis Rabbah 88:4; Berakhot 55a).

Rashi on Genesis 40:5:2

איש כפתרון חלמו EACH MAN ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HIS DREAM — each dreamed a dream consistent with the interpretation which foretold the future that was to befall them.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:5:1

Alles, was über die drei Worte ויחלמו הלום שניהם hinaus steht, scheint völlig überflüssig. "Jeder träumte seinen Traum", — "der Traum war wie die Deutung": natürlich, denn die Deutung richtet sich nach dem Traum. Endlich: "der Schenk usw.", als solche kennen wir bereits die Beiden vollständig. Es scheint vielmehr in allem diesem diejenige Eigentümlichkeit der Träume berichtet zu sein, die sie eben beunruhigte. In den Träumen selbst lag doch eigentlich gar nichts Auffallendes. Daß ein Schenk träumt, er bereite Wein und kredenze ihn dem Könige, was er vielleicht bereits dreißig Jahre lang getan, und so auch der Bäcker, was war daran auffallend und der Deutung bedürftig? Allein eben die Klarheit und die Ähnlichkeit der beiden in einer Nacht geträumten Träume fiel ihnen auf. Augenfällig schienen beide Träume eines Inhalts, jedem nur in den Vorgängen seines Berufes mitgeteilt, und in beiden war jeder in seinem Berufe Gegenstand des Traumes. "Jeder träumte seinen Traum in einer Nacht; beide, die doch jetzt gefangen waren, sahen sich, der eine wieder als Schenk, der andere als Bäcker des Königs, und dabei waren die Träume nicht wie ein Traum, sondern fast wie die Deutung eines Traumes" d. h. sie waren so klar, daß fast nur eine Kleinigkeit zu fehlen schien und sie hätten keines Deuters bedurft. Hätten z. B dem Schenk statt dreier Reben, drei Tage geträumt, so wäre alles andere klar und deutlich gewesen. Eben aber diese dämmernde Klarheit, Gleichheit und selbst in der Dreizahl hervortretende Übereinstimmung beider Träume ließ sie diesen Träumen eine besondere, mit ihrem Geschicke in Beziehung stehende Bedeutung beilegen, über die sie nach Ausschluss grübelten. — פתר, verwandt mit פטר, öffnen, und zwar nicht ein mechanisches Offnen von außen, sondern ein organisches von innen heraus, wie פטר רחם und פטורי ציצים, ist ein schönes Wort für die Deutung eines Traumes, wie für jede vernünftige Deutung. Ein ganz vernünftiger Mensch kann einen Traum ganz genau deuten, ohne damit das Eintreffen desselben behaupten zu wollen. Die Deutung soll von innen heraus sein. Eine solche Deutung eines Traums von innen heraus ist die tiefste psychologische Aufgabe, sowie die Deutung eines jeden Symbols, die hermeneutische Erklärung eines Schriftstückes: פתרון sein soll, den Sinn von innen heraus erschließen. Hineinlegen kann man überall das bunteste Allerlei. Heraussuchen ( — daher ja auch דרש —) nur das eine, das richtige. Und wie bei der organischen Geburt und bei dem Sich-erschließen der Knospe es einen inneren Treibpunkt gibt, von dem aus die ganze Entfaltung ihren Ausgang nimmt, so liegt in jedem symbolisch Verschlossenen ein Kernpunkt, der erfasst sein will, damit sich sodann alles andere von selbst ergibt.

Sforno on Genesis 40:5:1

סריסי פרעה אשר אתו במשמר בית אדוניו, seeing that his master had entrusted their well being to him, as we know from verse 4 “the official in charge appointed Joseph to be with them.” If it had not been for this, it would not have been appropriate for Joseph to enquire into the private affairs of these ministers awaiting their final sentence.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:5:1

The same as ויחלמו שניהם חלום. Meaning: each of the two had a dream. Not that each saw the dream of both of them, i.e., his dream and that of his fellow.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:5:2

The Midrashic explanation, however, is: Each of them dreamed his own dream and the interpretation of the other’s... Chazal interpreted the verse literally. But instead of saying that each dreamed the other’s dream, they said, “The interpretation of the other’s dream.” We need not ask: How do Chazal know this? Perhaps it means literally, that each one dreamed his own dream and the other’s dream. For the answer is: Right afterwards it is written איש חלומו בלילה אחד, [implying each had only his own dream,] whereas at first it said חלום שניהם, implying that each had two dreams. Since this is self-contradictory, it must mean his dream and the interpretation of the other’s. And when it is writtenאיש כפתרון חלומו, i.e., like the interpretation of his friend’s [dream, perforce] it means a dream consistent with the matter destined to befall them. It cannot mean as it sounds, that he saw also the interpretation [of his own dream]. For if so, what was there for Yoseif to interpret?

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:5

They , the butler and the baker, dreamed a dream both of them – each man his dream during one night, each man in accordance with the interpretation of his dream. The eventual interpretation of each man’s dream, that of the butler and that of the baker of the king of Egypt, who were incarcerated in the prison, would match its content. 37

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:5:1

איש כפתרון חלומו, “each man according to its interpretation.” According to Rashi each man dreamt a dream that was roughly in accordance with the eventual interpretation offered for it as forecasting his fate. In other words, the cupbearer dreamt something which was enjoyable for him, i.e. he saw grapes which he could convert into wine, whereas the chief baker dreamt something that was disturbing, i.e. the bird consumed what he had meant to serve the King. Joseph interpreted the dreams to correspond to the mood that these dreams evoked in their principals. [the author’s version of Rashi’s commentary must have differed from that found in most of our Chumashim nowadays. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that such a commentary does not reflect what the chief of the cupbearers said to Pharaoh in 41,11; “we had dreamt a dream that corresponded to Joseph’s interpretation of it.” If Rashi’s interpretation were correct, it would have diminished Joseph’s reputation as an interpreter of dream rather than have enhanced it. What the chief of the cupbearers meant to imply was that Joseph knew how to interpret the dream although on the face of it, it did not resemble the eventual interpretation at all. Ibn Ezra writes that each of the two ministers dreamt his own dream plus the interpretation that applied to the dream of his colleague. [there is also confusion between what Nachmanides quotes Ibn Ezra as saying, and the version found in recent, amended versions of Ibn Ezra’s commentary by Asher Weiser. Ed.] Ibn Ezra’s major point [according to Nachmanides as per version in Rabbi Chavell’s edition] is that as opposed to Solomon’s statement in Kohelet 5,2 each party dreamt a precise forecast of his fate, there was no extraneous matter in the dream that would have confused the potential interpreter. [Rabbi Chavell quotes our author‘s interpretation of Ibn Ezra. Ed.]

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 117

“Each dream with its own meaning” [40:5]. Each one had a dream about himself, and also dreamed about his colleagues dream and what it meant. The other noble also had a dream about himself and also about his friend. (Rashi, Genesis, 40:5.)

Midrash

Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba explains that the dreams of the butler and baker were interconnected, as Joseph served them in prison for a year before interpreting their dreams. When they were distressed, Joseph directed them to God for interpretations, attributing greatness to its Owner (Bereshit Rabbah 88:4).

Bereshit Rabbah 88:4

“He placed them in custody in the household of the chief executioner, in the prison, the place where Joseph was incarcerated” (Genesis 40:3). “The chief executioner assigned Joseph to them, and he served them, and they were in custody one year” (Genesis 40:4). “They dreamed a dream, both of them, each man his dream during one night, each man in accordance with the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were incarcerated in the prison” (Genesis 40:5). “He placed them in custody…the chief executioner assigned…they dreamed a dream, both of them…” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba said: The dream, and the interpretation of his counterpart’s dream. “Joseph came to them in the morning, and saw them, and, behold, they were distressed” (Genesis 40:6). “They said to him: We dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter for it. Joseph said to them: Are interpretations not for God? Please, relate it to me” (Genesis 40:8). “Joseph came to them…they said…we dreamed a dream…are interpretations not for God?” He attributed the greatness to its Owner.

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that Joseph associated with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah because his brothers slighted them, leading to hatred from both groups. The term "lad" is used to indicate his youth and lack of physical strength compared to his brothers. Onkelos translates this term as "he grew up with the sons of Bilhah," indicating that they raised and served him. Ibn Ezra refers back to his previous explanation of the phrase "each man according to the interpretation of his dream" in Genesis 40:5.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 41:11:1

EACH MAN ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HIS DREAM. I have previously explained this. (I.E. explains the meaning of each man according to the interpretation of his dreams in his comments on Gen. 40:5.)

Ramban on Genesis 37:2:2

AND THE LAD WAS WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH. His actions were those of youth: he would touch up his eyes and dress his hair. With the sons of Bilhah, that is to say, he associated with the sons of Bilhah because his brothers slighted them as being the sons of handmaids, and he therefore befriended them. Their evil report — he told his father about every wrong which he discerned in his brothers, the sons of Leah. This is the language of Rashi. But if this be so, why did the children of the handmaids not save him later on, inasmuch as he loved and befriended them, and told his father about his brothers’ slighting them. And if we say that they feared their brothers, they were four, (Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.) and Reuben was with them, (As expressly stated further on in Verses 21-22.) and, with Joseph himself, [they made a total of six]. Surely they would have prevailed against them especially when considering that the remaining five sons of Leah would not wage war against them. Moreover, it appears from Scripture that all (“All,” except Reuben, the eldest, and Benjamin, the youngest, (Rabbeinu Bachya, p. 306, in my edition.)) of the brothers concurred in the sale of Joseph. However, according to our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah, (84:7.) he uttered slander against all of them. (And not, as Rashi has it, that the evil report concerned only the sons of Leah.) In my opinion the correct interpretation is that this verse returns to explain that which it mentioned above, and its purport [is as if the phrases in the verse were transposed as follows]: Joseph being a lad of seventeen years, was feeding the flock together with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. A similar case requiring transposition of phrases is found in this Seder: (Sedrah or Parsha (section).) And they dreamed a dream both of them in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison. (40:5.) The verse returns to explain the word shneihem (both of them) which it had mentioned at the outset. Its purport, [after the phrases have been suitably transposed, is as follows]: And both of them dreamed a dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison, each man according to the interpretation of his dream. There are many similar verses. It may be that the word v’hu (and he was) requires another similar word, as if it were written: “and he was a lad, and he was with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, who were his father’s wives.” The verse thus states that because he was a lad he was constantly with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, never being separated from them on account of his youth, for their father had commanded them to watch over him and serve him, not the sons of the mistresses, and he brought an evil report concerning them (The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.) to their father. It was for this reason that these four brothers (Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.) hated Joseph. Following that, the verse says that his father loved him. Now when the other brothers (The sons of Leah.) saw that their father loved him more than all, they became jealous of him and they hated him. Thus Joseph is found to be hated by all: the sons of the mistresses were jealous of him because Jacob loved him more than them although they were also sons of a mistress as he was, and the sons of the handmaids, who would otherwise not have been jealous of his superior position over them, hated him because he brought their evil report to their father. The purpose of the redundant expression, dibatham ra’ah (their evil report), is to magnify, (I.e., to indicate that the report was of an exceedingly evil nature.) for dibah itself connotes evil. (Otherwise, why does Scripture add the word ra’ah (evil)? It does so in order to magnify the evil nature of the report.) Now according to the opinion of Rashi it is possible for dibah to be a good report. Thus when Scripture uses the expression, “he brings dibah“, it means that he tells what he sees, (He reports the truth.) but when it uses the term, he bringeth forth ‘dibah,’ it refers to the fool who speaks falsehood. (This opinion that dibah connotes evil only when used in conjunction with the word motzi (bring forth) is borne out by Numbers 13:32.) In line with the literal meaning of Scripture, the fact that it calls one a na’ar (lad) when he was seventeen years of age (Ramban’s intent is to disagree with Rashi’s interpretation of na’ar, which is that his actions were those of a youth.) presents no difficulty for since he was the youngest among them, it calls him by that name, indicating that he was not as sturdy as his brothers and therefore needed to be with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah on account of his youth. Now of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, it is written, And Rehoboam was young and faint-hearted and could not withstand them, (II Chronicles 13:7.) yet he was forty-one years old when he began to reign. (Ibid., 12:13.) Similarly the verse: Is it well with the lad Absalom? (II Samuel 18:32. Now although Scripture does not state how old Absalom was at the time of his death, it would appear certain that he was about thirty years old since he was born to David in Hebron (ibid., 3:3-5), and David ruled thirty-three years in Jerusalem. The rebellion of Absalom occurred three years before David’s death (see Seder Hadoroth, year 2921). Hence Absalom, at his death, was at least thirty years old, yet David calls him na’ar.) And Benjamin, upon going down to Egypt, was older than Joseph was now, (For Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years. Therefore Benjamin must have been at least thirty years old at the time he went down to Egypt.) and yet Scripture frequently refers to him as na’ar. (Further, 44:31 and 33.) Now Onkelos translated v’hu na’ar as “he grew up with the sons of Bilhah.” Thus the verse states that from the time he was a lad he was in their company. They raised him as a father would, and they served him. This interpretation is also correct according to the literal interpretation of Scripture, which I offered as an explanation, namely that Scripture relates that he brought evil report concerning [the sons of the handmaids, who, according to Onkelos, raised him. This is why they hated him, whereas] the sons of the mistresses hated him because of their jealousy, as explained above. (Ramban thus indicates that the authoritative interpretation of Onkelos is here consistent with his own.) The meaning of the expression, His father’s wives, is that they were his “wives” for he took them as such. Scripture calls them “handmaids” only when they are mentioned together with Rachel and Leah, who were their mistresses. Similarly, And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, (Above, 33:2.) as if to say that because they were handmaids of Rachel and Leah, Jacob placed them before them in a more exposed position. Similarly, And he lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine. (Above, 35:22.) [The word “concubine” is used to indicate] that if she were a mistress it would not have occurred. It is possible that during the lifetime of Rachel and Leah, Scripture calls them “handmaids” and “concubines,” but now that they had died [Jacob] took them as wives.

Targum

Both the butler and the baker had a dream on the same night, with each dream having its own interpretation, while they were both imprisoned in Egypt's king's prison (Onkelos Genesis 40:5; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:5).

Onkelos Genesis 40:5

The two of them had a dream. Each of them had his dream on the same night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were imprisoned in the prison.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:5

And they dreamed a dream, both of them, each man his dream in one night, each man his own dream, and the interpretation of his companion's dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Mizraim who were confined in the prison.

וַיָּבֹ֧א אֲלֵיהֶ֛ם יוֹסֵ֖ף בַּבֹּ֑קֶר וַיַּ֣רְא אֹתָ֔ם וְהִנָּ֖ם זֹעֲפִֽים׃ 6 E When Joseph came to them in the morning, he saw that they were distraught.
The prisoners in the dungeon were distressed by their dreams, leading to Joseph interpreting the dreams as a gift from God. Worry is a negative quality that can be seen in one's countenance and must be addressed spiritually. Rashi and Chizkuni explain that נסו means in wrath, with Onkelos translating as נסיסין. The chief officer in Daniel expressed concern about endangering his life if he did not eat the allotted food. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan describe Joseph noticing the prisoners' distress in the morning.

Commentary

The prisoners in the dungeon were distressed because they had each dreamt the meaning of the other's dream, causing them to be deeply upset and agitated. Joseph, who spent his nights in the dungeon and days with the other prisoners, noticed their distress and inquired about it, leading to a discussion about their dreams.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:6:1

והנה זועפים, “and they looked very distressed.” As they considered themselves innocent in accordance with their dreams, they did not understand why they were still in jail, and considered appealing to Pharaoh who might have forgotten about them. This caused their distress.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:6:1

SAD. Zo’afim (sad) means agitated, as is the meaning of the word zapo (its rage) in and the sea ceased from its raging (mi-zapo) (Jon. 1:15). (Both words come from the same root.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:6:2

AND JOSEPH CAME IN UNTO THEM. It is possible that Joseph used to sleep in the dungeon at night. (The prison had a number of levels. Joseph’s quarters were in the lowest. He spent his nights in the dungeon and his days with the other prisoners (Krinsky).)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:6:1

והנם זועפים, and they were distressed. According to our sages in Berachot 55 the reason that both of them were distressed was that they both dreamt the meaning of the other's dream. The chief butler was distressed having seen in his dream what was going to happen to his companion the chief baker. Whereas the chief baker had seen in his dream that the chief butler would be reinstated he had nonetheless prepared himself for adversity and could not bring himself to have peace of mind.

Radak on Genesis 40:6:1

זעפים, each one of them was deeply upset about the dream he had had as they could not figure out its significance.

Rashi on Genesis 40:6:1

זעפים means SAD. Similar are (1 Kings 20:43) “sullen and displeased (וזעף)”; (Micah 7:9) “I will bear the displeasure (זעף) of the Lord (the sadness which the Lord has imposed on me).’

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:6:1

זעף verwandt mit צעף, wovon צעיף, der Schleier. צעיף: äußere Verschleierung des Angesichtes. זעף: eine Verschleierung des Angesichtes von innen heraus. Der Anblick eines betrübten Gesichtes gleicht dem eines Schlafenden oder Sterbenden; die Seele, das Leben, ist daraus zurückgetreten, und der sonst lebendige Ausdruck ist verschleiert.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:6

Joseph came to them in the morning to serve them, and saw them, and behold, they were distressed. As their attendant, Joseph was able to sense the change in their demeanor.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 118

“They were distraught” [40:6]. Joseph came the next morning and the noblemen were upset. Joseph asked them why they were upset. They said: we had a dream and we don’t know the meaning of the dream.

Midrash

Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba explains that each of the dreams of the butler and baker had an interpretation. Joseph, when asked to interpret the dreams, attributes the ability to interpret dreams to God, acknowledging the greatness of the Owner.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:4

“He placed them in custody in the household of the chief executioner, in the prison, the place where Joseph was incarcerated” (Genesis 40:3). “The chief executioner assigned Joseph to them, and he served them, and they were in custody one year” (Genesis 40:4). “They dreamed a dream, both of them, each man his dream during one night, each man in accordance with the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were incarcerated in the prison” (Genesis 40:5). “He placed them in custody…the chief executioner assigned…they dreamed a dream, both of them…” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba said: The dream, and the interpretation of his counterpart’s dream. “Joseph came to them in the morning, and saw them, and, behold, they were distressed” (Genesis 40:6). “They said to him: We dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter for it. Joseph said to them: Are interpretations not for God? Please, relate it to me” (Genesis 40:8). “Joseph came to them…they said…we dreamed a dream…are interpretations not for God?” He attributed the greatness to its Owner.

Musar

Worry is a negative quality that is easily recognizable by one's sad appearance, as seen in the examples of Joseph and Nehemiah in the Bible. It is a psychical ailment that can only be healed through spiritual remedies, as stated in Proverbs 12:25. This quality is often visible in one's countenance and can lead to further afflictions if not addressed.

Orchot Tzadikim 10:2

Worry is a quality that is bad in all its manifestations and is casily recognized, as it is written "And(he) saw them and behold, they were sad" (Gen. 40:6). And it is also written, "Why is your appearance sad, seeing you are not sick" (Neh. 2:2).

The Improvement of the Moral Qualities 3:2:3

I have determined to linger here a little in the discussion of this chapter. Perhaps God will grant us His grace and inspire us with excellent words, which may relieve the sadness of man, so that he may find healing in our discourse, because it is impossible to find healing for psychical ills other than in spiritual remedies. As this takes firmer hold of the soul, so also it becomes more difficult to find the remedy. Of God we pray that He protect us therefrom in His graciousness. The constitution of apprehensiveness is cold and dry, like the black gall (humor). No man can absolutely escape it. In some it attains immense proportions, so that they thereby become afflicted with psychical ailments. Thus it is said (Prov. xii. 25), "Gloom in the heart of man maketh it stoop, but a good word maketh it glad." Know thou that this quality is generally visible in the countenance, as thou hast seen in the case of Joseph, who discerned what was in the heart of " the servants of Pharaoh," when he beheld their austere countenances; it being said (Gen. xl. 6), "And he looked upon them, and behold they were sad," and as Artaxerxes said to Nehemiah (Neh. ii. 2), "Why is thy countenance sad, seeing thou art not sick." Thus it is obvious that this quality is generally distinctly visible in the countenance.

Quoting Commentary

Rashi explains that בְּנַס means in wrath, citing Genesis 40:6 where Onkelos translates זעַפִים as נסִיסִין. Chizkuni notes in Numbers 14:22:1 that נסו is used as equivalent to ויכעיסו, meaning "they put Me to the test" or "made Me angry," with Onkelos also translating זועפים as נסיסין in Genesis 40:6. The dot on the letter ס in נסיסין indicates a variation in meaning.

Chizkuni, Numbers 14:22:1

וינסו אתי, “they put Me to the test” The word here is used as equivalent to ויכעיסו, “They made Me angry.” Compare Onkelos on Genesis 40,6, where the word for זועפים is translated as “angry,” נסיסין. This is why the letter ס in this word has a dot, to show that it is a variation of the usual meaning.

Rashi on Daniel 2:12:3

(בְּנַס) means in wrath. (Gen. 40:6): “And behold they were angry (זעַפִים), and Onkelos renders: נסִיסִין.

Tanakh

The chief officer expressed concern to Daniel that if he did not eat the allotted food and drink, the king would notice and potentially endanger the officer's life (Daniel 1:10).

Daniel 1:10

The chief officer said to Daniel, “I fear that my lord the king, who allotted food and drink to you, will notice that you look out of sorts, unlike the other youths of your age—and you will put my life (Lit. “head.”) in jeopardy with the king.”

Targum

In Genesis 40:6, both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan describe Joseph coming to the men in prison in the morning and noticing that they were troubled.

Onkelos Genesis 40:6

Yoseif came to them in the morning, and he saw them, and behold they were troubled.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:6

And Joseph came to them in the morning, and saw them, and, behold, they were troubled.

וַיִּשְׁאַ֞ל אֶת־סְרִיסֵ֣י פַרְעֹ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר אִתּ֧וֹ בְמִשְׁמַ֛ר בֵּ֥ית אֲדֹנָ֖יו לֵאמֹ֑ר מַדּ֛וּעַ פְּנֵיכֶ֥ם רָעִ֖ים הַיּֽוֹם׃ 7 E He asked Pharaoh’s courtiers, who were with him in custody in his master’s house, saying, “Why do you appear downcast today?”
Joseph fearlessly inquired about the dreams of Pharaoh's officers in prison, showcasing his wisdom and courage despite the potential danger, emphasizing the change in status between them and his concern for their well-being. His inquiry was driven by loyalty and attentiveness to their distress, highlighting his unique perspective on the world and ability to see specific details and relationships in every situation. The Hebrew term "panim" has various meanings, and the servant of Pharaoh in dreams is described as a eunuch, unable to procreate or enter the holy assembly. Joseph's question to Pharaoh's officials in his master's house focused on their current distress and change in demeanor compared to previous days.

Commentary

Joseph fearlessly inquired about the dreams of Pharaoh's officers in prison, showcasing his wisdom and courage, despite the potential danger of his interpretations being incorrect and leading to his own execution. The Torah emphasizes the change in status between Joseph and the officers, highlighting Joseph's concern for their well-being and the common fate they shared in prison. Joseph's inquiry was driven by his loyalty to his master and his desire to understand the distress of the ministers. He specifically asked about their current distress, showing his attentiveness to their individual situations. Joseph's unique perspective on the world and his ability to see the specific details and relationships in every person and situation are highlighted, as well as his understanding and appreciation of their individuality.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:7:1

וישאל את סריסי פרעה, He enquired from Pharaoh's ministers, etc. Why did the Torah have to add the words: "who were with him in jail?" Also, why did the Torah add: "in the house of his master?"

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:7:2

Perhaps the Torah provided us with the reason why Joseph enquired from the two ministers as to why they seemed so distressed. It was certainly unbecoming for people of inferior standing to enquire into the state of mind of their superiors. The Torah says: "Joseph enquired from Pharaoh's ministers," i.e. although Joseph was only a slave whereas they were ministers of the king he still decided to ask them. The reason was that as of then they were both in jail, normal distinctions between their standing in society did not apply. He may also have thought that their distress had something to do with him personally. The reason the Torah underlined: "in the house of his master," is that Joseph wondered if the distress of the ministers was directed against Joseph's superior, the chief warden. Joseph who was a loyal servant wanted to know if he could perhaps do a service to his master by finding out the reason for the ministers' distress.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:7:3

Joseph added: היום, "this day," meaning that he did not refer to their general distress about being in jail which is something they had reason to be distressed about already yesterday and the day before, but about their special distress on that day.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:7:1

וישאל את סריסי פרעה אשר אתו במשמר בית אדוניו לאמר, He asked the courtiers of Pharaoh who were with him in the custody of the house of his master to tell, etc.” What was the need for the Torah to write this cumbersome introduction? Did we not know that these courtiers were in jail together with Joseph? All the Torah had to write was that Joseph asked the courtiers why they were so glum. It is possible to understand the wording of the Torah here in light of what had been written before in verse four that Joseph was with these courtiers in the same jail and that he who was in jail with them performed personal valet service for them; these services were rendered to these prisoners only because they were of such an elevated stature. Now that the boot was on the other foot, the Torah wanted to mention that they were with him, i.e. that they depended upon him to enlighten them. The Torah wrote: “the courtiers of Pharaoh who were with him,” to draw our attention to the fact that they were now secondary to Joseph instead of Joseph being secondary to them. Furthermore, the Torah wanted to explain why Joseph had the audacity to mix into the private affairs of such highly placed personages as the Chief of the butlers, etc. The Torah illustrates the point that when lowly prisoners, slaves, foreigners such as Joseph and highly placed personages such as these two courtiers find themselves in similar circumstances, i.e. in a dungeon, considerations such as their former status vanish and there is established a form of equality based on a common fate. This is what gave Joseph the courage to comment on the glum expressions of the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers. Joseph was concerned with their well-being although they were wicked people serving a wicked King.

Radak on Genesis 40:7:1

וישאל, the Torah now adds the words סריסי פרעה, Pharaoh’s highly placed officials, although at the time אשר אתו, they were on a par with him, both in jail. When Joseph saw their pitiful state of mind, he felt he had to ask what caused such highly placed personages to be in such a depressed mood. After all, his superior, the warden had charged him with looking after the well being of these two special prisoners.

Ramban on Genesis 40:7:1

AND HE ASKED PHARAOH’s OFFICERS THAT WERE WITH HIM IN THE WARD OF HIS MASTER’s HOUSE. It would be proper for Scripture to say; “And he asked them, saying.” Instead, Scripture speaks at length about it for its desire is to speak in praise of Joseph. Here is a servant lad who is enquiring of two great officers who are wards in the house of his master who hates him, (“Who hates him.” Ramban is here writing from the standpoint of the butler and the baker, who must have thought that Joseph’s master imprisoned him because he hated him, not being aware, as explained above, that he did so to protect his family’s reputation.) and each of whom could command his hanging. (If his interpretation of the dreams would turn out to be incorrect. Thus, as explained further on by Ramban, if the baker had been restored to his position, he would have seen to it that Joseph pay for his mistake with his life.) Yet he was not afraid of them, and asked them their dreams and told them his opinion with respect to the interpretation because he trusted in his wisdom. Had the lord of the bakers been saved and restored to his position by the king, he would have hung him for his false interpretation.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:7:1

Wie viele Worte sind in der ersten Hälfte dieses Satzes überflüssig! Fast so viel als er enthält. Nochmals wird der ganze Pass der beiden Mitgefangenen abgelesen, וישאל אותם hätte uns alles gesagt. Ihre Personalien sind uns ja bereits mehr als bekannt. Trügt uns jedoch nicht alles, so ist uns eben hier das geistige Genie, die חכמה Josefs gezeichnet. Er sah sie betrübt, wusste ja noch von nichts, da fragte er die Hofbedienten Pharaos usw. Der Unterschied der Anschauung, mit welcher ein ge- wohnlicher Mensch die Welt und die Dinge anschaut, von derjenigen, mit welcher ein Josef die Welt und die Dinge anschaute, ist eben der: ein gewöhnlicher Mensch sieht bloß generell, dem חכם erscheint in jeder Person und Sache die ganze Spezialität und Individualität. Jener spricht mit "Kaufleuten", "Gelehrten" usw. Diesem ist in jedem Augenblick die Person, mit der er spricht, in allen ihren Eigentümlichkeiten und Beziehungen zusammen gegenwärtig. Josef vergaß nie, was sie waren, zu welchem Zweck sie da waren, hatte stets ihre ganze Situation in scharf gezeichneten Zügen im Auge. Sie waren במשמר, (— und dadurch unterscheidet sich der ägyptische Pharao vorteilhaft von seinem späteren jovialen persischen Kollegen, daß er nicht sofort im Zorn endgültig dekretiert —) konnten also morgen wieder draußen sein. Waren endlich אתו — eine dunkle Ahnung mochte Josef von der Möglichkeit vorschweben, da sie nur erst in Untersuchungshaft waren, könnten sie einst auf sein Geschick einen günstigen Einfluss üben, und mochte er daher in ihrem Zusammensein eine göttliche Fügung ahnen. Und eben weil ihm die Personen immer in allen ihren Beziehungen gegenwärtig waren, darum sah und hörte er auch alle ihre Worte und Handlungen, und so auch ihre Träume, immer im Zusammenhange mit ihrer ganzen Individualität; und begriff und verstand es auch, aus .dieser Individualität heraus sie aufzufassen und zu würdigen

Sforno on Genesis 40:7:1

סריסי פרעה אשר אתו במשמר בית אדוניו, seeing that his master had entrusted their well being to him, as we know from verse 4 “the official in charge appointed Joseph to be with them.” If it had not been for this, it would not have been appropriate for Joseph to enquire into the private affairs of these ministers awaiting their final sentence.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:7

He asked Pharaoh’s courtiers who were with him in the custody of his master’s house, saying: Why are your faces wretched today?

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:7:1

וישאל את סריסי פרעה אשר אתו במשמר, “he enquired from Pharaoh’s ministers, the ones in the same jail as he, etc.” We would have expected the Torah to write: “וישאל אותם,” he asked them.” The only reason why the Torah chose more cumbersome wording is to tell us of the praiseworthy conduct of Joseph who, although he found himself in the presence of two prisoners vastly superior to him in personal power even while in jail, and moreover, in the jail of his former master Potiphar, who by now hated him, i.e. people who could have ordered his execution without worrying about their being held accountable, nonetheless had the courage to interpret their dreams, although at least one of them would be frustrated with his interpretation. He had confidence in his wisdom, for if the chief of the bakers had been pardoned, he would surely have hung Joseph for having made him deathly afraid for a number of days.

Jewish Thought

The Hebrew term "panim" has various figurative meanings, primarily referring to the face of a living being as seen in biblical references such as Jeremiah 30:6 and Genesis 40:7.

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 37:1

THE Hebrew term panim (face) is homonymous: most of its various meanings have a figurative character. It denotes in the first place the face of a living being: comp. “And all faces are turned into paleness” (Jer. 30:6); “Wherefore are your faces so sad” (Gen. 40:7). In this sense the term occurs frequently.

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 53:9:2 discusses how the verse describes Israel's trouble in exile leading to a longing for death, caused by unjust treatment from the heathen nations. Rabbeinu Bahya, Devarim 16:7:1 explains that "boil" in the context of eating Passover actually means to barbecue on a spit over an open fire. Ibn Ezra on Numbers 11:28:1 interprets "from his youth up" as Joshua serving Moses from a young age, chosen to do so. Chizkuni, Exodus 21:8:1 notes that "ugly" can also refer to physical appearance, not just moral ugliness.

Chizkuni, Exodus 21:8:1

אבל אם רעה, “but if she is ugly, etc.” the term רעה while often used to describe moral ugliness, is also used to describe physical ugliness, i.e. being “sourfaced,” as we know from when Joseph asked the baker and cupbearer who had dreamt dreams which had upset them. Compare Genesis 40,7: ?מדוע פניכם רעים היום, “why do you look so crestfallen today?” בעיני אדוניה, “in her master’s eyes;” so that he does not wish her to remain in his house as a prospective bride until she will have completed her years of service;

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 53:9:2

רשע═עשיר Wicked. (A.V., Rich.) The heathen nations that are rich in comparison with Israel are meant. I think that this verse describes the trouble of the Israelites in exile, which is so great, that they long to die with the nations; comp. Let me die with the Philistines (Jud. 16:20). As to ויתן he longed to give; (A. V., And be made. And warred.—The passage refers to Balak, King of Moab, who did not, in fact, fight with Israel, but sent for Balaam to curse them. The imperfect used in this sense is called by the grammarians imperfectum conatûs.) (A. V., And be made. And warred.—The passage refers to Balak, King of Moab, who did not, in fact, fight with Israel, but sent for Balaam to curse them. The imperfect used in this sense is called by the grammarians imperfectum conatûs.) comp. וילחם and he intended to fight (Jos. 24:9). That this longing for death is caused by the great pains, may be inferred from the words which follow: because he had done no violence. The heathen nations oppress Israel without cause; he neither deserves such ill-treatment, by any wrong act nor by any ambiguous, deceitful word. If the objection should be made that בׇּמוׂת does not change in the construct state into בְּמוׂת, as is the case in בְּמׂתׇיו, I answer, that this noun has two forms in the plural, like סריס officer: סׇרִיסֵי (Gen. 40:7); and סְרִיסֵי (Est. 6:14)

Ibn Ezra on Numbers 11:28:1

FROM HIS YOUTH UP. Some say that the meaning of mi-bechurav (from his youth up) is, from his youth. It means that he did not speak as an elder speaks. (He spoke as a youth speaks.) Others connect mi-bechurav (from his youth up) to mesharet mosheh (the minister of Moses); (They read our text as follows: mesharet mosheh mi-bechurav, meaning the minister of Moses from his (Joshua’s) youth on.) this means the one who served Moses from the time of his youth. (So Onkelos and Rashbam.) However, this is incorrect, for this event occurred in the second year. (Following the Exodus. However, Scripture nowhere tells us that Joshua served Moses before this date.) In my opinion, the word mi-bechurav means from the chosen. It means that he was one of those chosen to serve Moses, for there were others with him. (According to I.E. our clause should be interpreted: And Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses, one of his chosen, answered and said.) Note that the word bachur (youth, or chosen) sometimes changes in the plural and sometimes does not. (In the plural the word is at times vocalized with a pattach (Ps. 78:31) and at other times with a sheva as in our verse (bechurav, rather than bachurav).) The same applies to the word saris (officer). (The plural of saris is both sarisim (Esth. 2:21) and serisim (Gen. 40:7).) It is also possible that they belong to two different paradigms. (Bachurav comes from the singular bachur (vocalized pattach, shurik), bechurav from the singular bachur (vocalized kamatz, shurik). Similarly sarism, and serisim. According to rules of Hebrew grammar, in the former form the kamatz changes to a sheva in the plural. Compare, davar, devarim. However, in the latter case the pattach is maintained in the plural form.)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Devarim 16:7:1

ובשלת ואכלת, “you are to boil it and eat it.” The word ובשלת in this connection means “to barbecue it on a spit over an open fire” as we know already from Exodus 12,8. The word בשל occurs in the sense of “ripening, becoming ready for its destiny,” already in Genesis 40,7 when the butler described his dream with the grapes. Similarly, the meaning of Chronicles II 35,13 ויבשלו את הפסח, does not mean that the people boiled the Passover in water, but that they made it ready for eating.

Second Temple

The servant of Pharaoh in dreams is described as a eunuch, neither male nor female, unable to procreate or enter the holy assembly, based on Genesis 40:7 and Deuteronomy 23:1.

On Dreams, Book II 27:5

[184] Thus I, the servant of that Pharaoh who keeps his stubborn incontinent thinking in an intensity of looseness, am an eunuch (Gen. 40:7), gelded of the soul’s generating organs, a vagrant from the men’s quarters, an exile from the women’s, a thing neither male nor female, unable either to shed or receive seed, twofold yet neuter, base counterfeit of the human coin, cut off from the immortality which, through the succession of children and children’s children, is kept alight for ever, roped off from the holy assembly and congregation. “For he that hath lost the organs of generation is absolutely forbidden to enter therein” (Deut. 23:1).

Targum

Joseph asked Pharaoh's officials in his master's house why they looked so bad that day, questioning the change in their demeanor compared to previous days (Onkelos Genesis 40:7, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:7).

Onkelos Genesis 40:7

He asked Pharaoh’s officials, who were with him, under guard in his master’s house, saying, Why do you look so bad today?

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:7

And Joseph asked the chiefs of Pharoh who were with him in the custody of his master's house, saying, Why is the look of your faces more evil today than all the other days that you have been here?

וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֵלָ֔יו חֲל֣וֹם חָלַ֔מְנוּ וּפֹתֵ֖ר אֵ֣ין אֹת֑וֹ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֜ם יוֹסֵ֗ף הֲל֤וֹא לֵֽאלֹהִים֙ פִּתְרֹנִ֔ים סַפְּרוּ־נָ֖א לִֽי׃ 8 E And they said to him, “We had dreams, and there is no one to interpret them.” So Joseph said to them, “Surely God can interpret! Tell me [your dreams].”
In Genesis 40:8, Joseph suggests that interpretations of dreams belong to God and he may be able to interpret the dreams with God's help, as seen in various commentaries such as Akeidat Yitzchak, Kabbalah, Midrash, and Targum. The ability to interpret dreams is seen as a gift from God, emphasizing the importance of listening and learning from the wise rather than making judgments on traditions or explanations.

Commentary

In Genesis 40:8:1, the ministers in prison said there was no one to interpret their dreams, indicating they had already tried to find an interpreter. In Genesis 40:8:2, Joseph suggests that interpretations of dreams belong to God, and he may be able to interpret their dreams with God's help.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:8:1

ופוטר אין אותו, seeing that they were held in communicado with the outside world, they had no one who could bring their plight to Pharaoh’ attention, or at least to consult with any of the professional sorcerers of Egypt.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:8:2

?הלא לאלו־הים פתרונים, “since interpretations of dreams is a matter for G-d, perhaps He has decreed that I could interpret it?”

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:8:1

[DO NOT INTERPRETATIONS BELONG TO GOD.] Its meaning is that the interpretations of dreams belong to the Lord because He knows the future. He has revealed what is going to come to pass in a dream to one whom He selected and it therefore makes no difference whether I interpret the dream for good or ill. Since this is so, and all interpretations belong to God, do not be concerned about telling me your dreams. (The point is, only God knows the future and what He knows will come to pass. Hence my interpretation can in no way influence the outcome of your dream. What will be, will be.) The Rabbinic statement that all dreams follow the interpretation is the opinion of an individual sage. (Rabbi Elazar in Berakhot 55b. According to the latter a dream’s meaning depends on its interpretation. This contradicts I.E. Hence, I.E. says that Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is not binding.)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:8:1

ויאמרו אליו…ופותר אין אתו, "and there is no one to interpret it." They meant that there was no one to interpret it at all, as distinct from Pharaoh's dream (41,8) when a variety of interpretations were offered, none of which satisfied Pharaoh.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:8:2

הלא לאלוקים פתרונים, "don't interpretations belong to G'd?" This was Joseph's way of saying that although he offered his services as an interpreter they should not think that he claimed to boast about his ability, but that G'd had many interpreters at His disposal; he, Joseph, was only one of them. He invited them to tell him their dreams.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:8:3

When Joseph referred to "interpretations" in the plural, he alluded to a story from the Talmud Berachot 55 according to which there were twenty four regular dream-interpreters in Jerusalem. All of them interpreted the dream of Rabbi Banah, each one offering a different interpretation. All their interpretations happened to come true. This is what Joseph had in mind when he said: "G'd has interpretations." Joseph meant that a dream is capable of many different interpretations all of which are correct.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:8:4

Joseph had two reasons for saying נא, please, when inviting the ministers to tell him their dreams. 1) An interpretation can only claim to be accurate when it is given on the day after the night the dream has occurred, and this is the reason that one may fast even on the Sabbath after having had a bad dream; on the other hand, if one delayed fasting, one may not fast on the Sabbath on account of that dream. Joseph's use of the word נא, meant that he urged the ministers to tell him their dreams at once before the interpretations would become useless to them.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:8:5

The second reason Joseph said נא, is also related to a statement in the Talmud on the next folio. We are told there that most dreams follow the mouth, i.e. the interpreter [I have explained this on page 301. Ed.]. This is why Joseph was anxious that they should tell their dreams to him rather than to someone else in order that his interpretation would be fulfilled. He said: ספרו נא, "please tell now!" Although we have mentioned that there were twenty four interpreters in Jersualem each one of whom was able to give a different yet true interpretation to the same dream, I maintain that this was so only because none of the twenty four interpretations contradicted one another. If, for instance, the first interpreter would say that the prisoner would be released whereas the second interpreter would say that the prisoner would remain in jail until dead, only the first interpretation would be fulfilled. Joseph urged them to make him the first interpreter of their dreams for their sakes.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:8:1

הלא לאלו-הים פתרונים, ”are not the interpretations a matter for G’d?” Joseph meant that future events foreshadowed by dreams are something known only to G’d who is the One who sends the dream to the person whom He wants to warn through a dream. He is the only One who can reveal the future, make peace and initiate evil (Isaiah 45,7). Joseph wanted to reassure the two courtiers that they would neither profit nor suffer any harm by revealing their dreams to him, seeing it was G’d who would determine their future.

Radak on Genesis 40:8:1

ופתר אין אותו, they had already asked other people to explain their dreams to them but had not found anyone who could interpret it.

Radak on Genesis 40:8:2

?הלא לאלוקים פתרונים, he was reminded of his own dreams. He was still awaiting the correct interpretation of his own dreams, something known only to G’d. He knew however, that G’d lets you dream certain dreams in order to foreshadow coming events. Seeing that this is so, there must be people who can interpret such dreams, why else would the phenomenon of dreams exist? The reason why their dreams were so confused, i.e. that they perceived themselves to be merely bakers and cup-bearers respectively, was that at the time they themselves were imprisoned and it would not have reflected their psychological makeup to perceive of themselves as occupying positions of authority.

Radak on Genesis 40:8:3

ספרו נא לי, perhaps G’d will grant me the insight to interpret the dream.

Ramban on Genesis 40:8:1

AND THERE IS NO INTERPRETER OF IT. The meaning thereof is that “there is no one to inform us concerning the future which can be derived from the dream.” It is possible that they sent for some magicians in the morning, or that there were people with them in the prison, but no one could interpret it. It may be that they said; “There is no one in the world, in our opinion, who can interpret it, for it is very obscure.”

Ramban on Genesis 40:8:2

DO NOT (‘HALO’) INTERPRETATIONS BELONG TO G-D? Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it as saying that “future events destined to come as indicated in dreams belong to G-d, for He alone brings on the dream and lets the future be known, and it is He who makes peace, and creates evil, (Isaiah 45:7.) but in my speaking to you there is neither benefit nor loss.” This he said so that they should not punish him if evil should befall them, or so that they should tell him the dreams and not scorn him. (Thus far the comment of Rabbi ibn Ezra.) But if so, there is no sense for the word halo (do not) in this context. (Since Joseph is stating it all in the affirmative; “dreams belong to G-d, etc.” the interrogative form of the word halo is out of place.) Perhaps its meaning is the same as that of the word hinei (behold). Thus Joseph is saying, “Behold, to G-d alone belong interpretations, but not to man the interpreter.” In my opinion the correct interpretation is that Joseph is saying; “Do not interpretations of all dreams which are obscure and confined belong to G-d? He can make known the interpretation of your dreams. Now if it is obscure to you tell it to me; perhaps He will be pleased to reveal His secret to me.”

Rashbam on Genesis 40:8:1

ופותר אין אותו, as if the Torah had written ואין פותר אותו, “there is no one who knows how to interpret it.” We encounter a similar inverted verse in Ezekiel 33,32 ועושים אינם אותם, which by right should have been ואינם עושים אותם, “but will not obey them. (carry them out)”

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:8:1

Ihr habt keinen Deuter hier? Wenn Träume einer Deutung wert sind, wenn sie eine Bedeutung haben, so muss sie Gott gesendet haben und Gott das Verständnis vermitteln. Gott ist aber auch hier gegenwärtig und kann das Verständnis auch durch den Mund eines jeden gewähren.

Sforno on Genesis 40:8:1

הלא לאלוקים פתרונים? The wisdom to interpret a dream is something divinely inspired, seeing that man has been created in G’d’s image. It is therefore possible that even I may have been endowed with such wisdom, even though I am a lowly servant and on top of my misfortune I am in jail. It may therefore be possible that you erred when you said that there is no one who can interpret your dreams.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:8

They said to him: We dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter for it. We sense that our dreams contain an important message, but we are unable to decipher them. Joseph said to them: Aren’t interpretations for God? The interpretation of a dream and its realization lie solely in the hands of God; He can inform us of its meaning. 38 Therefore, please, relate it to me; perhaps I will succeed in interpreting it.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:8:1

פותר אין אותו, “there was no one who would interpret it.” There was no one in the whole world that knew how to interpret it. Alternately, these ministers had sent messengers to a number of well known dream experts, both within the jail and beyond, and none of those had any explanation to offer.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:8:2

הלא לאלוקים פתרונים, “is not the subject of interpreting dreams something reserved for G’d? Ibn Ezra says that Joseph meant that G’d exclusively, knows of the interpretation that will come true in the future. Only He knows the future and sees fit to reveal some of it to whosoever needs to know it. Joseph continued: “if I explain the dream to you in a manner that will please you, or even in a manner which will not reflect its true meaning, this will not affect your future fate at all.” He may have said this to them in order to encourage them to tell him their dreams, or as reinsurance so that they would have no reason to punish him if it was found that he erred in his interpretations. Nachmanides writes that the correct interpretation of our verse in his opinion, is that Joseph explained to them that for all the dreams which defy our ability to interpret correctly there is an explanation which G’d knows of, and this is a knowledge that He has granted to some people to share with Him. If he were to offer an explanation for their dreams, it would be the result of knowledge granted to him by G’d. If they were to tell him the details of their dreams, perhaps G’d would enlighten him concerning the meaning.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 119

“There is no one to interpret them” [40:8]. Hizkuni writes. There is no one among us in the prison that can interpret the dream. Joseph said: tell me the dream. Perhaps God will give that I will be able to interpret them. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 40:8.) The cupbearer said to Joseph. I dreamed that there was a grapevine before me and there were three branches on the vine. They sprouted and the grapes ripened quickly. I also dreamed that I took the king’s goblet into my hand and I took the grapes and squeezed them into the king’s goblet. Then I gave the goblet into the hand of Pharaoh. Joseph said: the dream means that the three branches are three days, and after three days Pharaoh will again take you back to be his cupbearer, as before. Remember me and do me an act of kindness and help me to get out of prison.

Jewish Thought

In Akeidat Yitzchak 29:1:4, it is explained that light is necessary for vision, which is compared to wisdom. God, being the great "Seer," does not require light to see. The Torah is seen as providing wisdom and spiritual enlightenment, with the ability to interpret dreams being a gift from God. The interpretation of dreams can vary, as seen in the Talmud's examples of differing interpretations for the same dream.

Akeidat Yitzchak 29:1:4

In order to make use of one's eyesight, light is indispensable. Even possession of perfect eyesight is useless, since one is unable to translate one's potential into the actual, unless the objects to be seen are bathed in light. None of our other senses requires external phenomena to enable them to function. One can smell in the dark, touch in the dark, etc. Because the sense of vision requires light in order to function, light is also called "wisdom," seeing that wisdom is also an external agent assisting all our senses to improve the quality of their respective perceptions. G-d the great "Seer" is different inasmuch as He does not require light to enable Him to see and perceive all that exists. Whereas photography cannot function when outside light penetrates the viewer, the Almighty, the seat of light who is surrounded by light, is not handicapped by that fact. Daniel 2,22 says, "He knows what is in darkness, though surrounded by light." Isaiah 60,1-2 says, "Though the earth will be surrounded and covered by darkness, the Lord will light you up. His glory will be visisble to you." This "glory" will not be visible to other nations. The fact that the account of the story of Creation commences with the creation of light, illustrates the point that in order to build successfully, one must be able to see what one is doing. Though night is no darker than daylight for the Almighty, the point was to describe the inescapable need for daylight for man to be able to live on earth successfully. For this reason, we read at the end of the story of creation, "G-d saw all that He had made and it was very good" (Genesis 1,31). Until He had viewed it, it could not have been described as "very good." Solomon also describes the relationship of light to darkness as like the relationship of wisdom to foolishness, explaining that the fool, though he sees, walks in darkness, whereas the wise, even though blind, carries the source of light in his head (Kohelet 2,13-14). Since Torah more than anything else has been designed to provide wisdom, the verse "for each mitzvah is like a candle, but Torah is light itself" (Proverbs 6,23) is self-explanatory. When Moses says to Yitro "You will become our eyes" (Numbers 10,31), he had this kind of vision in mind, i.e. one which provides spiritual light, wisdom. The fact that the members of the Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin are called "the eyes of the community" (Horiot 5) is to be understood in the same vein. Basing ourselves on this comparison between eyesight and wisdom, the Torah's statement that Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream was "good in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants" is clear. It means that people who had up to now walked in darkness, suddenly were greatly enlightened (Genesis 41,37). In the final analysis, providing spiritual enlightenment to those walking in spiritual darkness is what the interpretation of dreams is all about. The ability to relate apparently unconnected phenomena to one another, is what foretelling of the future amounts to. When Joseph had said to Pharaoh's ministers who were in jail with him, "Ks not the interpretation of dreams G-d’s business?" (Genesis 40,8), or when he said to Pharaoh, "May the Lord put Pharaoh's mind at ease" (41,17), this underscores that only someone possessed of qualities especially conferred upon him by G-d could succeed in interpreting dreams. Our sages in Berachot 25 appear to contradict this theory when they state that "All dreams follow the mouth." At first glance this seems to mean that the interpreter of a dream determines its meaning and significance although logic dictates otherwise. When the Torah says that Joseph explained each man's dream according to its dreamer, surely this means that each dream allowed for only one explanation. How then can our sages allow latitude to the interpreter to impose his own meaning? Strangely enough the Talmud reports two identical dreams that permitted widely divergent interpretations. Still stranger is the statement of Rabbi Neriyah (Berachot 56) that the twenty-four interpreters in Jerusalem offered twenty-four different interpretations for the same dream, all of which turned out to be true.

Kabbalah

The text urges the reader to listen and understand, cautioning against making judgments on traditions or explanations. It emphasizes that solutions are in God's hands, and references various biblical verses to highlight the importance of listening and learning from the wise.

Ohr Ne'erav, Appendix The Introductory Material 4:16

Hear me, my brothers, and give ear to me, my people (I Chron. 28:2). Understand, you fools (Prov. 8:5); listen, you rulers. Be careful what you say, and may God be with you (Gen. 48:21). If [you see] scholars in a vision like rams butting and vanquishing each other, (Cf. Dan. 8.) it is not for you or us to say, “Remember and observe. (Cf. Rashi on Exod. 20:8, regarding the difference in the text of the Ten Commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy.) this tradition is proper, and that tradition is improper.” Solutions are for God (Gen. 40:8). Those who are basing [their belief] upon the explanation of a thing (Eccles. 8:1), not to fan and not to cleanse (Jer. 4:11). Is there not a time of service for man upon the earth? (Job 7:1), while the testimony of God is faithful (Ps. 19:8), as is known to an ear which hears. You who dwell in the gardens, friends listen (Song 8:13), you will lie down in the midst of the wise (Prov. 15:31).

Midrash

Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba comments on the verses from Genesis 40:3-8 in Bereshit Rabbah 88:4, emphasizing the importance of dreams and interpretations as being from God. Joseph, while in prison, interprets the dreams of the butler and the baker, attributing the greatness of interpretations to God.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:4

“He placed them in custody in the household of the chief executioner, in the prison, the place where Joseph was incarcerated” (Genesis 40:3). “The chief executioner assigned Joseph to them, and he served them, and they were in custody one year” (Genesis 40:4). “They dreamed a dream, both of them, each man his dream during one night, each man in accordance with the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were incarcerated in the prison” (Genesis 40:5). “He placed them in custody…the chief executioner assigned…they dreamed a dream, both of them…” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Abba said: The dream, and the interpretation of his counterpart’s dream. “Joseph came to them in the morning, and saw them, and, behold, they were distressed” (Genesis 40:6). “They said to him: We dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter for it. Joseph said to them: Are interpretations not for God? Please, relate it to me” (Genesis 40:8). “Joseph came to them…they said…we dreamed a dream…are interpretations not for God?” He attributed the greatness to its Owner.

Second Temple

Abraham's uncorrupted parts include his refusal of Pleasure's advances and his ability to distinguish between true interpretations of dreams given by God and empty fancies. Joseph is criticized for attributing the true meaning of dreams to God rather than acknowledging that God is the cause of the unfolding and interpretation of hidden things.

On the Cherubim 35:6

[128] Right reason too would not hold Joseph free from blame, when he said that through God would the true meaning of dreams be found (Gen. 40:8). He should have said that by Him as cause the unfolding and right interpretation of things hidden would fitly come to pass. For we are the instruments, wielded in varying degrees of force, through which each particular form of action is produced; the Craftsman it is who brings to bear on the material the impact of our forces, whether of soul or body, even He by whom all things are moved.

On the Migration of Abraham 4:3

[19] What, then, are the uncorrupted parts? His having nothing to do with Pleasure when she says, “Let us lie together” (Gen. 39:7) and enjoy the good things of mankind: the shrewdness coupled with the resoluteness which enabled him to recognize the products of empty fancies which many accounted to be good, and to distinguish them as mere dreams from those which are really so; and to confess that the true and certain interpretations of things are given under God’s guid ance (Gen. 40:8), while the doubtful imaginations that have no certainty follow the rule and line of the erring and deluded life of men who have not undergone purification, a life that finds its joy in the delights provided by bakers and cooks and butlers.

Targum

In Genesis 40:8, both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan convey Joseph's response to the dream interpretation request, emphasizing that interpretations of dreams come from God. Joseph asks to hear the dreams so he can interpret them.

Onkelos Genesis 40:8

They said to him, We had a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. Yoseif said to them, Do not [Are] interpretations [of dreams] belong to [not from] God. Tell them to me, please [now].

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:8

And they said to him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter for it. And Joseph answered, Are not the interpretations of dreams from tile Lord? Tell it now to me.

וַיְסַפֵּ֧ר שַֽׂר־הַמַּשְׁקִ֛ים אֶת־חֲלֹמ֖וֹ לְיוֹסֵ֑ף וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֔וֹ בַּחֲלוֹמִ֕י וְהִנֵּה־גֶ֖פֶן לְפָנָֽי׃ 9 E Then the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph. He said to him, “In my dream, there was a vine in front of me.
The Chief of the butlers emphasizes his dream in Genesis 40:9, related to good health, while the Chief of the bakers' mistake leads to his demise. Joseph gains the trust of the ministers by interpreting their dreams. The dream of the chief butler in the Midrash symbolizes Israel's redemption, with the four cups representing various concepts. Leaning while eating at the Seder is required, with exceptions for certain individuals. In the Second Temple text, a dream involving a vine symbolizes wickedness and harm. The chief butler tells Joseph about his vine-related dream in the Targum.

Commentary

In Genesis 40:9, the Chief of the butlers prefaces his dream with the words "in my dream," emphasizing what he had seen in his own dream. This expression is related to recovering from sickness and denotes good health. The Chief of the bakers, on the other hand, made the mistake of saying אף before relating his dream, leading to his demise. Joseph succeeded in gaining the trust of these ministers by interpreting their dreams.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:9:1

בחלומי, "in my dream." Since he had dreamt the interpretation of his companion's dream, he now emphasised what he had seen in his own dream, i.e. the dream he had dreamt concerning himself.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:9:1-2

בחלומי, והנה גפן לפני , “in my dream- behold there was a grapevine in front of me.” It behooves a person to be extremely careful when he begins to relate a dream he has dreamt. You note that the Chief of the butlers prefaced telling his dream with the words: “in my dream.” The word בחלומי is an expression of “recovering from a sickness and an expression denoting good health.” The expression is related to Isaiah 38,16 ותחלימני והחייני, “You have restored me to health and You have revived me.” Following the opening remark of the butler it is not surprising that he was saved from the dungeon and restored to his position. The Chief of the bakers made the mistake of saying אף, before commencing to relate his dream. The word אף, of course, refers to anger. As a result he was sentenced to death and was hanged. Bereshit Rabbah 88,5 writes that “four people began their comments with the word אף, and all of them perished. They were: the original serpent, the Chief of the bakers, the congregation of Korach, and Haman.” We have mentioned this already in connection with our commentary on Genesis 3,1 on the words אף כי אמר אלו-הים.

Radak on Genesis 40:9:1

בחלומי, “I saw in my dream.”

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:9

Joseph succeeding in ingratiating himself with these ministers, and they trusted him: The chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me.

Midrash

Israel is likened to a vine that thrives when uprooted, symbolizing their growth and endurance. The mention of the deceased patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, led to answered prayers for both Elijah and Moses. The dream of the chief butler, with a vine representing Israel, alludes to Israel's redemption. The four cups mentioned in the dream correspond to the four expressions of redemption in Egypt, the four kingdoms, and future salvation for Israel. Joseph's interpretation of the dream as good tidings reflects the hope for redemption, while his abduction twice emphasizes his unjust suffering.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:5

“The chief butler related his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding; its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). “The chief butler related…behold, a vine was before me” – this is Israel, as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils” – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “It was as though it was budding” – the redemption of Israel was budding. “Its blossoms emerged” – the redemption of Israel blossomed. “Its clusters produced ripe grapes” – the vine that budded immediately blossomed; grapes that emerged immediately ripened. “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:11). “Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days” (Genesis 40:12). “In three more days Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your position, and you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink” (Genesis 40:13). “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand” – on this basis the Sages instituted the four cups on Passover eve. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Benaya: Corresponding to the four expressions of redemption that were stated in Egypt: “I will take you out…I will deliver you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Corresponding to the four cups stated here: “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand… you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand…” (These are the first and fourth mentions of the word cup. Between them there are: “I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.”) Rabbi Levi said: Corresponding to the four kingdoms. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the four cups [kosot] of bewilderment that the Holy One blessed be He will give the idolaters to drink. That is what is written: “For so said the Lord, God of Israel, to me: Take this cup of the wine of anger” (Jeremiah 25:15); “a golden cup is Babylon in the hand of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 51:7); “he will rain…upon the wicked [ blazing coals and sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot [menat kosam]]” (Psalms 11:6). (The fourth is: “For a cup is in the hand of the Lord, with foaming wine…” (Psalms 75:10) (Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 10:1).) Corresponding to them, the Holy One blessed be He will give Israel four cups [kosot] of salvation in the future, as it is stated: “The Lord is my lot [menat kosi]” (Psalms 16:5); “I will lift a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (Psalms 116:13): “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup is full” (Psalms 23:5). “A cup of salvation [kos yeshua]” (Psalms 116:13) is not written here, but rather, “a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (The word yeshuot is plural, such that a more literal translation would be “a cup of salvations.” Consequently, this alludes to the third and fourth cups. ) – one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. “If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and take me out of this house” (Genesis 40:14). [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me good tidings; (The butler’s dream, as explained above, alluded to the redemption of Israel, and therefore constituted good tidings. ) I, too, will give you good tidings: “In three more days…if only you remember me…”’ “For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews and here, too, I have done nothing, that they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti]” – Rav Aḥa said: From here [it may be derived] that he was abducted twice. (He was sold by his brothers, and then the Midyanites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites (see Genesis 37:27–28). Alternatively, his being thrown into the pit by his brothers was considered a kidnapping, and he was subsequently stolen from the pit by the Ishmaelites (Maharzu, 84:6).) “And here, too, I have done [nothing]…”

Shemot Rabbah 44:1

“Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You took an oath by Yourself and spoke to them: I will multiply your descendants like the stars of the heavens, and this entire land that I said I will give to your descendants, they will inherit it forever” (Exodus 32:13). “Remember Abraham” – Rabbi Tanḥuma bar Abba began: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). Why is Israel likened to a vine? Just as a vine, when its owners want it to improve, what do they do? They uproot it from its place and plant it elsewhere, and it improves. So too, when the Holy One blessed be He sought to make Israel known to the world, He uprooted them from Egypt and brought them to the wilderness, and they began thriving there. They began receiving the Torah and saying: “Everything that the Lord spoke we will perform and we will heed” (Exodus 24:7). Their renown went forth in the world, as it is stated: “Your renown went forth among the nations for your beauty” (Ezekiel 16:14). Another matter: “A vine from Egypt” – You provide support for all the opinions stated in its regard: “Behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9), “You transported a vine from Egypt”; ultimately You provide support. (God fulfills the various interpretations of these verses, which are understood as comparing Israel to a vine (see Bereshit Rabba 88:5; Vayikra Rabba 36:2). ) Just as this vine is alive and rests on dead branches, (A grapevine is typically propped up or trellised across sticks or branches to allow it to flourish. ) so too, Israel is alive and endures, and rests on the deceased; these are the patriarchs. Likewise, you find that Elijah recited many prayers on Mount Carmel so the fire would descend, just as it says, “Answer me, Lord, answer me” (I Kings 18:37); but he was not answered. However, once he mentioned the deceased and said: “Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel” (I Kings 18:36), he was immediately answered. (Although Elijah’s mention of the patriarchs appears in verse 36 and his general plea to “answer me Lord, answer me” appears in verse 37, the verses must be out of order, as it would not make sense to pray in the merit of the patriarchs and then, if that did not work, to pray in a general sense or to pray that he be answered in his own merit (Yefe To’ar). ) What is written? “The fire of the Lord descended” (I Kings 18:38). Likewise, Moses: when Israel performed that act, (The sin of the golden calf. ) Moses stood and pleaded in their favor for forty days and forty nights, but he was not answered. However, once he mentioned the deceased he was immediately answered, as it is stated: “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.” What is written? “The Lord reconsidered the evil” (Exodus 32:14). That is, just as this vine is alive and rests on dead branches, so too, Israel is alive and endures, and rests on the patriarchs, who are deceased. That is, “remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.”

Quoting Commentary

The table should be arranged in a manner of freedom, with one not sitting down until after dark to eat matzah. The poor should drink four cups of wine while reclining, with red wine preferred as a reminder of the blood on the doorposts in Egypt. The four cups represent various concepts, such as redemption terms and kingdoms. A blessing is not recited for the four cups as it is one commandment performed on four occasions with interruptions. Failure to drink all four cups may result in lashes. Leaning while eating is required, with exceptions for women under a husband's authority, and students at their teacher's table. In modern times, leaning at the Seder is not necessary.

Kimcha Davshuna on Pesach Haggadah, Kadesh 2:1

Upon returning from synagogue one should arrange one's table in the manner of freedom as we shall explain. One should not sit down at the table until after dark so that one can be certain that it is the time when one is permitted to eat matzah, as it is written, "In the evening you shall eat matzot." Even the poor should not drink less than four cups of wine; they should eat and drink while reclining. Scripture alludes to this in the verse: "When Pharaoh let the people go…So God led (vayasev) the people round about…" When they were redeemed they ate in the "round-about" fashion. The optimal way to fulfill the mitzvah of drinking wine is to drink red wine as a reminder of the blood they placed on their lintel and doorposts in Egypt. If their hands are cleaned they may sit at the table and recite Kiddush. Most people have the custom of checking their hands beforehand and then washing them. But if their hands were already clean, there is no reason to wash them and recite al netilat yadaim, the blessing for washing. For this recitation of the blessing is not for eating but for drinking after Kiddush. We have a tradition that one who performs the ritual of "washing" before fruit is being presumptuous. There are many reasons given for the four cups of wine at the Seder. The four cups are said to allude to the four terms of redemption mentioned in Parshat Va-era (Exodus 6:6): "Say, therefore, to the children of Israel: I am the Lord. I will free you from the labors of the Egyptians and deliver you from their bondage. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and through extraordinary chastisements. I will take you to be my people and I will be your God." The four cups are alluded to in the words: hotzeiti (I will free you), hitzalti (I will deliver you), ga'alti (I will redeem you) and lakahti (I will take you)." There are those who say that the four cups refer to the butler's dream regarding to Pharaoh: "Pharaoh's cup was in my hand;" "I pressed them into Pharaoh's cup;" "placed the cup in Pharaoh's hand;" "you shall place Pharaoh's cup in his hand." (Genesis 40:9-13) Some say that the four cups stand for the four kingdoms, and others, four cups of vengeance which God will pour out on the nations, "Thus said the Lord, the God of Israel, to me: Take from My hand this cup of wine - of wrath - and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. Let them drink and retch and act crazy because of the sword that I am sending among them." (Jer. 25:15-16) "Babylon was a golden cup in the Lords hand. It made the whole earth drunk…" (Jer. 51:7) "There is a cup in the Lord's hand with foaming wine fully mixed from this He pours. All the nations of the earth drink, draining it to the very dregs." (Psalms 75:9) "He will rain down upon the wicked blazing coals and sulfur, a scorching wind shall be their lot (kosam)." (Psalm 11:6) They also allude to four cups of consolation: "The Lord is my allotted share and portion (kosi); You control my fate." (Psalm 16:5) "You shall anoint my head with oil; My cup overflows. (Psalm 23:5) "I will raise the cup of deliverances and invoke the name of the Lord." (Psalm 116:13) This last verse speaks of two cups: one for the coming of the Messiah and the other for the resurrection. There are those who wonder why we don’t recite a blessing for the mitzvah of the four cups just as we recite for maror. We only recite a blessing over a mitzvah that is performed at one time, and without interruption. Since the drinking of the four cups of wine are one commandment which is performed on four occasions with interruptions between them, we do not recite a blessing for this mitzvah. Natronai Gaon writes that the four cups of Seder night are a single mitzvah; if one does not drink all of them, one has not fulfilled his obligation and he deserves lashes, according to the sages. The statement, "Even the poor must not eat until he does so leaning," is a reference to a poor person who normally does not lean leisurely when he eats. Certainly the same applies to a wealthy person who usually leans on a fine couch. One must lean on the left side. Leaning on the right side is not considered 'leaning,' lest his throat become closed . A woman does not need to lean because she lives under the authority of her husband. But if she is a woman of high status, she should lean. Similarly, a widow or a divorcee who does not live under the authority of another should lean. A son who lives in his father's house, even if his father is also his teacher, should lean. A student at the table of his master teacher does not lean unless his teacher gives him permission. The reason that he may lean at his father's table, but not at his teacher's table, is that his father would forgo the honor nor would he be harsh with him while a teacher should not forgo the honor due to him. A servant at his master's table should lean. The Avi Ezri writes that in our time when it is not the custom to lean at the table, it is not necessary to lean during the Seder either.

Second Temple

The text from On Dreams, Book II 23:9 discusses a dream where a vine symbolizes both wickedness and the wicked, showing how indulging in it can lead to harm and mischief.

On Dreams, Book II 23:9

[163] “There was,” he said, “a vine before me” (Gen. 40:9), the wanted and the wanter, wickedness and the wicked, facing each other. That vine we fools till, little thinking that it is to our own harm, and we eat and drink its fruit, thus ranking it with both kinds of nutriment, a possession which proves to entail no half measure but a wholesale complete totality of mischief.

Targum

The chief butler tells Joseph about his dream, in which he sees a vine.

Onkelos Genesis 40:9

The butler told his dream to Yoseif. He said to him, In my dream, behold a grape vine was before me.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:9

And the chief of the butlers related his dream to Joseph, and said to him, I saw in my dream, and, behold, a vine was before me.

וּבַגֶּ֖פֶן שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה שָׂרִיגִ֑ם וְהִ֤וא כְפֹרַ֙חַת֙ עָלְתָ֣ה נִצָּ֔הּ הִבְשִׁ֥ילוּ אַשְׁכְּלֹתֶ֖יהָ עֲנָבִֽים׃ 10 E On the vine were three branches. It had barely budded, when out came its blossoms and its clusters ripened into grapes.
In Kedushat Levi, the three branches on the vine in Genesis 40:10 symbolize the Temple, King, and High Priest, while Likutei Moharan links affluence to those close to the government. Likutei Halakhot discusses gratitude and the categories of people who should recite the thanksgiving prayer. The dream in Genesis 40:10 and Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 88:5 connect the vine to Israel and prominent figures like Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Rabbeinu Bahya explains Passover meat preparation in Exodus 12:8, and the Talmud discusses the symbolism of the three branches in Pharaoh's butler's dream. The dream in Book II 30:4 of the Second Temple expressed a desire for the vine to remain fruitless. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan both describe the vine with three branches in Genesis 40:10.

Chasidut

In Kedushat Levi, it is explained that the three branches on the vine in Genesis 40:10 represent the Temple, the King, and the High Priest. The text also discusses the concept of wars as tests from God to strengthen faith, highlighting the importance of trusting in the Lord during difficult times. In Likutei Moharan, the speech of affluence is linked to the wealthy who are close to the government, with references to the three prominent officials in Chullin 92a. Finally, Likutei Halakhot discusses the significance of gratitude and the four categories of people who should recite the thanksgiving prayer, connecting it to Torah, prayer, matchmaking, and matrimony.

Kedushat Levi, Genesis, Vayeshev 18

Genesis 40,10. “and there were three branches on the ‎vine.” According to one (Rabbi Eleazar hamodai) of numerous ‎allegorical explanations in Chulin 92, the vine is symbolic of ‎Jerusalem; whereas the three branches are symbolic of the ‎Temple, the King, and the High Priest, respectively. The words: ‎והיא כפורחת עלתה נצה הבשילו אשכלתיה ענבים‎, usually ‎translated as: “it had barely blossomed when out of it came its ‎blossoms and its clusters ripened into grapes,” is understood ‎allegorically by the Talmud. The reference is to the young priests ‎who will mature and offer libations in the Temple. In order to ‎explain this somewhat far fetched allegory, although the one ‎preferred by the Talmud, our author quotes Yuma 29 where the ‎rhetorical question of why Queen Esther has been compared to an ‎אילה‎, a gazelle, hind, the Talmud defining the gazelle in psalms ‎‎22,1 as ‎אילת השחר‎, Queen Esther as being like a gazelle in the ‎morning, i.e. at the end of the night, sees in Esther and her ‎experiences the last chapter belonging to the period of history ‎described in the Bible. No overt miracles in Jewish history have ‎been reported in the Bible subsequent to her period. What did the Talmud have in mind when suggesting that ‎after Mordechai and Esther, [in whose time these ‎‎”miracles,” were already not overt, Ed.] no more miracles ‎occurred?‎ We must distinguish between two kinds of wars. Usually, ‎when we speak of “war,” we refer to an armed confrontation ‎between warring nations. The second type of “war,” is one that originated in G’d ‎subjecting the Jewish people to attacks by external enemies, in ‎order to strengthen their faith in Him when He would save them ‎from a fate which they were powerless to escape by any other ‎means. Psalms 91,2 refers to the psalmist acknowledging such ‎miraculous escapes of the Jewish people. It is remarkable that the ‎psalmist, in referring to his trust in the Lord, does so in the ‎future tense, i.e. ‎אלוקי אבטח בו‎, “my G’d in Whom I will put my ‎trust,” instead of, as we would have expected, “in Whom I have ‎put my trust.” The psalmist acknowledges that he now ‎understands the purpose of the “war” that had befallen his ‎people as having been a test, teaching the Jewish people to put ‎their trust only in the Lord. The same theme is found in psalms ‎‎118,10 ‎כל גויים סבבוני בשם ה' כי אמילם‎, “all nations have ‎surrounded me; by the name of the Lord I will surely cut them ‎down.” The psalmist does not predict what he is about to do, but ‎refers to what G’d had in mind by allowing His people to face such ‎impossible odds, i.e. to strengthen their faith when they will be ‎saved by Him. The psalmist makes it even plainer In verse 21 of ‎the same psalm, when the words ‎אודך כי עניתני ותהי לי לישועה‎, must ‎be understood as: “I will express my thanks to You for having ‎afflicted me so that You could demonstrate how You will be my ‎salvation.”‎ When G’d “rescues” the Jewish people, this occurs in either of ‎two ways. The most easily recognizable way are overt miracles in ‎which His mastery over nature is demonstrated by His breaking ‎all the “rules” that scientists have taught us are inviolate. The ‎best known examples of this are the 10 plagues G’d visited upon ‎the Egyptians, crowned by the splitting of the sea of reeds in ‎which the Egyptian army drowned to a man, while the Israelites ‎crossed the bottom of that sea safely. Although in the song of ‎thanks by the Jewish people after the drowning of the Egyptians ‎the text is full of G’d being lauded for His performing “wonders,” ‎‎(Exodus 15,11) what are “wonders” performed by G’d in our eyes, ‎are, of course, nothing extraordinary when viewed from His ‎vantage point, seeing that He had made the rules, He is certainly ‎able to suspend them when it suits Him. The Jewish people ‎praised Him not so much for what He had done, but for having ‎found the Jewish people worthy to be saved by such spectacular ‎means, involving the undoing of what G’d had done during the ‎six days of creation.‎

Likutei Halakhot, Orach Chaim, Laws of Thanksgiving Blessings 1:1:2

2. In accord with the lesson on Chanukah LM II #2: there he explains that via acknowledging thanks, the aspect of four [categories of people] need to recite the thanksgiving prayer, which is the aspect of the bliss of the Coming World, which then will be days of thanksgiving to H"Y, the aspect of halakhoth/Torah way, as explained there. Thereby the truth will shine, through three names, which are the aspect of Torah, Prayer, and Matchmaking and Matrimony into speech. Namely to complete the four facets of speech, the four divisions of speech, which are [1] penitent speech, [2] charitous speech, [3] the speech of the rich who are close to Malkhuth — the aspect of the "hasheloshah serigim/three branches" [Gen. 40:10] etc., and [4] the aspect of Malkhuth, the mouth etc.; see there. And thereby the sanctity of Shabbath is drawn to the six mundane days. And thereby all the various actions/events are drawn into the Simple Unity etc.; see there. Which, this is the aspect of "Halakhah kerabim/The law follows the majority;" take a good look there regarding all this.

Likutei Moharan, Part II 2:4:6

There is also the speech of affluence. This refers to the wealthy, who are close to malkhut (the government). They correspond to “the three SaRIGIM (tendrils)” (Genesis 40:10), which our Sages, of blessed memory, expounded as “three SaReI GeiIM (prominent officials)” (Chullin 92a) —i.e., the wealthy, who are close to the government (as Rashi explains there). They possess the faculty of speech, as in “his speech is gracious, he has the Melekh (King) for his companion” (Proverbs 22:11) —i.e., the speech of those who are close to malkhut. This is the significance of “also not since the day before yesterday,” which refers to the three sarigim —i.e., the speech of the wealthy who are close to malkhut.

Commentary

In Genesis 40:10, the dream of the chief of the butlers involved a vine with three tendrils, which budded, blossomed, and produced ripe grapes to symbolize the hastening of events. The word "nitzah" is used to describe the blossoms shooting forth, with a comparison to the development of fruit in Numbers 17:23. The term "hivshilu" for ripe grapes contrasts with sour grapes and is similar to "bashal" in Joel 4:13, indicating ripeness. The dream's imagery of the vine's rapid growth led Joseph to understand the three days represented in the dream as immediate rather than longer time frames, as seen in the Targum's translation of the Hebrew text.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:10:1

ITS BLOSSOMS SHOT FORTH. Nitzah (its blossoms) is the same as henetzu (be in flower) in And the pomegranates be in flower (hanetzu) (Cant. 7:13).

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:10:2

AND THE CLUSTERS THEREOF BROUGHT FORTH RIPE GRAPES. Hivshilu (brought forth ripe) is the oppposite of boser (sour grapes). (I.E. could not find a synonym for ripe. The only way he could define it was by contrasting it with its opposite.) Bashal (is ripe) in For the harvest is ripe (bashal) (Joel 4:13) is similar. The two words are similar even though hivshilu in our verse and bashal belong to different conjugational paradigms. (Hivshilu is in the hifil, bashal is in the kal. Both mean ripened.)

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:10:1-4

ובגפן שלשה שריגים, “and there were three tendrils on the grapevine.” The expression שריגים is equivalent to the word זמורות. We find it again in Joel 1,7 הלבינו שריגיה, “their tendrils turned white.” והיא כפורחת, “and it appeared as if it was blossoming.” The meaning is that as soon as it budded its blossoms opened up. This is equivalent to the expression סמדר, compare Song of Songs 7,13. He noticed that the clusters had immediately ripened into grapes. The thrust of the images in the dream was that G’d would hasten to bring about whatever the dream presaged. He pressed the juice of the grapes, extracted the wine and placed it in the cup of Pharaoh. Seeing that the butler had observed in his dream a whole sequence of natural developments condensed into a very small time frame, Joseph was astute enough to realise that the number three referred to three days within which the fate of the butler would change. This is why he did not suggest that it referred to three weeks or three months or even three years. The word שריגים is also one which occurs in Mishnaic Hebrew meaning שרגא,”light.” Similarly, the words שלשה סלי חורי, “three wicker baskets” mentioned as a feature in the baker’s dream also refer to a time frame of three days even though according to the plain meaning of the text the word חורי is similar to חררה, a large griddle cake, something which might have prompted Joseph to think in terms of a longer time frame such as three months or three years. The word חורי, also means “whitish,” i.e. that the baker saw in his dream three large white breads in the baskets. We have a verse in Exodus 33,23 וראית את אחורי, normally translated as G’d saying to Moses: “you will see My rear,’” which (according to the Zohar?) may mean that G’d would appear to Moses in a very bright light, almost white. The word חורי then is related to אור. We find it in this sense in Nechemyah 5,7 את החורים ואת הסגנים. Nechemyah appears to compare prominent, important people, to light. The insignificant people who have nothing distinguished about them are compared to darkness. Moreover, the numerical value of the words שלשת הסלים is equivalent to שלשת ימים הם, “they represent three days.” (1175 each). Another reason that may account for Joseph interpreting both the three tendrils and the three baskets of white bread as signifying three days rather than three months or three years, is that he considered that the three grapevines and tendrils were equal to one another as were the three baskets. Three months or three years are never of identical length each. Only three days may be described as three units of time which are practically identical one to another. Hence Joseph concluded that the time frame to which the dream referred had to be days. A Midrashic approach based on Chulin 92. The word גפן, grapevine is a reference to the people of Israel, Psalms 80,9 mentions גפן ממצרים תסיע, “You (G’d) have picked up a vine from Egypt,” an obvious reference to the Jewish people. The שלשת שריגים are a reference to the three festivals a year during which the Jewish people make their pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. The words והיא כפורחת, refer to the time when it is the turn to the Jewish people to blossom and spread out in all directions as do the buds which break out in blossoms. We find references to such development by the Jewish people in Exodus 1,6: “and the children of Israel were fruitful and there were swarms of them.” This means that the nation budded, broke out in blossoms. Isaiah, speaking about the time of redemption, says (Isaiah 63,3) “their life-blood (נצחם=wine) bespattered My garments.” This is a prologue to G’d redeeming Israel. The words הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים, “its clusters of grapes were ripe,” mean that the time is ripe for Israel’s redemption, i.e. for Egypt to drink the cup of retribution. The word כוס, cup, occurs four times in this brief passage and refers to the four exiles Israel would experience. The fact that our enemies will have to drink four cups of retribution is alluded to in four separate verses in the Books of the Prophets and in the Hagiography. Compare: Jeremiah 25,15; Jeremiah 51,7; Psalms 75,9; Psalms 11,6. The Talmud in Chulin 92 also explains the verse ובגפן שלשה שריגים, saying that גפן refers to the Torah, שלשה שריגים to the three miracles the Israelites experienced in the desert — the traveling well of water, the manna, and the protective shield (cloud) of G’d which enveloped the whole camp of the Israelites. The words והיא כפורחת עלתה נצה are understood by the Talmud there as a reference to the first ripe fruit offered to G’d by the Israelites, whereas the words הבשילו אשכלותיה are understood as an allusion to the drink-offerings (of wine) presented on the altar with most sacrifices.

Radak on Genesis 40:10:1

שלשה שריגים, branches of the grape vine are known as שריגים.

Radak on Genesis 40:10:2

והיא כפורחת, at the time when the vine was in bloom it produced leaves at the same time.

Radak on Genesis 40:10:3

עלתה נצה, the unripe grapes suddenly ripened until they were fully matured fruit. The fruit of the grape vine is not called ענבים until it has fully matured. We have already discussed the meaning of the preposition כ in the word כפרחת in 38,29.

Ramban on Genesis 40:10:1

AND IT WAS AS THOUGH IT BUDDED AND ITS BLOSSOM WENT UP. “It seemed as though it budded. And it was as though it budded, i.e., it seemed to me in my dream as though it budded, and after the bud its blossom shot up, and after that it brought forth the clusters and then the ripe grapes. Onkelos translates: ‘And, when it buddeth, it brought forth sprouts.’ These words are the translation of the word porachath alone.” (The Hebrew states: V’hi keporachath althah nitzah. Rashi’s intent, in quoting the Targum, is to say that Onkelos’ words, apeikath lavlevin (brought forth sprouts), is an expression which Onkelos appended to his translation of the Hebrew word porachath. Ramban will later differ with this opinion, holding that it constitutes Onkelos’ rendition of the Hebrew word althah, and signifies: “And it, when it budded, immediately brought forth sprouts.” See below, Note 271.) Thus far the words of Rashi. This is not correct. If he is speaking in terms of appearances because they are matters of a dream, he should say, “Behold, like a vine was before me, and on the vine like three shoots.” (Instead, Scripture states: “Behold, a vine was before me. And on the vine were three shoots.”(Verses 9-10.)) This kaph of comparison is found neither in the dream of the chief of the bakers nor in the dream of Pharaoh. Why then should the chief of butlers use the comparative form more than the others? Instead, in all three dreams it says v’hinei (and behold). (Verse 9, in the dream of the butler; Verse 16, in the dream of the baker, and in Chapter 41, Verse 3, the word v’hinei is used in connection with Pharaoh’s dream.) It is this word which indicates comparison, for its meaning is “as if.” But the explanation of the verse before us, And it was ‘keporachath’ its blossoms shot up, is that he saw that immediately as it budded, its blossoms shot up and its clusters ripened into grapes. This was to indicate that G-d was hastening to do it. This is how Joseph recognized that the “three shoots” indicated three days, and not months or years, and he himself deduced that on the same day the two will be summoned before the king. It may be [that this was also indicated by the dreams] because both of them dreamed in one night. Thus there is no need for the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, who says that Joseph knew of Pharaoh’s birthday. This usage of a kaph to indicate immediacy is found in many places: And it came to pass, ‘k’meishiv’ (as he drew back) his hand; (Above, 38:29.) ‘k’vo Avram’ (as Abram came); (Ibid., 12:14.) ‘uk’eith’ (and at the time) of her death the women that stood by her said, (I Samuel 4:20.) and many others. Onkelos’ rendition into Aramaic stating, “And when it budded, it brought forth sprouts,” [means to say that the expression “brought forth sprouts”] is a translation of the Hebrew word althah, meaning that it immediately brought forth sprouts of the vine. That is, as soon as it budded, it brought forth large sprouts, its blossoms shot up, and its clusters ripened into grapes. (Rashi is of the opinion that Onkelos’ expression, va’aneitzath neitz, (not mentioned by Ramban, but appearing in the Targum, following apeikath lavlevin, mentioned above in Note 265), is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew althah nitzah. Ramban however says that it is the translation only of the word nitzah, for althah (shoot up) could not refer to nitzah (sprouts). This is why, according to Ramban, Onkelos translated the word althah as apeikath lavlevin (it brought forth sprouts). In brief, according to Rashi’s understanding of the Targum, the Hebrew v’hi keporachath is rendered by the Targum as kad aphrachath apeikath lavlevin. The Hebrew althah nitzah is rendered va’aneitzath neitz. In the opinion of Ramban, v’hi keporachath is rendered by the Targum as kad aphrachath; the Hebrew althah is rendered apeikath lavlevin, and the Hebrew nitzah has its equivalent in Onkelos’ va’aneitzath nitzah.) Onkelos would not apply the word althah (shoot up) to nitzah (sprouts), as they do not “shoot up.”

Rashbam on Genesis 40:10:1

כפורחת עלתה נצה, this was the customary sequence of a fruit’s development. Compare Numbers 17,23ויוצא פרח ויצץ ציץ ויגמול שקדים, “it brought forth a blossom, sprouted a bud, and almonds ripened.”

Rashi on Genesis 40:10:1

שריגם BRANCHES — long branches called in old French. vitis.

Rashi on Genesis 40:10:2

והיא כפרחת means AND IT WAS AS THOUGH IT BUDDED — it seemed to me in my dream as though it budded, and after the bud its blossom sprang up — i.e. it began to flower; old French spanier — and after that the clusters brought forth ripe grapes. The Targum has והיא כד אפרחת אפיקת לבלבין “and it, when it budded, brought forth blossoms”, These words (ע״כ, abbreviation for עד כאן “till here”. The abbreviation is employed to show where a quotation ends.) are the translation of the word פרחת"” only. A נץ is larger than a פרח (i.e. נץ is a later stage of the bud), as it is written (Isaiah 18:5) “and the blossom (נצה) becometh a ripening grape”, and it is written (Numbers 17:23) “And it brought forth buds (פרח)” and afterwards it states “it brought forth (ציץ) blossoms”.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:10:1

It seemed as if it budded... Rashi is explaining that the כ of כפורחת denotes “similar to.” It does not denote “when” (כאשר), for such a כ occurs only with a gerund (a type of noun), but not with a verb. But ויהי כמשיב ידו (38:29) [raises a question. Is it not a verb, and yet it has such a כ? The answer is: It] means, “it appeared as if he put back his hand.” He did it unintentionally. However since he put out his hand, the midwife tied on the scarlet thread, and then he immediately pulled it back, it seemed as if he had done so intentionally. Therefore Scripture describes it as such. Onkelos, who translates כפורחת as כד אפרחת, “when it budded,” is rendering a non-literal meaning. The proof is that he renders the present-tense verb פורחת as אפרחת, which is in the past tense. (Re’m)

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:10:2

In my dream it seemed as if it budded. In other words, in my dream I saw it actually budding like a budding vine. [It looked like the real thing,] not like something that had been altered and is “similar to.”

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:10:3

And after it budded, the blossoms bloomed... I.e., he did not see it all happen simultaneously, as the verse seems to imply. [Rashi knows this] because Heaven does not show a person an elephant standing in a needle’s eye. [I.e., prophetic dreams are not absurd.]

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:10

On the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding. Then its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:10:1

והיא כפורחת, “and it seemed to be blossoming, etc.” according to Rashi this means that it seemed to the cupbearer in his dreams if the vines were blossoming. Nachmanides queries that if we were to base this interpretation on the presence of the כף הדמיון, the prefix letter כ, which is a frequent phenomenon, and it is used here because everything that one sees in a dream is not real but only imaginary, then the proper place for this letter would have been at the beginning of the image, and the Torah, instead of writing והנה גפן, “behold there was a vine,” should have written והנה כגפן “and behold there was something like a vine, etc.” In his opinion, the reason the Torah writes the letter כ only when it does, is to portray the development of this vine into fruit and ultimately wine which is offered by the dreamer to Pharaoh’s lips, as something occurring with unreal speed. It is this element that prompted Joseph to foresee fulfillment of the message contained in the dream not as occurring three months or longer after the vine begins to blossom, but as occurring within three days.

Midrash

In the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 88:5, the interpretation of the chief butler's dream by Joseph is discussed, with the vine symbolizing Israel and the three tendrils representing Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. The four cups mentioned in the dream are connected to the four expressions of redemption in Egypt and the four kingdoms. The text also mentions four cups of salvation that will be given to Israel in the future, one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. Additionally, it is noted that Joseph was abducted twice, first by his brothers and then by the Midianites.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:5

“The chief butler related his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding; its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). “The chief butler related…behold, a vine was before me” – this is Israel, as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils” – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “It was as though it was budding” – the redemption of Israel was budding. “Its blossoms emerged” – the redemption of Israel blossomed. “Its clusters produced ripe grapes” – the vine that budded immediately blossomed; grapes that emerged immediately ripened. “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:11). “Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days” (Genesis 40:12). “In three more days Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your position, and you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink” (Genesis 40:13). “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand” – on this basis the Sages instituted the four cups on Passover eve. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Benaya: Corresponding to the four expressions of redemption that were stated in Egypt: “I will take you out…I will deliver you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Corresponding to the four cups stated here: “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand… you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand…” (These are the first and fourth mentions of the word cup. Between them there are: “I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.”) Rabbi Levi said: Corresponding to the four kingdoms. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the four cups [kosot] of bewilderment that the Holy One blessed be He will give the idolaters to drink. That is what is written: “For so said the Lord, God of Israel, to me: Take this cup of the wine of anger” (Jeremiah 25:15); “a golden cup is Babylon in the hand of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 51:7); “he will rain…upon the wicked [ blazing coals and sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot [menat kosam]]” (Psalms 11:6). (The fourth is: “For a cup is in the hand of the Lord, with foaming wine…” (Psalms 75:10) (Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 10:1).) Corresponding to them, the Holy One blessed be He will give Israel four cups [kosot] of salvation in the future, as it is stated: “The Lord is my lot [menat kosi]” (Psalms 16:5); “I will lift a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (Psalms 116:13): “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup is full” (Psalms 23:5). “A cup of salvation [kos yeshua]” (Psalms 116:13) is not written here, but rather, “a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (The word yeshuot is plural, such that a more literal translation would be “a cup of salvations.” Consequently, this alludes to the third and fourth cups. ) – one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. “If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and take me out of this house” (Genesis 40:14). [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me good tidings; (The butler’s dream, as explained above, alluded to the redemption of Israel, and therefore constituted good tidings. ) I, too, will give you good tidings: “In three more days…if only you remember me…”’ “For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews and here, too, I have done nothing, that they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti]” – Rav Aḥa said: From here [it may be derived] that he was abducted twice. (He was sold by his brothers, and then the Midyanites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites (see Genesis 37:27–28). Alternatively, his being thrown into the pit by his brothers was considered a kidnapping, and he was subsequently stolen from the pit by the Ishmaelites (Maharzu, 84:6).) “And here, too, I have done [nothing]…”

Quoting Commentary

Rabbeinu Bahya explains that in Exodus 12:8, the meat for the Passover must be roasted over an open fire or on a rotating spit, excluding boiling. Siftei Chakhamim discusses the meaning of "buds" and "blossom" in Numbers 17:23, with Rashi explaining the plain interpretation. In Deuteronomy 16:7, Rabbeinu Bahya and Chizkuni both interpret "boil it" as meaning to prepare the meat for eating.

Chizkuni, Deuteronomy 16:7:1

ובשלת, the true meaning of the word בשל is: “to make something ready and fit to eat.” The author cites Genesis 40,10, הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים, “its grape clusters had become ripe,” or Exodus 23,19: גם, לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו "do not boil the kid in the milk of its mother,” as support.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Devarim 16:7:1

ובשלת ואכלת, “you are to boil it and eat it.” The word ובשלת in this connection means “to barbecue it on a spit over an open fire” as we know already from Exodus 12,8. The word בשל occurs in the sense of “ripening, becoming ready for its destiny,” already in Genesis 40,7 when the butler described his dream with the grapes. Similarly, the meaning of Chronicles II 35,13 ויבשלו את הפסח, does not mean that the people boiled the Passover in water, but that they made it ready for eating.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 12:8:1

צלי אש ומצות, “roasted on the fire together with unleavened bread.” The expression צלי אש used by the Torah here can mean either that the meat is roasted over coals inside a stove or that it is barbecued with a rotating spit over an open fire. The Torah excluded a kind of “roasting” which involved water. Boiling the meat in the ordinary fashion was most certainly out of the question. This is why the verse specifically tells us that even the kind of roasting involving water was not permissible (verse 9). The repetition of the words כי אם צלי אש meant that it was not to be roasted in a pot. This was exceptional as other meat-offerings were allowed to be prepared for eating in such pots (Zevachim 91). When the sages (Chulin 132) said that the sections of an animal sacrifice given to the priest may be consumed after they have been roasted (apparently excluding boiling), this is based on the word למשחה, “for a distinction,” in Numbers 18,8 and means that seeing kings prefer this method of preparing meat, the priests are allowed to prepare it in that way. However, if they prefer to boil the meat they are at liberty to do so. This appears to raise the problem of Deut. 16, 6-7 where the Torah writes: “there you will slaughter the Passover in the evening when the sun sets on the date (anniversary) you left Egypt. You will boil it and eat it in a place that the Lord your G’d will choose, etc.” There appears to be a contradiction here. Our sages dispose of this by saying that in Deut. the Torah does not refer to “boiling” involving water but “boiling it on actual fire” similar to what we find in connection with the famous Passover celebration during the reign of King Yoshiyahu. Chronicles II 35,13 reports: ויבשלו הפסח באש כמשפט, “they roasted the Passover on fire according to law.” This is clear evidence that the expression בשל, normally translated as “boiling,” need not refer to preparation of food in a pot with water, but is simply a description of making food fit to be eaten. Sometimes this means using different kinds of pots such as are mentioned in that same verse in Chronicles we have quoted; other times it means preparation involving only fire. The author quotes the Spanish word sazonas to describe the meaning of Genesis 40,10 in which the Torah speaks of grapes which had ripened. “Ripening” is a form of “boiling” or “cooking,” i.e. becoming fit to eat. When the Torah emphasises here צלי אש, it excludes the use of a container for preparing this meat.

Siftei Chakhamim, Numbers 17:23:1

When the blossoms drop. We find ציץ ("buds") mentioned before פרח ("blossom") as the verse states יציץ ופרח - "buds and blossom" (Yeshayahu 27:6) therefore Rashi explains “blossomed” as the plain interpretation. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain ציץ ("bud") like its plain interpretation and explain that פרח is something that comes before the bud, for example the sap of the tree? The answer is that after mentioning ציץ ("buds"), the verse says “and bore ripe almonds,” and the budding of the fruit immediately precedes the ripening of the almonds. I have found a further explanation: Wherever there are two terms, such as here where the Torah states פרח ("blossom") and then states ויצץ ציץ ("and bloomed buds"), and the meaning of "blossom" is evident but the meaning of "buds" is not, then Rashi will explain “blossom” as its plain interpretation without the need for further explanation. However, since the meaning of ציץ ("buds") is not evident, he needs to explain “this refers to the budding of the fruit.” Similarly “their minchah-offerings, their sin-offerings and their guilt-offerings” (Bamidbar 18:9) where Rashi explains “like the plain interpretation” because it is evident what they are. However, he then has to explain that “which they return to me” refers to the proselyte’s stolen property because I would not know its meaning. This is unlike “their minchah-offerings, their sin-offerings and their guilt-offerings” the meaning of which is according to the plain interpretation, whether referring to the offerings of the congregation or to the offerings of an individual. Rashi in Parshas Vayeshev (Bereishis 40:10) writes that a פרח is the same as a נץ ("forming-fruit"), only that נץ is larger than the פרח. Accordingly, פרח would refer to a small forming-fruit while יוצא פרח ("a פרח came forth") here refers to a larger forming-fruit, given that both terms can be referred to as פרח. However, it is only when the blossom has not yet fallen that the נץ is also called a פרח. It refers to one which it is larger [than a normal פרח] which is termed a נץ קטן ("small forming-fruit"). But once the blossom falls, as here, the part remaining is called a ציץ ("[fruit]-bud").

Second Temple

The dream in Book II 30:4 of the Second Temple showed roots, a vine blossoming, sprouting, and bearing fruit. The dream expressed a wish for the vine to remain fruitless and withered for all time.

On Dreams, Book II 30:4

[199] After the roots the dream shewed him the vine blossoming and sprouting and bearing fruit. “It was blossoming itself, having put forth shoots. The grapes of the cluster were ripe” (Gen. 40:10). Would that fruitlessness might be its lot, that it might never put forth green shoots and remain withered for all time,

Talmud

Rav explains that the three branches in Pharaoh's butler's dream represent three proud princes from the Jewish people in each generation, sometimes in Babylonia and sometimes in Eretz Yisrael. Rabban Gamliel adds that the vine, three branches, budding, blossoms, and grapes in the dream symbolize Jerusalem, the Temple, the king, the High Priest, young priests, and wine libations.

Chullin 92a:5

Similarly, with regard to the dream of Pharaoh’s butler, the verse states: “And in the vine were three branches [sarigim]; and as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth, and its clusters brought forth ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rav says: These three branches refer to the three proud princes [sarei ge’im] who emerge from the Jewish people in each and every generation. There are times when two are here in Babylonia and one is in Eretz Yisrael, and there are times when two are in Eretz Yisrael and one is here in Babylonia. When this was stated in the study hall, the Sages present turned their eyes toward Rabbana Ukva and Rabbana Neḥemya, the sons of the daughter of Rav, who were from the family of the Exilarch and were two leaders of the generation who resided in Babylonia.

Chullin 92a:9

Rabban Gamliel said: In order to understand this verse (Genesis 40:10) we still need the explanation of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i, who is an expert in matters of aggada, as he interprets all of the phrases in the verse as referring to one location. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: “Vine”; this is a reference to Jerusalem. “Three branches”; this is a reference to the Temple, the king and the High Priest. “And as it was budding [poraḥat], its blossoms shot forth”; these are the young priests [pirḥei khehunna]. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the wine libations.

Targum

Both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:10 describe a vine with three branches that produce buds, blossoms, and ripening grapes.

Onkelos Genesis 40:10

On the vine there were three branches, as [when] if budding, [it brought out blossoms and] its [the] blossoms blooming, and its clusters ripening into grapes.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:10

And in the vine were three branches; and as it sprouted it brought forth buds, and immediately they ripened into clusters, and became grapes.

וְכ֥וֹס פַּרְעֹ֖ה בְּיָדִ֑י וָאֶקַּ֣ח אֶת־הָֽעֲנָבִ֗ים וָֽאֶשְׂחַ֤ט אֹתָם֙ אֶל־כּ֣וֹס פַּרְעֹ֔ה וָאֶתֵּ֥ן אֶת־הַכּ֖וֹס עַל־כַּ֥ף פַּרְעֹֽה׃ 11 E Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand, and I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand.”
In Genesis 40:11, Ibn Ezra suggests "va-eschat" means "to cut," Rashbam says "I squeezed," Radak explains "shachat" as closing off, Radak clarifies "el kose" means "into the cup," Rav Hirsch translates "al kaf Paroh" as Pharaoh reaching for the cup, Rashi notes "va-eschat" only appears in this verse, and Steinsaltz summarizes Joseph pressing grapes into Pharaoh's cup. The dream in the Second Temple involves a vine with three stalks bearing grapes squeezed into Pharaoh's cup, symbolizing senselessness and passion. The Midrash connects the vine in the butler's dream to Israel, with three tendrils representing Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, and Joseph interpreting the dream correctly. Rava explains the three cups in the dream signify future misfortunes for Egypt, while the Talmud links the Four Cups of Passover to promises of deliverance in Exodus and the four kingdoms. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan describe Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's dream by squeezing grapes into the cup.

Commentary

Ibn Ezra suggests that "va-eschat" should be interpreted as "to cut" rather than "to press" as Saadiah Gaon says, with the meaning of cutting the grape so that its juice ran. Rashbam simply states that "va-eschat" means "I squeezed." Radak explains that "shachat" signals closing something off, as seen in the prohibition of squeezing fruit juice on the Sabbath. Radak also clarifies that "el kose" means "into the cup," not "to the cup." Rav Hirsch translates "al kaf Paroh" as Pharaoh reached out his hand to receive the cup. Rashi mentions that "va-eschat" is only found in the Bible in this verse. Steinsaltz summarizes the verse as Joseph taking the grapes, pressing them into Pharaoh's cup, and giving the cup to Pharaoh.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:11:1

AND PRESSED THEM. Va-eschat (pressed) is similar to shochate (slay) in That slay (shochate) the children in the valleys (Is. 57:5). Saadiah Gaon’s interpretation of va-eschat is wrong. (This is a very difficult comment to unravel. The most acceptable interpretation is offered by Filwarg. According to Filwarg, I.E. maintains that va-eschat does not mean to press or squeeze as Saadiah Gaon says (this interpretation is accepted by J.P.S. and all others) since the word is not found elsewhere in the Bible. The word sachat, meaning to squeeze, is found in Rabbinic literature, but there it is spelled with a samakh and not with a sin. I.E. notes that the word shachat spelled with a shin or sachat spelled with a sin as in our verse means the same, to cut, hence to slay by cutting the throat. Thus our verse should be rendered: And I cut the grape so that its juice ran. It is also possible that in I.E.’s copy of Isaiah shochate was spelled with a sin, i.e., he read sochate, and what I.E. is doing is noting that va-eschat is like sochate. For additional interpretations see Cherez and Weiser.)

Radak on Genesis 40:11:1

וכוס...ואשחט, the word שחט signals closing something off. It occurs also in this sense in Shabbat 143 אין שוחטים את הפירות, that it is forbidden to squeeze the juice out of fruit on the Sabbath.

Radak on Genesis 40:11:2

אל כוס, not “to the cup,” but “into the cup,” as for instance in Exodus 25,21 where the words ואל הארון תתן do not mean “you are to give it to the Ark,” but “you are to place it inside the Ark.”

Rashbam on Genesis 40:11:1

ואשחוט, I squeezed.

Rashi on Genesis 40:11:1

ואשחט translate it as the Targum AND I PRESSED — The word occurs frequently in the Mishna (but only here in the Bible).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:11:1

על כף פרעה, Pharao reichte also die Hand hin, um den Becher zu empfangen.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:11

Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand.

Jewish Thought

The new generation forgot to recognize God and sought to establish itself as master on earth, leading to the dispersion of mankind to prevent corruption from spreading. God desires to educate humanity through experience, ensuring that each race goes through stages of sinful illusions before yielding to a stronger and purer race for the Divine purpose (Nineteen Letters 6:1).

Nineteen Letters 6:1

The new generation, which should have learned to recognize God in holy awe as Judge, Master, and Savior, forgot soon this lesson. In its pride it desires to establish itself as master upon the earth, just presented to it as a Divine gift. Because of the power with which it rules over nature, it believes that it can dispense with God in establishing and maintaining its new life. Thus begins history. God no longer wills the destruction of humanity, but its education. By experience He desires to train mankind to the knowledge of themselves and of Him. Humanity must not sink again to the deep degradation of the perished generation. Men must be dispersed, lest the human species slowly spreading over the earth form but a single family, and the corruption of one part be quickly communicated to the whole. They must be dispersed in order that mankind may rejuvenate itself from its own midst, and when one race has gone through all the stages of the sinful illusions which weaken and corrupt mankind, and is enervated, exhausted, and unfit for the Divine purpose, it shall yield its place to a stronger and hardier race, which shall begin a fresher, purer life.

Midrash

The vine in the chief butler's dream represents Israel, with the three tendrils symbolizing Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. The four cups mentioned in the dream correspond to the four expressions of redemption in Egypt, the four kingdoms, and the four cups of salvation that will be given to Israel in the future. Joseph interprets the dream as a promise of the butler's imminent release, which comes true three days later. Additionally, the text suggests that Joseph was abducted twice, first by his brothers and then by the Midianites.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:5

“The chief butler related his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding; its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). “The chief butler related…behold, a vine was before me” – this is Israel, as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils” – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “It was as though it was budding” – the redemption of Israel was budding. “Its blossoms emerged” – the redemption of Israel blossomed. “Its clusters produced ripe grapes” – the vine that budded immediately blossomed; grapes that emerged immediately ripened. “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:11). “Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days” (Genesis 40:12). “In three more days Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your position, and you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink” (Genesis 40:13). “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand” – on this basis the Sages instituted the four cups on Passover eve. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Benaya: Corresponding to the four expressions of redemption that were stated in Egypt: “I will take you out…I will deliver you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Corresponding to the four cups stated here: “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand… you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand…” (These are the first and fourth mentions of the word cup. Between them there are: “I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.”) Rabbi Levi said: Corresponding to the four kingdoms. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the four cups [kosot] of bewilderment that the Holy One blessed be He will give the idolaters to drink. That is what is written: “For so said the Lord, God of Israel, to me: Take this cup of the wine of anger” (Jeremiah 25:15); “a golden cup is Babylon in the hand of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 51:7); “he will rain…upon the wicked [ blazing coals and sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot [menat kosam]]” (Psalms 11:6). (The fourth is: “For a cup is in the hand of the Lord, with foaming wine…” (Psalms 75:10) (Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 10:1).) Corresponding to them, the Holy One blessed be He will give Israel four cups [kosot] of salvation in the future, as it is stated: “The Lord is my lot [menat kosi]” (Psalms 16:5); “I will lift a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (Psalms 116:13): “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup is full” (Psalms 23:5). “A cup of salvation [kos yeshua]” (Psalms 116:13) is not written here, but rather, “a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (The word yeshuot is plural, such that a more literal translation would be “a cup of salvations.” Consequently, this alludes to the third and fourth cups. ) – one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. “If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and take me out of this house” (Genesis 40:14). [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me good tidings; (The butler’s dream, as explained above, alluded to the redemption of Israel, and therefore constituted good tidings. ) I, too, will give you good tidings: “In three more days…if only you remember me…”’ “For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews and here, too, I have done nothing, that they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti]” – Rav Aḥa said: From here [it may be derived] that he was abducted twice. (He was sold by his brothers, and then the Midyanites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites (see Genesis 37:27–28). Alternatively, his being thrown into the pit by his brothers was considered a kidnapping, and he was subsequently stolen from the pit by the Ishmaelites (Maharzu, 84:6).) “And here, too, I have done [nothing]…”

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra interprets Isaiah 57:5 as referring to the slaying of children in honor of idols, comparing it to a harlot killing her own children.

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 57:5:2

שחטי הילדים Slaying the children in honour of the idols; comp. ואשחט and I pressed (I. E. read שֹחֲטֵי instead of שֹׁחֲטֵי.) (Gen. 40:11). They act like a harlot that kills her children.

Second Temple

The dream described in the text from the Second Temple involves a vine with three stalks, blossoming and bearing ripe grapes, with Pharaoh's cup being squeezed into by the dreamer and then given to Pharaoh. The cup of Pharaoh symbolizes senselessness, wine-frenzy, and ceaseless intoxication, representing the dreamer's projects and faculties which are essential for passion to progress.

On Dreams, Book II 23:5

[159] It would be well to examine the former dream first. It runs as follows: “In my sleep there was a vine over against me, and on the vine were three stalks,  and itself was blossoming having put forth shoots. The grapes in the cluster were ripe, and Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand, and I took the cluster and squeezed it into the cup and I gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand” (Gen. 40:9–11).

On Dreams, Book II 30:6

Again, the cup of Pharaoh, the receptacle of senselessness and wine-frenzy and ceaseless life-long intoxication, is, he says, “in my hand” (Gen. 40:11), that is, in the enterprises which I take in hand, in my projects and faculties, for without the activities of my mind passion by itself will make little headway.

Talmud

Rava explains that the three cups mentioned in the dream of Egypt's chief butler correspond to three future misfortunes Egypt will face, including during the time of the Messiah. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Benaiah connect the Four Cups of Passover to the four promises of deliverance in Exodus, while Rebbi Levi relates them to the four kingdoms. The Talmud also mentions the four cups of doom that God will make the Gentiles drink at the end of days, contrasting them with the four cups of consolation that Israel will receive.

Chullin 92a:13

And this is as Rava said: Why are there three cups stated with regard to Egypt in the dream of Pharaoh’s butler (see Genesis 40:11)? They are an allusion to three cups of misfortune that would later befall Egypt: One that Egypt drank in the days of Moses during the ten plagues and the Exodus; one that Egypt drank in the days of Pharaoh Nekho, the king of Egypt defeated by Nebuchadnezzar; and one that Egypt will drink in the future with all the other nations, when they are punished in the time of the Messiah.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 10:1:7

(For an explanation of this paragraph, see the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 186–187.) From where the Four Cups? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: Corresponding to the four deliveries (Ex. 6:7–8.) : Therefore, say to the Children of Israel, I am the Eternal, and I shall take you out, etc. And I shall take you as My people, etc. I shall take you, I shall save you, I shall free you, I shall take you. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, corresponding to the four cups of Pharao: The cup of Pharao was in my hand; I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharao ’s cup, and gave the cup in Pharao ’s hand. You will give the cup in the hand of Pharao (Gen. 40:11,13. The relation to Passover is explained in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.) . Rebbi Levi said, corresponding to the four kingdoms. But our teachers say, corresponding to the four cups of doom that the Holy One, praise to Him, will make the Gentiles drink at the end of days. Truly, so said the Eternal, the God of Israel, to me: take this cup of the wine of wrath (Jer. 23:15.) . The golden cup of Babylon is in the hand of the Eternal (Jer. 51:7.) . Truly a cup is in the hand of the Eternal, intoxicating wine, fully to be mixed; He shall sprinkle from it but its dregs shall be drunk, squeezed to the last, by all the wicked of the earth (Ps. 75:9.) . He shall let coals rain on the wicked; fire, sulphur, and burning wind is the portion of their cup (Ps. 11:6.) . What does the portion of their cup mean? R. Abun said: a double cup (Greek διπλόν ποτήριον, τό.) like the double cup taken after a thermal bath. And in accordance with this correspondingly the Holy One, praised be He, will let Israel drink four cups of consolation at the End of Days: The Eternal is the portion of my part and my cup (Ps. 16:5.) . You anointed my head with oil; my cup is overflowing (Ps.23:5.) . I shall lift up the cup of salvations (Ps.116:13.) counts for two.

Sotah 9a:8

Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: Why are there specifically three cups of misfortune that are stated with regard to Egypt in the dream of its chief butler (see Genesis 40:11–13)? They are an allusion to three cups of misfortune that would later befall Egypt: One that it drank in the days of Moses during the ten plagues and the Exodus; one that it drank in the days of Pharaoh Neco, the king of Egypt who was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar; and one that it will drink in the future with its companions, i.e., the other nations, when they are punished during the days of the Messiah. This indicates that nations can be punished several times, not only when they are eradicated.

Targum

In Genesis 40:11, both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan describe Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's dream about the cupbearer, emphasizing the action of squeezing grapes into Pharaoh's cup.

Onkelos Genesis 40:11

Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand. I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup. I then placed the cup into Pharaoh’s hand.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:11

And I gave the cup of Pharoh into my hand, and I took the grapes, and expressed them into Pharoh's cup, and gave the cup into Pharoh's hand.

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ יוֹסֵ֔ף זֶ֖ה פִּתְרֹנ֑וֹ שְׁלֹ֙שֶׁת֙ הַשָּׂ֣רִגִ֔ים שְׁלֹ֥שֶׁת יָמִ֖ים הֵֽם׃ 12 E Joseph said to him, “This is its interpretation: The three branches are three days.
The dream of the chief butler in Genesis 40:12 is interpreted by Joseph as referring to events that would occur in three days, symbolically representing the restoration of the butler to his position. The separation of the tribe of Levi from the other tribes was necessary to prevent all of Israel from dying in the desert, as explained in the Midrash. Rabbi Shimon questions the wording in the verse, using "ve-arka" instead of "ve-ar'a," linking it to the descendants of Cain who were expelled and became confused. Joseph's interpretation of the dream in Targum Jonathan and Targum Jerusalem also emphasizes the eventual deliverance of the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from slavery in Egypt.

Chasidut

The wealthy, who are close to the government, possess the faculty of speech associated with malkhut, as indicated by the reference to the "three SaRIGIM" in Genesis 40:10. This speech is considered gracious and is linked to those who hold prominent positions in society (Chullin 92a).

Likutei Moharan, Part II 2:4:6

There is also the speech of affluence. This refers to the wealthy, who are close to malkhut (the government). They correspond to “the three SaRIGIM (tendrils)” (Genesis 40:10), which our Sages, of blessed memory, expounded as “three SaReI GeiIM (prominent officials)” (Chullin 92a) —i.e., the wealthy, who are close to the government (as Rashi explains there). They possess the faculty of speech, as in “his speech is gracious, he has the Melekh (King) for his companion” (Proverbs 22:11) —i.e., the speech of those who are close to malkhut. This is the significance of “also not since the day before yesterday,” which refers to the three sarigim —i.e., the speech of the wealthy who are close to malkhut.

Commentary

Joseph interpreted the dream in Genesis 40:12 as referring to events that would occur in three days, based on the rapid transformation of the vine in the dream. Ibn Ezra explains that "pitrono" refers specifically to the interpretation of dreams, and Joseph's knowledge of the three branches representing three days may have been due to Pharaoh's upcoming birthday or the impending birth of a child to the queen. Siftei Chakhamim and Rashi also emphasize that the three days in the dream were symbolic rather than literal.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:12:1

THE INTERPRETATION OF IT. Pitrono (the interpretation of it) means its explanation. The term pitrono is not found in Scripture except in reference to a dream. (Hence it means the interpretation of a dream. It cannot he used in any other context (Cherez).)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:12:2

Some ask, how did Joseph know that the three branches refer to three days and not to three months or three years? Because yom hulledet et paroh (v. 20) (Translated according to Filwarg, Weiser and Cherez. According to Krinsky the question raised in I.E. is not answered. The way Krinsky read I.E. is: I.E. asks, “How did Joseph know that the three branches refer to three days?” He then goes on to explain the meaning of the clause yom hulledet et paroh.) possibly means the day on which Pharaoh was born. (Joseph knew that Pharaoh’s birthday would be in three days and it was obvious to him that the branches referred to this festive event (Filwarg, Weiser, Cherez).) For today there are kings who make a party on their birthday and invite their servants and distribute gifts to them. It is also possible that the queen was pregnant. (And that yom hulledet et paroh means the day that a child was born to Pharaoh. It was known that the queen was in her ninth month and Joseph reasoned that the “three branches” referred to the days left till she delivered.) The first interpretation appeals to me.

Radak on Genesis 40:12:1

שלשת ימים, when reflecting on the meaning of the dream Joseph realised that whatever it presaged would occur very soon. He surmised this from the speed with which the blossom on the vine in the dream had turned into fully ripened grapes and wine. He therefore interpreted the number 3 which occurred in the dream as not referring to years or months but to days.

Rashi on Genesis 40:12:1

שלשת ימים ARE THREE DAYS — They are a symbol to you of three days. There are many Midrashic explanations of these words (cf. Chullin 92a).

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:12:1

They are a symbol to you of three days. I.e., they are not three days themselves, as the verse seems to imply.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:12

Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days;

Midrash

The chief butler's dream of the vine with three tendrils symbolizes Israel and the redemption of Israel, with the four cups on Passover eve corresponding to the four kingdoms and four cups of salvation in the future. Joseph interprets the dream as the butler being restored to his position in three days, which comes true. The butler promises to remember Joseph, who was abducted twice, once by his brothers and then by the Midianites.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:5

“The chief butler related his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding; its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). “The chief butler related…behold, a vine was before me” – this is Israel, as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils” – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “It was as though it was budding” – the redemption of Israel was budding. “Its blossoms emerged” – the redemption of Israel blossomed. “Its clusters produced ripe grapes” – the vine that budded immediately blossomed; grapes that emerged immediately ripened. “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:11). “Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days” (Genesis 40:12). “In three more days Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your position, and you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink” (Genesis 40:13). “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand” – on this basis the Sages instituted the four cups on Passover eve. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Benaya: Corresponding to the four expressions of redemption that were stated in Egypt: “I will take you out…I will deliver you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Corresponding to the four cups stated here: “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand… you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand…” (These are the first and fourth mentions of the word cup. Between them there are: “I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.”) Rabbi Levi said: Corresponding to the four kingdoms. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the four cups [kosot] of bewilderment that the Holy One blessed be He will give the idolaters to drink. That is what is written: “For so said the Lord, God of Israel, to me: Take this cup of the wine of anger” (Jeremiah 25:15); “a golden cup is Babylon in the hand of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 51:7); “he will rain…upon the wicked [ blazing coals and sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot [menat kosam]]” (Psalms 11:6). (The fourth is: “For a cup is in the hand of the Lord, with foaming wine…” (Psalms 75:10) (Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 10:1).) Corresponding to them, the Holy One blessed be He will give Israel four cups [kosot] of salvation in the future, as it is stated: “The Lord is my lot [menat kosi]” (Psalms 16:5); “I will lift a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (Psalms 116:13): “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup is full” (Psalms 23:5). “A cup of salvation [kos yeshua]” (Psalms 116:13) is not written here, but rather, “a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (The word yeshuot is plural, such that a more literal translation would be “a cup of salvations.” Consequently, this alludes to the third and fourth cups. ) – one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. “If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and take me out of this house” (Genesis 40:14). [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me good tidings; (The butler’s dream, as explained above, alluded to the redemption of Israel, and therefore constituted good tidings. ) I, too, will give you good tidings: “In three more days…if only you remember me…”’ “For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews and here, too, I have done nothing, that they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti]” – Rav Aḥa said: From here [it may be derived] that he was abducted twice. (He was sold by his brothers, and then the Midyanites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites (see Genesis 37:27–28). Alternatively, his being thrown into the pit by his brothers was considered a kidnapping, and he was subsequently stolen from the pit by the Ishmaelites (Maharzu, 84:6).) “And here, too, I have done [nothing]…”

Musar

The Midrash explains that the tribe of Levi was counted separately from the other tribes in order to prevent all of Israel from dying in the desert. If the Levites had been counted together with the other tribes, the angel of death would have had authority to kill all of Israel. This separation was necessary to avoid the decree that Israel could not enter the Holy Land. This is why the Torah uses different wording when referring to the counting of the Levites.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Bamidbar, Nasso, Beha'alotcha, Torah Ohr, Bamidbar 38

Another difficulty is the subsequent statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 1,11, on the verse "but do not count the tribe of Levi, etc." (1,49), that Rabbi Pinchas ben Idi said: "when it says at the beginning of the Book, שאו את ראש, it pointedly does not say גדל את ראש, "elevate the head." The expression "שאו" is similar to the judge telling the executioner to behead the convicted prisoner. By the use of this word, G–d hinted that Israel would have to qualify for greatness only through the accumulation of merits. In that case the meaning of שאו, would be similar to Genesis 40, 12, "within three days Pharaoh will lift your head, (ישא) and restore you to your former position." Should Israel fail to merit greatness however, they would all die, as did the chief of the bakers in Genesis 40,19, who was told by Joseph that Pharaoh would ישא ראשך מעליך "will lift your head off you, and hang you on a pole." It had been clear to G–d at that time, that all the people about to be counted would die in the desert. G–d therefore told Moses to count the Levites not with the Israelites, but separately. The Levites had to be counted separately. If the tribe of Levi had been counted together with the other tribes the angel of death would have had authority to kill all Israel including them, and the decree that Israel could not enter the Holy Land would have become operative, since the Torah says in Numbers 14,29: "In this desert your carcasses will fall, and all of you who have been numbered in accordance with their respective number." G–d separated the count of the Levites in order to head off this catastrophe. This is also why the Torah does not even employ the same wording when referring to the counting of the Levites, but instead of שאן את ראש, we have פקוד את בני לוי in 3,15. So far that Midrash

Quoting Commentary

Rabbi Shimon questions why the verse uses "ve-arka" instead of the usual "ve-ar'a" for "earth," explaining that arka is one of seven lands below where the descendants of Cain reside, who were expelled and became confused. Ishtabesh, meaning confused, is used because branches in Aramaic are translated as shivshin, representing confusion and entanglement due to intertwining.

Sulam on Zohar, Introduction 153:1

153. “Ve-arka, but shouldn’t it have said ve-ar’a, etc.” [Rabbi Shimon] asks: The verse states “ve-arka” [“and the earth,” Jeremiah 10:11], but shouldn’t it have said ve-ar’a [the usual Aramaic word for “earth”]? He answers: It is because arka is one of seven lands below, and in that place there are the descendants of the descendants of Cain. After [Cain] was expelled from upon the face of the earth, he descended there, produced offspring, and his mind was confused [ishtabesh] there, [meaning] that he did not know anything. It is a doubled land, doubled with darkness and light. Ishtabesh means confused, for the term “branches” (Genesis 40:12) is translated into Aramaic as shivshin, and because the branches of a vine are intertwined and intermingled with one another, the word was borrowed to [express] the language of confusion and entanglement.

Targum

Joseph tells the chief butler in Genesis 40:12 that the three branches in his dream represent three days. In Targum Jonathan and Targum Jerusalem, Joseph further interprets the dream to mean that the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be enslaved in Egypt but eventually delivered by three shepherds. Joseph also mentions that the chief butler will be rewarded and will be liberated in three days.

Onkelos Genesis 40:12

Yoseif said to him, This is its interpretation: The three branches are three days.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 40:12

And Joseph said, This is the interpretations of the dream : The three branches are the three Fathers of the world, Abraham, Izhak, and Jakob the children of whose sons will be enslaved in the land of Mizriam and will be delivered by the band of three faithful pastors, who may be likened to the clusters. And whereas thou hast said, I took the grapes and expressed them into the cup of Pharoh and gave the cup into Pharoh's hand: It is the cup of retribution which Pharoh is to drink at the last. As to thyself, the chief of the butlers, thou wilt not lose thy reward; for this dream which thou hast dreamed is good. Nevertheless the interpretation of the dream (as relating to himself) Joseph had not told him; but afterwards he explained it, when it pleased him. And Joseph said to him, The three branches are three days.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:12

And Joseph said to him, This is the end of the interpretations of the dream. The three branches are the three Fathers of the world, Abraham, Izhak, and Jakob, the children of whose sons are to be enslaved in Mizraim in clay and brick (work,) and in all labour of the face of the field: but afterwards shall the be delivered by the hand of three shepherds. As thou hast said, I took the grapes and expressed them into Pharoh's cup, and gave the cup Into Pharoh's hand: It is the vial of wrath which Paroh (himself) is to drink at the last. But thou, the chief butler shalt receive a good reward concerning the good dream which thou hast dreamed; and the interpretation of it, to thyself, is this: The three branches are three days until thy liberation.

בְּע֣וֹד ׀ שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֗ים יִשָּׂ֤א פַרְעֹה֙ אֶת־רֹאשֶׁ֔ךָ וַהֲשִֽׁיבְךָ֖ עַל־כַּנֶּ֑ךָ וְנָתַתָּ֤ כוֹס־פַּרְעֹה֙ בְּיָד֔וֹ כַּמִּשְׁפָּט֙ הָֽרִאשׁ֔וֹן אֲשֶׁ֥ר הָיִ֖יתָ מַשְׁקֵֽהוּ׃ 13 E In three days Pharaoh will pardon you (pardon you Lit. “lift up your head.” Cf. below at vv. 19, 20.) and restore you to your post; you will place Pharaoh’s cup in his hand, as was your custom formerly when you were his cupbearer.
Pharaoh will restore the chief butler to his previous position after three days, as indicated by the dream. The original meaning of mishpat in the Bible refers to habits or customs rather than justice. The four cups mentioned in Genesis 40:11-13 are explained in the Liturgy as connected to the Torah. The chief butler's dream symbolizes Israel's redemption in the Midrash. Joseph spent time in Potiphar's house and prison due to lashon hara, and the tribe of Levi was counted separately to prevent catastrophe. Ramban, Rashi, and Nachmanides interpret different aspects of the census in the Quoting Commentary. The Four Cups of Passover have various interpretations in the Talmud, and Psalms 80:16 emphasizes God's planting. The Targum states that Pharaoh will restore the cupbearer to his position in three days.

Commentary

Pharaoh will count the chief butler among his servants after three days, restoring him to his previous position. The term "lifting up" in Hebrew can also mean counting. Pharaoh will elevate the chief butler to his former status, as indicated by the dream. The events foreshadowed by the dreams are expected to occur rapidly.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:13:1

בעוד שלשת ימים, “within another three days;” the reason why Joseph felt that the events foreshadowed were to occur so soon, was that in the cupbearer’s dream the development of the budding grapes to becoming wine were described as being so rapid. He therefore also took his cue from the cupbearer’s dream to interpret the solution to the baker’s dream to become evident within three days.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:13:2

והשיבך, “he will restore you;” the letter ו in this word is vocalised with a patach (instead of a semivowel sh’va and the letter ה with an abbreviated patach.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:13:1

SHALL PHARAOH LIFT UP THY HEAD. Yissa means shall lift up. (Pharaoh will raise the chief butler from his fallen state.) In its correct sense, yissa means to lift up by counting. (See note 25.) Proof of this is Scripture stating, and he lifted up (va-yissa) the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants (v. 20). (Here the term va-yissa must mean and he counted because Pharaoh did not exalt the chief baker.) I will explain this term in my comments on the Torah portion Ki Tissa (Ex. 30:12). (In his short commentary on Ex. 30:12, I.E. points out that one who counts people lists them in a row and places the most important at the top. Thus when Pharaoh will count his servants he will have a list of his butlers and bakers made. The name of the chief butler will head the list of butlers and that of the baker the list of bakers. Thus to “lift up” means to count. However, it does so only in a specific sense. It is not a mere synonym for counting. It should be noted that some commmentaries maintain that I.E. is of the opinion that to lift up is another way of saying to count. Cf. Krinsky and Cherez.)

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:13:2

THINE OFFICE. Kannekha means thy previous station, thy place, (Hebrew mekhunatekha. Compare, mekhunatah in Zech. 5:11.) thy state. (Hebrew matkuntekha. Compare, matkunto in II Chron. 24:13. I.E. is saying is that kannekha (thine office) is similar to mekhunatah and matkunto. However, I.E. changes the pronominal suffixes.) Kannekha most likely comes from the same root as ken (a base, a pedestal) (I Kings 7:29). The word kanno (in his place) in Then shall stand up in his place (kanno) (Dan. 11:20) is analogous.

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 40:1

Lit. “lift up your head.”

Radak on Genesis 40:13:1

ישא פרעה את ראשך, he will elevate your head. The verb is appropriate as the head of the cup-bearer while in prison was held low, he dared not hold up his head.

Radak on Genesis 40:13:2

והשיבך, the letter ו has the vowel patach, as opposed to Deuteronomy 28,68 והשיבך ה' מצרים, “G’d will bring you back to Egypt.” [compare Rash’bam on verse 13 above where he explains the meaning of the difference. Ed.]

Rashbam on Genesis 40:13:1

ישא פרעה את ראשך, the use of the word ישא here is similar to the use of the same word in Numbers 1,2 שאו את ראש כל עדת ישראל, “count the whole community of Israel, etc.” After three days Pharaoh will again number you among his servants.

Rashbam on Genesis 40:13:2

והשיבך, in order to restore you to your position. The construction והשיבך meaning “in order to restore your position to you,” is also what happened as we know from verse 20 “he elevated the head cupbearer among his servants. Had the Torah written veheshivcha instead of vahashivcha, the meaning would have been “he will restore you, bring you back,” as in Deuteronomy 28,68.

Rashi on Genesis 40:13:1

ישא פרעה את ראשך PHARAOH SHALL LIFT UP THY HEAD — The words נשא ראש denote to count (cf. Exodus 30:12). When he musters his other servants to wait upon him during the meal he will count you also among them.

Rashi on Genesis 40:13:2

כנך means THY POST and thy place.

Sforno on Genesis 40:13:1

As was your previous practice. Before you became an official.

Sforno on Genesis 40:13:2

When you were his butler. When you used to serve him personally — Pharaoh will have you do this to demonstrate that you are again in his favor.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:13

In three more days Pharaoh shall raise your head, your status, and restore you to your original position. Then your dream will materialize in a literal sense, as you will give Pharaoh’s cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink.

Jewish Thought

The original meaning of mishpat in the Bible is more related to habit, routine, style of conduct, appearance, or nature of someone or something, rather than justice or law. Examples from the Bible include the way the children of Israel surrounded Jericho, the spies from the tribe of Dan observing the people of Laish, the description of the prophet Elijah, and the heathen population in Samaria. In these instances, mishpat can be understood as a certain manner of living or customs.

Man and God, Chapter 5 the Biblical Meaning of Justice 146

It would seem that the original meaning of mishpat is to be sought on a more primary level of human interest than that of justice or law. When Joseph interpreted the dream of Pharaoh’s butler and told him that he would be restored to his office, he said to him: “and thou shalt give Pharaoh’s cup into his hand, after the former manner when thou wast his butler.” (Gen. 40:13.) Now, the Hebrew version for “after the former manner” is: according to the former mishpat. Obviously, mishpat here is neither justice nor law. It is more habit, the way a thing was customarily done. There are many examples in the Bible which show this, or a related, usage of the word mishpat. For six days the children of Israel went around the walls of Jericho in a certain order. On the seventh day, says the Bible, they rose early at dawn “and compassed the city after the same manner seven times.” (Josh. 6:15.) On the seventh day they surrounded the city following the same order which they had adopted on the previous days. Again, the Hebrew for “after the same manner” reads: according to the same mishpat. On the seventh day they were really following a routine which they had devised on the previous six days. Mishpat might well be rendered here as routine. Of the spies from the tribe of Dan the Bible tells us that they came to the city of Laish “and saw the people that were therein, how they dwelt in security, after the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure.” (Judg. 18:7.) For “after the manner of the Zidonians” we have in the Hebrew, according to the mishpat of the Zidonians. Mishpat here would be a certain manner of living, a certain style or conduct. Mishpat may even mean the character, the appearance, the nature of someone and something. Ahaziah, king of Israel, sent messengers to Ekron to inquire of the god whether he would recover from his sickness. The prophet Elijah met the messengers on the way and sent them back to the king with the message that he would die. When they came before the king, he asked them: “What manner of man was he that came up to meet you, and told you these words?” Their answer was: “He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins.” (II Kings 1:7–8.) For “what manner of man” we have in the original: what was the mishpat of the man? meaning: what were his characteristic marks? what was typical of him? Of the heathen population which was transplanted from Babylon to Samaria, the Bible tells: “They feared the Lord, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away.” (Ibid. 17:33.) Here, too, “after the manner” corresponds to “according to the mishpat,” the meaning being, according to the customs.

Liturgy

The text from the Liturgy refers to the four cups mentioned in Genesis 40:11-13, explaining that they were clearly explained in the Torah to the Prophet. The prayer asks to be accepted graciously, as if bringing offerings in the current month.

Siddur Sefard, Yotzerot, Musaf for Hachodesh 42

The four cups as in the vision (Genesis 40:11-13) Thou didst explain clearly in the Torah to the Prophet. As we have heard of yore, so may we behold again. Accept us graciously, as though we brought offerings in this month.

Midrash

In Bereshit Rabbah 88:5, the chief butler's dream of a vine with three tendrils symbolizes Israel and the redemption of Israel. This dream also led to the institution of the four cups on Passover eve, which correspond to different aspects of redemption and salvation. In Bamidbar Rabbah 1:11, the tribe of Levi was not counted with the other tribes because God did not command Moses to do so, as this separation was meant to prevent the tribe of Levi from being affected by the punishment of dying in the wilderness with the rest of Israel.

Bamidbar Rabbah 1:11

“But the Levites by the tribe of their fathers were not counted among them” (Numbers 1:47). “But the Levites by the tribe of their fathers” – the verse comes to say: Because the Holy One blessed be He did not say to Moses initially that he should count the tribe of Levi, as you find that he did not enumerate a prince for the tribe of Levi when he enumerated the princes of the tribes, Moses too did not count it, as Moses said: Had it been the will of the Holy One blessed be He that I count them, He would have told me. That is why it is stated: “But the Levites by the tribe of their fathers were not counted among them,” as he did not wish to count them. Immediately, Moses was standing and wondering why the Holy One blessed be He did not command him to count his tribe, and he did not know whether he would count them or not. The Holy One blessed be He saw that he was wondering; He immediately explained to him why he did not command him to count. That is what is written: “The Lord spoke.… However, the tribe of Levi you shall not count…” (Numbers 1:48–49). Rabbi Pinḥas bar Idi said: What is written at the beginning of the book? “Take a census [se’u et rosh] of the entire congregation of the children of Israel” (Numbers 1:2). It is not stated, “Elevate the head,” “promote the head,” but rather se’u et rosh, (Se’u et rosh literally means “lift up the head.”) like a person who says to the executioner: Remove the head of so-and-so. He thereby made an allusion. Why se’u et rosh? If they merit they will ascend to greatness, just as it says: “Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your position” (Genesis 40:13). If they do not merit, they will all die, just as it says: “Pharaoh will lift up your head from upon you, and hang you on a tree” (Genesis 40:19). It was revealed before the Holy One blessed be He that they would all die in the wilderness, and their heads will be removed; therefore, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: “However, the tribe of Levi [you shall not count…] among the children of Israel” (Numbers 1:49). Among the children of Israel you shall not count them, but by themselves, count them. Why? The Holy One blessed be He said: If the tribe of Levi is counted with Israel and intermingles with them, the angel of death will come to kill Israel and the decree will be issued against them that they will not enter the land, but rather, they will die in the wilderness, as it is stated: “In this wilderness, your carcasses will fall, and all those of you who were counted in any of your censuses” (Numbers 14:29), and he will find the tribe of Levi intermingled with them and they will intermingle with Israel to die. That is why he did not count them with Israel, but rather separated them in the tally. And that is also why the language that is written regarding Israel, se’u et rosh, was not stated in their regard, but rather: “Count [pekod] the children of Levi” (Numbers 3:15).

Bereshit Rabbah 88:5

“The chief butler related his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding; its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). “The chief butler related…behold, a vine was before me” – this is Israel, as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils” – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “It was as though it was budding” – the redemption of Israel was budding. “Its blossoms emerged” – the redemption of Israel blossomed. “Its clusters produced ripe grapes” – the vine that budded immediately blossomed; grapes that emerged immediately ripened. “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:11). “Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days” (Genesis 40:12). “In three more days Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your position, and you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink” (Genesis 40:13). “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand” – on this basis the Sages instituted the four cups on Passover eve. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Benaya: Corresponding to the four expressions of redemption that were stated in Egypt: “I will take you out…I will deliver you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Corresponding to the four cups stated here: “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand… you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand…” (These are the first and fourth mentions of the word cup. Between them there are: “I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.”) Rabbi Levi said: Corresponding to the four kingdoms. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the four cups [kosot] of bewilderment that the Holy One blessed be He will give the idolaters to drink. That is what is written: “For so said the Lord, God of Israel, to me: Take this cup of the wine of anger” (Jeremiah 25:15); “a golden cup is Babylon in the hand of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 51:7); “he will rain…upon the wicked [ blazing coals and sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot [menat kosam]]” (Psalms 11:6). (The fourth is: “For a cup is in the hand of the Lord, with foaming wine…” (Psalms 75:10) (Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 10:1).) Corresponding to them, the Holy One blessed be He will give Israel four cups [kosot] of salvation in the future, as it is stated: “The Lord is my lot [menat kosi]” (Psalms 16:5); “I will lift a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (Psalms 116:13): “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup is full” (Psalms 23:5). “A cup of salvation [kos yeshua]” (Psalms 116:13) is not written here, but rather, “a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (The word yeshuot is plural, such that a more literal translation would be “a cup of salvations.” Consequently, this alludes to the third and fourth cups. ) – one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. “If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and take me out of this house” (Genesis 40:14). [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me good tidings; (The butler’s dream, as explained above, alluded to the redemption of Israel, and therefore constituted good tidings. ) I, too, will give you good tidings: “In three more days…if only you remember me…”’ “For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews and here, too, I have done nothing, that they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti]” – Rav Aḥa said: From here [it may be derived] that he was abducted twice. (He was sold by his brothers, and then the Midyanites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites (see Genesis 37:27–28). Alternatively, his being thrown into the pit by his brothers was considered a kidnapping, and he was subsequently stolen from the pit by the Ishmaelites (Maharzu, 84:6).) “And here, too, I have done [nothing]…”

Musar

The commentary explains that Joseph spent one year in Potiphar's house and twelve years in prison, with the additional two years due to speaking lashon hara about his brothers. It also discusses the significance of counting the tribe of Levi separately in order to prevent a catastrophe where all of Israel, including the Levites, would die in the desert if they were counted together. This separation was necessary to avoid the decree that Israel could not enter the Holy Land.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:24

It is known, according to our sages of blessed memory that he worked in the house of Potiphar only one year, and that he sat in the prison house for twelve years, [for he was driven out of his father's house when he was seventeen years old and he stood before Pharaoh when he was thirty], and we find in Shemoth Rabbah 3 that he had to sit in the prison house for ten years for having spoken lashon hara about his ten brothers, and because he said to the chief butler (Bereshith 40:13): "For if you remember me … and you remember me," it was decreed upon him [that he sit there] another two years — but when the time was completed, he did not remain there an extra moment, as it is written (Ibid. 41:14): "And they 'hastened' him out of the pit," and not "And they took him out of the pit," for then he would have remained there a few superfluous moments.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Bamidbar, Nasso, Beha'alotcha, Torah Ohr, Bamidbar 38

Another difficulty is the subsequent statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 1,11, on the verse "but do not count the tribe of Levi, etc." (1,49), that Rabbi Pinchas ben Idi said: "when it says at the beginning of the Book, שאו את ראש, it pointedly does not say גדל את ראש, "elevate the head." The expression "שאו" is similar to the judge telling the executioner to behead the convicted prisoner. By the use of this word, G–d hinted that Israel would have to qualify for greatness only through the accumulation of merits. In that case the meaning of שאו, would be similar to Genesis 40, 12, "within three days Pharaoh will lift your head, (ישא) and restore you to your former position." Should Israel fail to merit greatness however, they would all die, as did the chief of the bakers in Genesis 40,19, who was told by Joseph that Pharaoh would ישא ראשך מעליך "will lift your head off you, and hang you on a pole." It had been clear to G–d at that time, that all the people about to be counted would die in the desert. G–d therefore told Moses to count the Levites not with the Israelites, but separately. The Levites had to be counted separately. If the tribe of Levi had been counted together with the other tribes the angel of death would have had authority to kill all Israel including them, and the decree that Israel could not enter the Holy Land would have become operative, since the Torah says in Numbers 14,29: "In this desert your carcasses will fall, and all of you who have been numbered in accordance with their respective number." G–d separated the count of the Levites in order to head off this catastrophe. This is also why the Torah does not even employ the same wording when referring to the counting of the Levites, but instead of שאן את ראש, we have פקוד את בני לוי in 3,15. So far that Midrash

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that at Marah, God gave the Israelites statutes and ordinances to study, including the Sabbath, Red Heifer, and laws of justice, to see if they would observe them joyfully. Rashi and Nachmanides interpret the phrase "take the head" in a census of the Israelites in different ways, with Rashi comparing it to an executioner's command and Nachmanides seeing it as a compliment to the Jewish people. Or HaChaim connects the concept of raising one's head to sanctity and explains the significance of the census after the sin of the golden calf. Rashi uses wordplay in Psalms 80:16 to emphasize the foundation planted by God's right hand. Fox notes the Bible's use of wordplay in prophetic passages to convey a strong message.

Or HaChaim on Exodus 30:12:2

Our sages comment that a sinner causes his head to be bowed as a result of his sins. Evil is defined as something which causes man to look only at what is below him, at the ground, whereas קדושה, sanctity, results in raising up one's head and elevating a person spiritually. We note that the Torah describes even the cave of Machpelah as undergoing an elevation after Abraham purchased it (Genesis 23,17). Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 58,8 describe the cave as undergoing an elevation. Inasmuch as the Torah commands this count after the sin of the golden calf as Rashi concluded based on the words ונתת אותו על עבודת אהל מועד "and you will appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting" in verse 16, we can understand why the expression כי תשא, "when you will raise," is appropriate. We encounter a similar use of the word תשא in Genesis 40,13 when the Torah refers to Pharaoh "raising" the head of the chief of the butlers who would be reinstated into his position. In our case, the Israelites will be enabled to hold their heads high again as a result of this count which served as atonement for the sin of the golden calf. Up until this time they had not felt able to raise their heads due to the shame of having had a part in that sin. לפקדיהם, "according to their number;" this is to be understood as parallel to Numbers 31,49 where the Torah states that not a single one of the 12,000 men whom Moses had sent on the punitive expedition against the Midianites had become a casualty during that war. There too the words נשאו את ראש meant that "they counted the sum." Shabbat 64 explains that the words ולא נפקד ממנו איש, meant that not a single one of those soldiers was guilty of a sin. ונתנו איש כפר נפשו, "each one will give (this) as ransom for his soul to G'd." This is a reference to the Israelites each having forfeited their lives through participation in the sin of the golden calf. בפקד אותם, "when numbering them." The meaning is literal.

Ramban on Exodus 15:25:1

THERE HE MADE FOR THEM A STATUTE AND AN ORDINANCE, AND THERE HE TRIED THEM. “At Marah He gave them some of the sections of the Torah so that they might engage in the study thereof, [such as]: the Sabbath, the Red Heifer, (Numbers, Chapter 19. The reason that Rashi singles out these three subjects — the Sabbath, the Red Heifer, and the laws of justice — is generally explained as follows: He mentions the Sabbath because it is referred to in the section on the manna (further, 16:23-30), as the means through which G-d tried Israel. The Red Heifer is the most outstanding example of a chok (a statute), the type of a commandment the reason for which we do not know. The laws of justice are the typical examples of mishpat (ordinance), which is a precept dictated by reason. Accordingly Rashi interpreted the verse before us — a statute etc. — as referring to these three subjects.) and the laws of justice. And there He tried them, that is, the people.” (Rashi’s intent is to explain the extra word v’sham (‘and there’ He tried them). It should have said, “There He made for them a statute and an ordinance and tried them,” in which case it would have meant that He tried them with the statute and ordinance, i.e., to see if they would observe them. But since it says, and there He tried them, it must refer to something additional, namely, the preceding event when the people murmured against Moses instead of approaching him to pray that the bitterness of the waters be removed. It is to this event, according to Rashi, that the expression refers: “And there He tried them, that is, the people” (Sifthei Chachamim). Ramban, however, will explain that “the trial” was of another nature, as will be explained in the text.) Thus the language of Rashi, and it is the opinion of our Rabbis. (Sanhedrin 56b.) But I wonder! Why does Scripture not explain these statutes and ordinances here, saying, “And the Eternal spoke to Moses: ‘Command the children of Israel,’” as it says in the chapters mentioned above, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel? (Above, 12:3.) Indeed, it does so with regard to all commandments given in the Tent of Meeting, on the plains of Moab, (Numbers 35:1.) and the Passover in the wilderness! (Ibid., 9:1-5.) Now Rashi’s expression, “He gave them… sections of the Torah so that they might engage in the study thereof,” indicates that Moses did inform them of these statutes and that he taught these statutes to them, [saying], “In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will command you so,” in the same way as Abraham our father learned the Torah. (See Vol. I, pp. 331-332.) The purpose of it was to make them familiar with the commandments and to know if they would accept them with joyfulness and with gladness of heart. (Deuteronomy 28:47.) This was “the trial” of which Scripture says, and there He tried them, and he [Moses] informed them that G-d would further command them the precepts of the Torah. This is the intent of the verse, “If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Eternal thy G-d… and wilt give ear to His commandments, (Verse 26. It is thus obvious that Ramban understands the word vayomer (and he said) as a reference to Moses, and not, as rendered in some translations, “and He said.”) which He will command you [in the future].” In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, when the Israelites began coming into the great and dreadful wilderness… thirsty ground where there was no water, (Deuteronomy 8:15.) Moses established customs for them concerning how to regulate their lives and affairs until they come to a land inhabited. (Further, 16:35. — “Moses established customs.” It should be noted that Ramban uses the expression sam lahem which could possibly be a reference to G-d, that “He established customs for them.” But in Rabbeinu Bachya’s commentary quoting Ramban he writes clearly: “In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, statute and ordinance are the customs how to regulate their lives in the desert, for Moses was king in Jeshurun, a leader who chastised his people and commanded them how to regulate their lives in the desert” (Bachya, Vol. II, p. 137 in my edition). On the basis of Bachya’s interpretation I have translated here: “Moses established customs.”) A custom is called chok, this being associated with the expressions: Feed me with ‘chuki’ (my customary) bread; (Proverbs 30:8.) ‘chukoth’ (the customary ways or laws) of heaven and earth. (Jeremiah 33:25.) Custom is also called mishpat (judgment or ordinance) because it is something measured out accurately. A similar usage [of the word mishpat] is found in these verses: So did David, and so hath been ‘mishpato’ (his manner) all the while; (I Samuel 27:11.) After the former ‘mishpat’ (manner) when thou wast his butler; (Genesis 40:13.) And the palace shall be inhabited upon ‘mishpato’ (Jeremiah 30:18.) i.e., upon its ascertained dimension. It may mean that Moses instructed them in the ways of the wilderness, namely to be ready to suffer hunger and thirst and to pray to G-d, and not to murmur. He taught them ordinances whereby they should live, to love one another, to follow the counsel of the elders, to be discreet in their tents with respect to women and children, to deal in a peaceful manner with the strangers that come into the camp to sell them various objects. He also imparted moral instructions, i.e., that they should not become like bands of marauders who do all abominable things and have no sense of shame, similar to that which the Torah commanded, When thou goest forth in camp against thine enemies, then thou shalt keep thee from every evil thing. (Deuteronomy 23:10.) In the case of Joshua it is also said. So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. (Joshua 24:25.) Here too the expression, [a statute and an ordinance], does not refer to the statutes and ordinances of the Torah, but rather to the customs and ways of civilized society, such as “the conditions which Joshua made [upon entering the Land],” which the Rabbis have mentioned, (Baba Kamma 80 b-81 a: “Ten conditions did Joshua stipulate [with Israel when they came into the Land]: that all people have a right to pasture their cattle in forests [without the interference of the owner of the forest] etc.” The customs established by Joshua were thus the norms of a functioning society.) and other such similar regulations. And Scripture says, and there he tried them, in order to inform us that he [Moses] led them by such a road on which there was no water, and he brought them to a place where the waters were bitter in order to test them, even as Scripture says, And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger; (Deuteronomy 8:3.) And that He might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end. (Ibid., Verse 16.)

Ramban on Numbers 1:3:1

FROM TWENTY YEARS OLD AND UPWARD, ‘KOL YOTZEI TZAVA’ (ALL THAT ARE ABLE TO GO FORTH TO THE HOST) IN ISRAEL. “This tells us that no one under the age of twenty goes forth to the host. ‘Se’u eth rosh’ [literally: ‘take the head’ and generally translated: take ye the sum] of all the congregation of Israel. (Verse 2.) This is as one says to an executioner: ‘take that man’s head’.” (The meaning of this text which stems from Bamidbar Rabbah 1:9 will be explained further on by Ramban. The final quote is not found in our texts of Rashi, although Ramban quotes it from his commentary. The reason for its disappearance from all other texts of Rashi may well be its sharpness of expression which on first sight baffles the student. Ramban, however, recognizing that it is a genuine text which stems from Midrash Rabbah proceeds to explain it appropriately.) This is Rashi’s language. Perhaps the reason for this [law that a male under twenty years old was not liable to military service] is because he is not strong enough for war under the age of twenty, as the Rabbis have said: (Aboth 5:21.) “Twenty is the age for pursuit.” (The Hebrew is lirdof, which is variously interpreted as: “for seeking a livelihood:” or “for seeking one’s life-pursuit.” Ramban here understands it in its literal sense — “to pursue [the enemy in battle].”) But it may be that the meaning of the phrase kol yotzei tzava is “all who go forth to be assembled in the congregation,” because the young men do not take part in such an assembly of the people, and every gathering of the people is called tzava, as in ‘[litzvo] tzava’ (to be counted among the host) for the work of the Tent of Meeting; (Further, 8:24.) he shall return from the ‘tz’va’ of the work; (Ibid., Verse 25.) with the mirrors of the ‘tzov’oth’ that ‘tzav’u’ (women that congregated together); (Exodus 38:8.) and similarly ‘tz’va’ (the host of) heaven; (Deuteronomy 4:19.) and all ‘tz’va’am’ (their host) I commanded. (Isaiah 45:12.) Therefore Scripture explains when speaking of men of war: ‘mi’tz’va’ (from the host of) the war; (Further, 31:14.) and the number of them reckoned ‘bi’tz’va’ (by the host) for the war. (I Chronicles 7: 40.) Scripture states here all that go forth to the host, similar to what it says, all that went out of the gate of the city. (Genesis 34: 24. Ramban’s meaning is that the intention of the verses is: “all that are able to go,” even if they have not actually gone.) It states, ye shall number them by their ‘hosts’ [in the plural], because they consisted of many hosts, since each and every tribe was a great host. But as for Rashi’s expression when he wrote — “This is as one says to an executioner: ‘take that man’s head’” — it is not clear to me why the Sages should interpret the verse in this derogatory manner. If it is because [the people counted here] died in the desert [therefore He said, take the head …] whereas in the case of the tribe of Levi He said Number the children of Levi, (Further, 3: 15.) since they were not included in the decree [that they die in the desert] — [this cannot be so], for in the second census [taken] of those who were to come into the Land it also uses the same [expression], take the head of all the congregation of the children of Israel! (Ibid., 26:2.) But in the Agadah (homiletic exposition) of Vayikra Rabbah (I did not find it there. But a similar exposition is found in Bamidbar Rabbah 1:7. See my Hebrew commentary p. 196, Note 26 for the full text.) the Rabbis explain it as an expression of praise [for the people]: “The term se’u always means ‘greatness’, as it is written, Pharaoh ‘yisa’ (shall lift up) thy head, and restore thee unto thy office. (Genesis 40:13.) Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel: ‘I have given you an exaltation of the head, and I have likened you to Myself. Just as I am exalted above all inhabitants of the world, as it is said, Thine is the kingdom, O Eternal, and Thou art exalted as head above all, (I Chronicles 29:11.) so to you also I have given an elevation of the head, as it is said, Lift up the head of all the congregation of the children of Israel, thus fulfilling that which is said, And He hath lifted up a horn for His people, (Psalms 148:14.) and similarly it is said, and the Eternal thy G-d will set thee on high above all the nations of the earth. ' ” (Deuteronomy 28:1.) I have found further in Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah that the Sages have stated: (Bamidbar Rabbah 1:9.) “Said Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Idi: What is [the meaning of] that which is written at the beginning of this book, ‘se’u eth rosh’ (take the head)? It does not say: ‘lift up the head,’ ‘elevate the head,’ but it says se’u eth rosh, like a man who says to an executioner: ‘take this man’s head’. Here He gave a hint to Moses, se’u eth rosh, meaning that if the people are worthy they will become exalted, just as it is written, Pharaoh ‘yisa’ (shall lift up) thy head, and restore thee unto thy office; (Genesis 40:13.) but if they are not worthy, they will all die, just as it is written, Pharaoh ‘yisa’ (shall lift up) thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree. ” (Genesis 40:19.) Thus the expression [se’u eth rosh which, as Rashi explained, is used in connection with execution] is to be interpreted according to the intention [of the speaker] — in a good way for those who are good. (See Psalms 125:4: Do good, O Eternal, unto the good. Thus Pharaoh said unto the chief executioner: “Take the chief butler and lift up his head and restore him to his office.” But as for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Eternal will lead them away with the workers of iniquity (ibid., Verse 5). Thus in the case of the chief baker, the same expression signified his downfall. In short, the expression of the Midrash which Rashi quoted can be interpreted either for bad or for good. And since it is an expression of elevation etc.) And since it is [also] an expression of elevation, and it is used [here] in the first census, He used the same expression in the second census. (Ibid., 26:2.)

Rashi on Psalms 80:16:1

And of the foundation that Your right hand has planted Which is founded and established, which Your right hand has planted, an expression of (Gen. 40:13): “and restore you to your office (כנך) .”

The Five Books of Moses, by Everett Fox, Translator's Preface 81

The Bible uses wordplay to make a point forcefully, especially in prophetic passages or those with a prophetic flavor. In Gen. 40:13 and 19, for instance, Joseph predicts that the king of Egypt will end the imprisonment of two of his courtiers. When the cupbearer is to be restored to his former position, Joseph says,

Tur HaArokh, Numbers 1:2:1

שאו את ראש, “take a census of the whole community.” Rashi on Numbers 31,26, explains the use of the expression שאו ראש, as “take a count of the heads,” [in the sense of according value to the head of each person so counted. Ed] Nachmanides [who apparently had a different version of Rashi in which the words שאו ראש are compared to the command to an executioner to behead his victim Ed.] who understood these words in a derogatory sense, raises the question why it should be interpreted derogatively. He points out that in Midrash Rabbah on this verse the interpretation is one that is complimentary to the Jewish people, quoting G’d as telling the people that He had given them the highest rank, ראש, among the nations in a number of areas. One example for the admissibility of such an interpretation is when Joseph interprets to the head of the cupbearers of Pharaoh that he will be reinstated to his former position, saying ישא פרעה את ראשך, “Pharaoh will raise your head, etc.” (Genesis 40,13) On the other hand, should the Israelites fail to qualify for G’d’s benevolence, the same words may signal their impending destruction, as in the case of the chief of the bakers who was also told of his impending fate by Joseph employing the same introductory words.

Talmud

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Benaiah explain the Four Cups of Passover correspond to the four deliveries of the Israelites, while Rebbi Joshua ben Levi relates them to the four cups of Pharaoh. Rebbi Levi connects them to the four kingdoms, but other teachers see them as the four cups of doom for the Gentiles at the end of days. In contrast, the Holy One will give Israel four cups of consolation at the End of Days.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 10:1:7

(For an explanation of this paragraph, see the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 186–187.) From where the Four Cups? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: Corresponding to the four deliveries (Ex. 6:7–8.) : Therefore, say to the Children of Israel, I am the Eternal, and I shall take you out, etc. And I shall take you as My people, etc. I shall take you, I shall save you, I shall free you, I shall take you. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, corresponding to the four cups of Pharao: The cup of Pharao was in my hand; I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharao ’s cup, and gave the cup in Pharao ’s hand. You will give the cup in the hand of Pharao (Gen. 40:11,13. The relation to Passover is explained in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.) . Rebbi Levi said, corresponding to the four kingdoms. But our teachers say, corresponding to the four cups of doom that the Holy One, praise to Him, will make the Gentiles drink at the end of days. Truly, so said the Eternal, the God of Israel, to me: take this cup of the wine of wrath (Jer. 23:15.) . The golden cup of Babylon is in the hand of the Eternal (Jer. 51:7.) . Truly a cup is in the hand of the Eternal, intoxicating wine, fully to be mixed; He shall sprinkle from it but its dregs shall be drunk, squeezed to the last, by all the wicked of the earth (Ps. 75:9.) . He shall let coals rain on the wicked; fire, sulphur, and burning wind is the portion of their cup (Ps. 11:6.) . What does the portion of their cup mean? R. Abun said: a double cup (Greek διπλόν ποτήριον, τό.) like the double cup taken after a thermal bath. And in accordance with this correspondingly the Holy One, praised be He, will let Israel drink four cups of consolation at the End of Days: The Eternal is the portion of my part and my cup (Ps. 16:5.) . You anointed my head with oil; my cup is overflowing (Ps.23:5.) . I shall lift up the cup of salvations (Ps.116:13.) counts for two.

Tanakh

In Psalms 80:16, it is mentioned that the stock planted by God's right hand and the stem that He has taken as His own are emphasized.

Psalms 80:16

the stock planted by Your right hand, the stem (Lit. “son.”) you have taken as Your own.

Targum

In three days, Pharaoh will restore the cupbearer to his position and he will resume his duties of serving Pharaoh by giving him his cup as before.

Onkelos Genesis 40:13

In another [At the end of] three days, Pharaoh will lift [take] your head, and restore you to your position. You will place Pharaoh’s cup in his hand, as was your previous practice when you were his butler.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:13

At the end of three days the memory of thee will come before Pharoh and he will lift up thy head with honour, and restore thee to thy service, and thou wilt give the cup of Pharoh into his hand, according to thy former custom in pouring out for him.

כִּ֧י אִם־זְכַרְתַּ֣נִי אִתְּךָ֗ כַּאֲשֶׁר֙ יִ֣יטַב לָ֔ךְ וְעָשִֽׂיתָ־נָּ֥א עִמָּדִ֖י חָ֑סֶד וְהִזְכַּרְתַּ֙נִי֙ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְהוֹצֵאתַ֖נִי מִן־הַבַּ֥יִת הַזֶּֽה׃ 14 E But think of me when all is well with you again, and do me the kindness of mentioning me to Pharaoh, so as to free me from this place.
Joseph asked the chief cupbearer to remember him and speak to Pharaoh on his behalf, hoping for his release from prison, believing Pharaoh would release him upon realizing his innocence. Acts of kindness through speech are considered mitzvot and are rewarded by God, as exemplified by Joseph, Abraham, and Sarah. Rabbi Shimon explains that Joseph's dreams came from God, not about remembrance. Joseph and Moses faced additional suffering due to their words and actions, with Joseph spending two extra years in prison for asking the butler to remember him. The Mishnah outlines measurements for the Shabbat limit, and Musar emphasizes the importance of using Torah as medication to resist the evil inclination. Ramban explains the compensation for a miscarriage when summoned by the woman's husband, not the woman herself, and Targum highlights Joseph's request to the chief butler for his release from prison.

Commentary

Joseph asked the chief cupbearer to remember him and show kindness by mentioning him to Pharaoh after being reinstated, hoping for his release from prison, as he was innocent and unjustly enslaved. Joseph's faith was in God, not the cupbearer, and he was punished for relying on man. The request was made with the hope of gaining freedom and justice, as Joseph believed Pharaoh would release him upon realizing his innocence.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:14:1

כי אם זכרתני, “if you would only remember me;” he meant that if the cup bearer would bring his plight to Pharaoh’s attention, perhaps he would reopen his case, as a result of which he would be released seeing that he had been completely innocent.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 40:14:1

כי אם זכרתני אתך....והזכרתני אל פרעה, “so that when you remember me when you are well off, and bring my problem to the attention to Pharaoh, etc;” I heard from my late father of blessed memory that the wording here with the causative mode in the word: והזכרתני, meant that while the cup bearer would personally remember Joseph and his favourable interpretation of his dream; Joseph only asked him to bring him to Pharaoh’s attention through an intermediary.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:14:1

כי אם זכרתני, "if you would only remember me, etc." Perhaps Joseph made his favourable interpretation conditional on the chief of the butlers remembering him. The reason that Joseph placed his hopes in the chief butler was that the Jewish people have been compared to a vine, as has been pointed out in Chulin 92. והנה גפן לפני, "there was a vine in front of me;" Joseph reasoned that if the dream only concerned matters related to the chief butler, all that needed to be shown in the dream was that the chief butler held Pharaoh's cup in his hand. He reasoned that the additional information referred to himself in jail; when the Torah goes on to describe how that vine was blooming, Joseph took this as a sign that the vine would prosper; he took the word נצה to mean that his rise would be progressively higher. This is why when he explained the dream to the chief butler he added that it was important that the chief butler remember Joseph during better times.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:14:2

In due course Joseph was proven right, for ultimately the chief butler did recall him and this started Joseph's dramatic rise to power. The reason Joseph was punished was because he imagined that his own advancement would depend on the goodwill of the chief butler. While G'd did use the chief butler as His instrument in advancing Joseph's fortune, the chief butler did not act voluntarily. He was prompted by fear to recall his days in jail (41,12). Joseph had to be taught the lesson not to rely on man.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:14:1

כי אם זכרתני אתך , “if only you would remember me with you, etc.” Joseph made two requests of the Chief of the butlers. 1) That he personally should remember who had foretold him his good fortune. 2) He should bring Joseph’s plight to the attention of Pharaoh. It is because of these two separate requests that the Torah reported at the very end of our Parshah that 1) the Chief of the butlers did “not remember Joseph”, and 2) that “he forgot him (mentioning him to Pharaoh).” We must not commit the error of believing that Joseph placed his faith in the Chief of the butlers. He most certainly placed his faith exclusively in G’d. He only thought that G’d might employ the Chief of the butlers as a tool to bring about his release from the dungeon. He had some reason to believe this seeing that the dream the Chief of the butler had dreamt in jail in which Joseph was imprisoned appeared to him as part of a miraculous chain of circumstances. How do we reconcile this with the comment of Bereshit Rabbah 89,3 that Joseph had two years added to the time he had to stay in jail because he said the above-cited two words to the Chief of the butlers (as we pointed out in our commentary on 39,5) that he was punished for pleading with the Chief of the butlers to become the instrument of orchestrating his release? It was not fitting for someone of Joseph’s caliber to be on the lookout for an instrument that G’d should appoint to bring about changes in his fate. He should have been content to trust that G’d would be able to find such opportunities when He deemed the time right for this. G’d does not need Joseph or anyone else to prompt Him in such matters. Joseph’s conduct was accounted a sin only because he was on such a high moral level, and G’d is especially strict in His dealings with people who have attained such a level (Baba Kama 50). To illustrate how someone else behaved in similar circumstances, compare the situation of the prophet Elijah in Kings I 17,6. The prophet was hiding in an inhospitable part of the country and had no access to food. He was told by G’d to drink from the waters of the river Krit (there could not have been much water due to the drought) and G’d told him that He would summon the raven to bring him food. He followed G’d’s instructions. The instrument of keeping him alive, i.e. providing him with food, was the raven. It is also possible that the food the ravens brought Elijah came from the palace of Yehoshaphat, King of Yehudah (compare Vayikra Rabbah 19). In either event the provision G’d made for Elijah was of a miraculous nature. Elijah did not involve himself in bringing about means of sustaining himself in a natural way. At any rate, Joseph did not think of the butler as the source of his release from jail but as an instrument to be used by G’d to that end. He should not even have done this and this is why he was punished.

Radak on Genesis 40:14:1

כי אם זכרתני, the same as כי אם תזכרני. אתך כאשר ייטב לך, when you will experience that you are being treated fairly, it is no more than fair that you should do me a favour, seeing that through my interpretation you had the good news of your approaching release and re-instatement. When my interpretation will have proven itself I expect you in turn to do a kindness for me namely to mention my case to Pharaoh so that he will release me also. I want you to do me a second favour, i.e. not merely mention me to him, but to lobby on my behalf. He will listen to you for two reasons. 1) You are an influential minister; 2) I have been jailed although I am totally innocent.

Ramban on Genesis 40:14:1

BUT HAVE ME IN THY REMEMBRANCE. “If you will remember me when it will be well with you, I now pray for the kindness and truth you will do to me by making mention of me to Pharaoh.” And if the word na (V’asitha ‘na’ imadi chesed. In the explanation above the Hebrew word na was understood in the sense of ‘now’: “If you will remember me then… I now pray for the kindness and truth you would show me.” But according to the second interpretation, the word na is understood as supplication, as explained in the text.) is to be understood as expressing supplication, the sense of the verse is: “If you will remember me and would, in your mercy, do me a kindness, I beg that you remember me to Pharaoh.” The sense of the word itcha (with thee) is that “you should remember to show me mercy in the very same way that it has been shown to you, i.e., that you went out from prison.” The interpretation may be that “you should remember me in your heart as if I am with you.” The purport of mentioning him before Pharaoh is that he should praise him by saying, “Now in the house of the chief of the officers there is an excellent servant fit to enter the service of kings.” It further appears to me correct that Joseph is saying: “If you will remember me to be with you when all goes well with you and you return to your high position, and you should want to do me this kindness, then make mention of me to Pharaoh, saying to him, ‘I remember a lad who served me in the prison; give him to me to be my servant.’ And bring me out of this house for it is a great sin to those who retain me here.” It may be that the meaning of the expression, And make mention of me to Pharaoh, is that “Pharaoh saw me when I was a servant to his minister, in charge of all he had and performing my duties before him, (Thus, the sense of the verse is to state that “all you need do is mention my name to Pharaoh, as he knows me already.”) and if you will remember me before him you will bring about my release from here. I have committed no sin, and it is befitting the king to release me and thereby save me from the hands of my oppressors, for there is no matter hid from the king (II Samuel 18:13.) if he desires.”

Rashbam on Genesis 40:14:1

כי אם זכרתני אתך, Joseph expressed his absolute conviction that the Chief of the cup bearers would be reinstated and that he would have the power to bring about his release, seeing that he was innocent. Besides, his very position as a slave was totally unjustified as he had been born a free man, member of a prestigious family. He was neither obligated to work for someone else, nor was he legally incarcerated.

Rashi on Genesis 40:14:1

כי אם זכרתני אתך means: You will be restored to your post and will have great influence (cf. Nehemia’s position as cupbearer at the Persian court), so that. (כי) if (אם) thou at all bear me in mind after it is well with thee as I have interpreted.

Rashi on Genesis 40:14:2

ועשית נא עמדי חסד THEN SHOW KINDNESS I PRAY THEE UNTO ME — The word נא is an expression of entreaty.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:14:1

כי, denn Gott hat dich hierher gesetzt, um dich die Träume und mich die Deutung finden lassen, weil Gott dich wieder in die alte Gunst einsetzen wird und weil, wenn du mich erst eine zeitlang im Stillen wirst bei dir im Gedächtnis herumgetragen haben, du mich zuletzt doch einst bei Pharao in Erwähnung bringen wirst.

Sforno on Genesis 40:14:1

כי אם זכרתני אתך, how would I know that you are really friendly to me, כאשר ייטב לך, if you will remember me also when you are well off, and you will find an hour when it suits you to display such an act of friendship.

Sforno on Genesis 40:14:2

והזכרתני אל פרעה, and you will bring my situation to the attention of Pharaoh who had gotten to know me when I had been a servant in the house of Potiphar.

Sforno on Genesis 40:14:3

והוצאתני, you will thereby cause him to release me without doubt.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:14:1

[כי means:] that if you will remember me after... In other words, Pharaoh will lift your head and you will be so important “that” if you mention me, you will be able to get me out. כי denotes “that” (אשר). This is because כי has four meanings, and one is אם, which is the same as אשר. Rashi adds, “After things become well for you,” because it is not befitting to mention Yoseif right when Pharaoh treats the butler well, but later, while the butler is standing and serving [before Pharaoh].

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:14

Joseph demonstrated just how certain he was of the correctness of his interpretation. He requested of the butler: If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, when your dream is realized and you are reinstalled in your position, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and you will thereby help take me out of this house, this prison.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:14:1

כי אם זכרתני אתך, “if only you will remember me, etc.” according to Nachmanides Joseph asks the cupbearer to remember him after he had been reinstated and then bring him to Pharaoh’s attention as another innocent sitting in jail, something he would consider an act of loving kindness on the part of the cupbearer. Another possible explanation of the phrase is that Joseph pleads with the cupbearer to remember him as if he were still in his presence, i.e.אתך. [otherwise the word אתך appears as somewhat redundant. Ed.] Yet another possible meaning is that Joseph said: “the favour you can do me after you have been reinstated and you reminded yourself that I had predicted your reinstatement, is to plead my case before Pharaoh, seeing that I, like yourself, am in jail due to trumped up charges against me.” Still another possibility is that Joseph did not ask the cupbearer to plead his case before Pharaoh but only to mention his name to Pharaoh, and Pharaoh who knew Joseph from the days when he was prominent in Potiphar’s household, would realize that his sitting in jail proved that he was actually free from sin, as otherwise his master would have executed him.

Halakhah

Acts of kindness through speech include removing anger, preventing harm, concealing suspicions, giving advice, speaking favorably, and providing blessings, all of which are considered mitzvot (commandments) and are rewarded by God. This is exemplified by Joseph, Abraham, and Sarah in the Torah, with specific guidelines outlined in the Code of Jewish Law and Tosefta. The importance of performing mitzvot through speech is emphasized for the great reward it brings.

Ahavat Chesed, Part III 8:3

2. If a person is angry with his friend because of someone else, and he can remove it from him through his speech, this is considered an act of kindness. As it is written concerning Joseph (Genesis 40:14): "Only remember me, when it is well with you, and please do me the kindness to mention me to Pharaoh, and get me out of this place." Similarly, if through his speech he can prevent harm from coming upon his friend, this is also considered an act of kindness. In a similar manner, if a situation arises where some individuals are suspected of theft, and he considers them suspicious and hears rumors about their situation, it is a mitzvah (commandment) for him to conceal it from them and say that he is poor, even though he knows that he is not. All of this falls under the category of kindness. We find a similar example with Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 20:13): "This is the kindness that you must do to me: to every place we come, say of me, 'He is my brother.'" And certainly, if he can inform his friend of a piece of advice that will protect him from harm, he is obligated to do so according to the law, as stated in the end of Choshen Mishpat (Code of Jewish Law, Section 426, Subsection 1). Similarly, if he speaks favorably to another person and does him a kindness, all of this is considered an act of kindness, and he receives a blessing from God for it. As stated in the Tosefta (Daughter of Mishnah, Peah Chapter 4, Halacha 17), even if he only says to others, "Give," he will be rewarded for this, as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:10): "Because of this word [speech], the Lord your God will bless you." For a more detailed discussion on the great reward for performing a mitzvah (commandment) through speech, refer to the earlier section in Part 2 of the Halachic code, regarding the magnitude of reward for the performance of a mitzvah, specifically related to speech.

Kabbalah

Rabbi Shimon explains that "the end" refers to a place without remembrance, representing the end of the left. Joseph mistakenly thought his dreams were about remembrance, but they actually came from God.

Zohar, Miketz 1:7

"And it came to pass at the end." What is the meaning of "the end?" Rabbi Shimon replied that this is a place in which there is no remembrance, the end of the left. What does this mean? For it is written, "But think of me (lit. 'remember') when it shall be well with you" (Beresheet 40:14). Is it proper for Joseph the righteous to say, "But remember me."? When Joseph looked at the dream, he said, 'This is assuredly a dream of remembrance' but he was wrong, because it all came from the Holy One, blessed be He.

Midrash

In the Midrash, it is discussed how Joseph and Moses faced additional years of suffering due to their words and actions. Joseph spent two extra years in prison because he asked the butler to remember him to Pharaoh, while Moses had to share the divine speech with Aaron because he questioned the people's faith. Additionally, the Sages connect Joseph's interpretation of the butler's dream to the four cups of redemption on Passover, suggesting a link between the redemption of Israel and Joseph's own story.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:5

“The chief butler related his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding; its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). “The chief butler related…behold, a vine was before me” – this is Israel, as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils” – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “It was as though it was budding” – the redemption of Israel was budding. “Its blossoms emerged” – the redemption of Israel blossomed. “Its clusters produced ripe grapes” – the vine that budded immediately blossomed; grapes that emerged immediately ripened. “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:11). “Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days” (Genesis 40:12). “In three more days Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your position, and you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink” (Genesis 40:13). “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand” – on this basis the Sages instituted the four cups on Passover eve. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Benaya: Corresponding to the four expressions of redemption that were stated in Egypt: “I will take you out…I will deliver you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Corresponding to the four cups stated here: “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand… you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand…” (These are the first and fourth mentions of the word cup. Between them there are: “I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.”) Rabbi Levi said: Corresponding to the four kingdoms. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the four cups [kosot] of bewilderment that the Holy One blessed be He will give the idolaters to drink. That is what is written: “For so said the Lord, God of Israel, to me: Take this cup of the wine of anger” (Jeremiah 25:15); “a golden cup is Babylon in the hand of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 51:7); “he will rain…upon the wicked [ blazing coals and sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot [menat kosam]]” (Psalms 11:6). (The fourth is: “For a cup is in the hand of the Lord, with foaming wine…” (Psalms 75:10) (Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 10:1).) Corresponding to them, the Holy One blessed be He will give Israel four cups [kosot] of salvation in the future, as it is stated: “The Lord is my lot [menat kosi]” (Psalms 16:5); “I will lift a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (Psalms 116:13): “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup is full” (Psalms 23:5). “A cup of salvation [kos yeshua]” (Psalms 116:13) is not written here, but rather, “a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (The word yeshuot is plural, such that a more literal translation would be “a cup of salvations.” Consequently, this alludes to the third and fourth cups. ) – one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. “If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and take me out of this house” (Genesis 40:14). [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me good tidings; (The butler’s dream, as explained above, alluded to the redemption of Israel, and therefore constituted good tidings. ) I, too, will give you good tidings: “In three more days…if only you remember me…”’ “For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews and here, too, I have done nothing, that they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti]” – Rav Aḥa said: From here [it may be derived] that he was abducted twice. (He was sold by his brothers, and then the Midyanites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites (see Genesis 37:27–28). Alternatively, his being thrown into the pit by his brothers was considered a kidnapping, and he was subsequently stolen from the pit by the Ishmaelites (Maharzu, 84:6).) “And here, too, I have done [nothing]…”

Bereshit Rabbah 89:2

“It was at the conclusion of two years.” “In all toil there is advantage, but lips’ talk is only for detriment” (Proverbs 14:23). Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said: Like the difference between one who drinks hot water and one who drinks cold. (Even the toil of heating water brings an advantage, as hot water was considered more healthy to drink (Etz Yosef). ) “But lips’ talk is only for detriment.” (If someone just talks and does not take action, he will suffer. ) There was a certain bone gatherer in Tzippori, some say he was Rabbi Shimon bar Abba. When he would see black bones, he would say, these are drinkers of water; red, these are drinkers of wine; white, these are drinkers of hot water. Another matter, “in all toil there is advantage” – from all the suffering Joseph underwent with his master’s wife, he gained an advantage. How so? He took her daughter. (Joseph married Asenat, daughter of Potifera (Genesis 41:45), and Potifera is identified by the Sages as Potiphar (see Bereshit Rabba 86:3). ) “But lips’ talk is only for detriment” – because he said to the chief butler: “Remember me…and mention me” (Genesis 40:14), two years were added for him, (Joseph spent an additional two years in prison. ) as it is stated: “It was at the conclusion [of two years].”

Bereshit Rabbah 89:3

“Happy is the man who has made the Lord his trust” (Psalms 40:5) – this is Joseph. “And did not turn to the proud” (Psalms 40:5) – because he said to the chief butler: “Remember me…and mention me,” two years were added for him. “Happy is the man who makes the Lord his trust” – Rabbi Yudan said: Many myriads of myriads tend after falsehood, woe unto anyone who puts his trust in them. “For a dream comes with a multitude of concerns” (Ecclesiastes 5:2) – Pharaoh said: ‘Who stands over whom – I for my god, or my god over me?’ (The Nile was an Egyptian deity. Pharoah said: ‘Does it make sense that I protect my god, or that my god protects me?’ ) [Joseph] said to him: ‘You, over your god.’ That is what is written: “It was at the conclusion [of two years, and Pharaoh was dreaming: and, behold, he stood at the Nile.]” (The phrase “he stood at [al] the Nile” can alternately be translated, “he stood over the Nile,” as though Pharoah was standing guard to protect the Nile. ) “For he emerged from prison to reign” (Ecclesiastes 4:14) – this is Joseph, who emerged from Pharaoh’s prison. “Emerged…to reign” – “Pharaoh sent [and summoned Joseph, and they rushed him from the dungeon]” (Genesis 41:14). “For even in his reign, he is revealed as poor” (Ecclesiastes 4:14) – due to Joseph’s reign, the impoverishment of Potifera was revealed. (As long as Joseph was in his home, Potifar thrived. After Joseph left, his fortunes changed.) Another matter, “it was at the conclusion.” “I saw all the living, who walk under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 4:15) – this is Joseph. “With the second child” (Ecclesiastes 4:15) – these are the two years that were added for him. Why were two years added for him? So that Pharaoh would dream and [Joseph] would be elevated by means of the dream, as it is stated: “It was at the conclusion of two years.”

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Miketz 1:2

Another interpretation (of Job 28:3): HE PUTS AN END TO THE DARKNESS. All the afflictions which come upon humankind have an end to them, as stated (ibid., cont.): AND HE SEARCHES OUT EVERY LIMIT. < The verse > speaks about Joseph when he was bound in the prison. He had been there ten years, and he was to get out in eleven. Ergo (in Job 28:3): HE PUTS AN END TO THE DARKNESS. What is the meaning of (ibid., cont.): AND HE SEARCHES OUT EVERY LIMIT? That, when his time arrived to get out, the Holy One sat down, searched out, and saw that he was required to be in the prison two more years because he had trusted in the chief of the cupbearers in that he said to him two times (in Gen. 40:14): BUT KEEP ME IN YOUR REMEMBRANCE (rt.: ZKR) … AND MENTION (rt.: ZKR) ME UNTO PHARAOH. (Tanh., Gen. 9:9; Gen. R. 89:2; Exod. R. 7:1; M. Pss. 18:28.) The Holy One said to him: You trusted in him with two rememberings (rt.: ZKR). By your life, do two more years < in prison > . Thus it is stated (in Gen. 41:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THE END OF TWO FULL YEARS.

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Miketz 2:3

Another interpretation (of Prov. 14:23): IN ALL TOIL THERE IS PROFIT. This was Joseph, who suffered in prison and had gain. (Gen. R. 89:2; Exod. R. 7:1.) NOW (according to Gen. 42:6) JOSEPH WAS THE GOVERNOR. (Prov. 14:23:) BUT TALK FROM THE LIPS < LEADS > ONLY TO A LOSS. Because he had spoken < merely > with his lips and said < to a cupbearer rather than to God > (in Gen. 40:14): BUT KEEP ME IN YOUR REMEMBRANCE, the Holy One said to him: By your life, inasmuch as you spoke improper words with your lips; by your life, you are doing two years more in the prison. Thus it is stated (in Genesis 41:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THE END OF TWO FULL YEARS.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 9:6

Since he was sentenced to remain in prison for ten years, why were two additional years added? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: You abandoned your trust in Me and placed your trust in the chief butler, whom you implored twice to remember you: That thou wouldst remember me and make mention of me unto Pharaoh (Gen. 40:14). Therefore, you shall be forgotten in prison for two additional years. Thus it is written: And it came to pass at the end of two years (ibid. 41:1), that is, two years after the butler had departed from prison.

Midrash Tehillim 105:6

"Until the appointed time, his word had not yet come. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba and the rabbis disagreed. One said, 'Until Joseph's word comes to pass,' while the other said, 'Until the word of the Holy One, blessed be He, comes to pass, which Joseph said to the chief butler (Genesis 40:14), "But think of me when it is well with you." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "You spoke truthfully; you will live another two years," as it says (Genesis 41:1), "After two years of time." Therefore, "Until the appointed time, his word had not yet come." The king sent and released him, and he was put in charge of his household. Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan ben Saul, "Joseph said to them, 'What do you think, that the Holy One, blessed be He, would not let me taste of what my grandfather Jacob blessed, saying (Genesis 27:29), "Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you"? Therefore, as it says (Genesis 41:40), 'And Joseph ruled over the land.' 'Put him in charge of his household, to bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his elders wisdom' (Psalms 105:21-22)." Another explanation is that his rulership is alluded to in the verse (Genesis 41:45), "Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphenath-paneah and gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potiphera." And he ruled over his people, and the Egyptians strengthened him. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, "What is this matter comparable to? It is like two officials who are in the palace, one is great and the other is also great, but one is greater than the other. It is also like two mighty warriors, one is mighty and the other is also mighty, but one is mightier than the other. Their hearts were turned against him." Rabbi Chiya said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Yehozadak, "Yesterday (Genesis 45:16), 'The voice was heard,' etc., and Pharaoh was pleased with him. Now their hearts were turned against him (Exodus 1:8), 'And there arose a new king over Egypt.'"

Shemot Rabbah 7:1

“The Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and commanded them concerning the children of Israel and concerning Pharaoh king of Egypt, to take the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt” (Exodus 6:13). “The Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and commanded them concerning the children of Israel” – that is what is written: “In all toil there is profit, but the talk of the lips brings only lack” (Proverbs 14:23). For all matters in which a person expends effort for the sake of Torah, he is rewarded. Could it be so even in matters of futility? The verse states: “But the talk of the lips brings only lack.” You find that Joseph was deserving to be placed in prison for only ten years because he slandered his ten brothers; but because he said to the butler: “If only you remember me with you…and mention me to Pharaoh” (Genesis 40:14), two additional years were added for him, as it is stated: “It was at the end of two years” (Genesis 41:1). Likewise you find in Moses’s regard; initially, he was worthy to have the divine speech commune with him by himself, but because he said: “Please…send by means of whom You will send” (Exodus 4:13), it was stated to him: “Is there not Aaron your brother the Levite?” (Exodus 4:14). Here, too, “[Moses spoke before the Lord saying:] Behold, the children of Israel did not heed me…” (Exodus 6:12); he was worthy to have all the miracles performed through him, but because of this the divine speech communed with [both] him and Aaron, as it is stated: “The Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron.”

Mishnah

The Shabbat limit can only be measured with a 50-cubit rope at heart level, with obstacles like canyons and fences not counting towards the limit. If encountering a hill, it should be spanned horizontally without measuring its height. If the obstacle is too wide to span, it is permissible to "pierce" the hill and measure only the horizontal distance. (Mishnah Eruvin 5:4)

Mishnah Eruvin 5:4

One may measure a Shabbat limit only with a rope fifty cubits long, no less and no more, as will be explained in the Gemara. And one may measure the limit only at the level of one’s heart, i.e., whoever comes to measure the limit must hold the rope next to his chest. If one was measuring the limit and he reached a canyon or a fence, the height of the fence and the depth of the canyon are not counted toward the two thousand cubits; rather, he spans it and then resumes his measurement. Two people hold the two ends of the rope straight across the canyon or the fence, and the distance is measured as though the area were completely flat. If one reached a hill, he does not measure its height; rather, he spans the hill as if it were not there and then resumes his measurement, provided he does not thereby go out beyond the city’s Shabbat limit, as those watching the surveyor might mistakenly think the limit extends to that point. If, due to the width of the canyon or hill, he cannot span it, with regard to this situation Rabbi Dostai bar Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: I heard that one may pierce hills. In other words, one measures the distance as if there were a hole from one side of the hill to the other, so that in effect, he measures only the horizontal distance and ignores the differences in elevation.

Musar

Yosef's sentence in prison was increased by 2 years for asking the officer of Pharaoh's drink to remember him, and he died before his brothers for embalming his father without G-d's permission or remaining silent when referred to as "your servant, our father Yaakov." The evil inclination can overpower a man if he does not use Torah as medication, leading to sin and loss of soul. It is important to fix daily times for accounting deeds and their correction. Yosef spent one year in Potiphar's house and twelve in prison, with ten years added for speaking lashon hara about his brothers and two for asking the chief butler to remember him, but he was hastened out of the pit when his time was completed.

Mesillat Yesharim 4:25

Yosef, for saying to the officer of [Pharaoh's] drink: "But remember me when it is well with you [and please show kindness to me, and make mention of me to Pharaoh.]" (Gen 40:14), his sentence [in prison] was increased by 2 years as the Midrash reports (Genesis Raba 89b). And Yosef himself for embalming his father without G-d's permission, according to one view, or because he heard the words: "your servant, our father [Yaakov]" (Gen.43:28) and remained silent, according to another view, died before all of his brothers (Gen. Raba 100:4).

Mesillat Yesharim 5:13

Included in this, is also to fix daily times for the accounting of deeds and their correction as I mentioned earlier.

Mesillat Yesharim 5:9

For in truth, the evil inclination is exceedingly powerful on a man. Without a man's knowledge, it advances and strengthens over him and comes to rule over him. Even if he employs all possible strategies in the world, but does not take the medication created for it, namely, the Torah as I wrote, he will not know nor feel the intensification of his illness until he dies in sin and his soul will be lost.

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:24

It is known, according to our sages of blessed memory that he worked in the house of Potiphar only one year, and that he sat in the prison house for twelve years, [for he was driven out of his father's house when he was seventeen years old and he stood before Pharaoh when he was thirty], and we find in Shemoth Rabbah 3 that he had to sit in the prison house for ten years for having spoken lashon hara about his ten brothers, and because he said to the chief butler (Bereshith 40:13): "For if you remember me … and you remember me," it was decreed upon him [that he sit there] another two years — but when the time was completed, he did not remain there an extra moment, as it is written (Ibid. 41:14): "And they 'hastened' him out of the pit," and not "And they took him out of the pit," for then he would have remained there a few superfluous moments.

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that the assailant must pay compensation for a miscarriage when summoned by the woman's husband to court, not when summoned by the woman herself, as the compensation is not hers. He suggests that the fine serves as a penalty for the harm done to the unborn child, which cannot be precisely compensated for. Tur HaArokh interprets the phrase "He made houses for them" as indicating that God made the midwives fruitful, leading to offspring referred to as "the children of Shifrah and Puah." Other interpretations suggest that the houses were places where pregnant Jewish women were kept to ensure they gave birth among Egyptians, or that the houses referred to jails where the midwives were confined.

Ramban on Exodus 21:22:1

AND IF MEN STRIVE TOGETHER, AND HURT A WOMAN WITH CHILD, SO THAT HER FRUIT DEPART, AND YET NO HARM FOLLOW, HE SHALL BE SURELY FINED, ‘KA’ASHER’ THE WOMAN’S HUSBAND SHALL LAY UPON HIM. “This means: ‘when’ (Rashi is thus explaining the letter kaf in the word ka’asher not in the sense of “as,” indicating degree or extent (“according as”), but in the sense of “when” — when the woman’s husband takes him to court.) the husband will summon him before the court in order that they put a fine on him for it.” Thus far Rashi’s language. And it is correct [to interpret here the letter kaf in the word ka’asher as meaning “when”, and not “as”]. A similar case is the expression, ‘ka’asher’ (when) it shall be well with thee, (Genesis 40:14.) and there are many other such cases. And the intention of the verse is that the assailant has to pay compensation for the miscarriage when the husband takes him to court, not when the woman does so, as the compensation is not hers. Onkelos, however, translated: “according to the amount [that the woman’s husband] shall lay upon him.” Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained the verse as follows: according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, or (The Hebrew word v’nathan, which is generally translated “and he shall pay” — as the judges determine, Ibn Ezra interprets to mean “or he shall pay,” and the purport thereof is as explained in the text.) he shall pay as the judges determine, as if to say that the assailant should come to agreement with the husband on a fixed sum, or he should pay compensation as the court will assess him. This is not correct, for what reason is there to mention this? (For surely if the parties voluntarily agree on a sum there is no necessity for them to go to court, and if they fail to agree on a sum it is self-understood that the court will have to assess the fine.) In my opinion, since the damage done is one that is not discernible in the unborn children themselves — for who could know their fortune — therefore Scripture said, that although he cannot be made to pay a precise monetary compensation, he should nonetheless be fined as a sort of penalty in the form of a sum of money (See my Hebrew commentary p. 424 for further elucidation of this phrase of Ramban “a sort of penalty.”) which others [i.e., the judges] shall impose upon him. A similar usage [of the term onesh — punishment] is also found in these verses: and he put the land to ‘onesh’ (a fine); (II Kings 23:33.) they drink the wine of them that have been ‘anushim’ (fined). (Amos 2:8.) Scripture is thus stating that the punishment be entirely as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, because he desires his children and they are important to him, but he [i.e., the husband] should fix the sum through the judges, in order that he should not impose upon him an exorbitant sum. In the words of the Mechilta: (Mechilta here on the Verse.) , “According as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him. I might think this to mean, whatever he pleases; Scripture therefore says, and he shall pay as the ‘pelilim’ determine, and pelilim always means judges.”

Tur HaArokh, Exodus 1:21:1

ויעש להם בתים, He made houses for them.” This means that G’d made these midwives especially fruitful and people would refer to these offspring as “the children of Shifrah and Puah.” [instead of their fathers being mentioned as the progenitors. Ed.] The expression בתים, i.e. plural of בית is used in lieu of the word בנים, children, as for instance in Samuel II 7,11 בית יעשה לך ה' “for He will establish a dynasty for you.” Other commentators understand this as relating to the line ויהי כאשר יראו המילדות את האלוקים ויעש להם בתים, “when, due to the midwives being in awe of G’d, and Pharaoh’s decree therefore becoming futile, Pharaoh placed pregnant Jewish women in houses surrounded by Egyptians so that their neighbours would know when they would be likely to give birth.” These women were forbidden to give birth anywhere else but in these houses. Still a third way of interpreting this verse is that the “houses” were jails in which the midwives would henceforth be kept. The word בית does appear in this sense in Genesis 40,14 Joseph saying to the chief of the cupbearers והוצאתני מן הבית הזה, “so that you will bring me out of this jail (the jail being called a house).”

Targum

Joseph asks the chief butler to remember him and speak to Pharaoh on his behalf, requesting to be released from prison.

Onkelos Genesis 40:14

But remember me when things go well with you. Please [Now] deal kindly with me [with goodness], and mention me to [before] Pharaoh, and take me out of this house [prison].

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:14

Joseph, leaving his higher trust and retaining confidence in a man, said to the chief butler, But be thou mindful of me when it shall be well with thee, and act kindly by me, and remember me before Paharoh and obtain my deliverance from this prison house.

כִּֽי־גֻנֹּ֣ב גֻּנַּ֔בְתִּי מֵאֶ֖רֶץ הָעִבְרִ֑ים וְגַם־פֹּה֙ לֹא־עָשִׂ֣יתִֽי מְא֔וּמָה כִּֽי־שָׂמ֥וּ אֹתִ֖י בַּבּֽוֹר׃ 15 E For in truth, I was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews; nor have I done anything here that they should have put me in the dungeon.”
Joseph emphasizes his innocence and connection to his Hebrew ancestors when explaining his situation, distinguishing himself from Canaanites. Various Midrashim explore biblical narratives, including responses to the Torah and offerings made by biblical figures. Ibn Ezra analyzes linguistic aspects, while Second Temple texts highlight Abraham's pride in his Hebrew identity. The Talmud discusses equivalence in vows and circumcision, with interpretations from different sages. In the Tanakh, Joseph's explanations differ based on his audience, emphasizing his innocence. Targum interpretations of Genesis 40:15 focus on Joseph's unjust imprisonment.

Commentary

Joseph explains that he was abducted from the land of the Hebrews, emphasizing his innocence and the fact that he was not a slave. This distinction was important to Joseph, as he did not want to be mistaken for a Canaanite. The land of the Hebrews refers to the land of Hebron, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived, and Joseph's use of this term highlights his connection to his ancestors and his desire to maintain his identity as a Hebrew.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:15:1

כי גונב גונבתי מארץ העברים, “for I have been kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews;” Joseph merited being buried in the land of Israel because he was proud to acknowledge that he was a Hebrew. Moses, on the other hand, who had allowed the daughters of Yitro to describe him as an Egyptian, was denied that privilege. (Compare Exodus2,19.) [This editor has never understood this, as at the time described in that verse, Moses was still at the watering troughs and could not have heard it. Ed.]

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:15:1

OUT OF THE LAND OF THE HEBREWS. I will explain this in my comments on If thou buy a Hebrew servant (Ex. 21:2). When the term hinneh (behold) is found in Scripture following a dream, its meaning is as it were. (Hinneh (behold) applies to something real. However, when used to describe what one saw in a dream it means: as it were, as if. Cf. Gen. 28:12; 37:7-10; 41:2-6, 18-23.)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:15:1

כי גנוב גנבת, "for I have been kidnapped, etc." The reason the word גנבתי is repeated here is that Joseph endured a double kidnapping. His body was kidnapped, and the people who bought him were fooled because they thought they had bought a slave, whereas in fact they paid for a free man. As a result the people who had paid for Joseph did not really own him. Perhaps Joseph wanted to explode the myth that no slave could ever rule nor wear royal robes in Egypt by explaining that this did not apply to him seeing he had never been a slave (compare Bereshit Rabbah 89,7). Since Joseph realised that the chief butler's dream indicated that he, Joseph, would rise to greatness, he was insistent that the chief butler be aware that he had been born free, that his present status as a slave was due only to his having been kidnapped from his homeland.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:15:2

Joseph added גם פה, that even while in Egypt he was innocent of the charges that had landed him in jail. He explained that the so-called evidence of sperm on the gown of his accuser had been refuted by the clergy (compare Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel on 39,14). This is why Joseph later on treated the Egyptian clergy with extreme leniency during the years of famine (47,22). Had it not been for the clergy's objectivity at the time, Joseph did not need to make any concessions to them as Pharaoh had authorised him על פיך ישק כל עמי, that Joseph's authority extended over the entire nation (41,40).

Radak on Genesis 40:15:1

כי גנב גנבתי, I have been abducted from my home in the land of the Hebrews. He could say this as the family of his father was very well known in the whole region seeing that already Yitzchok and Avraham the patriarchs had dwelled in the land of Canaan (by that time for about 250 years) It is therefore in order to refer to the land of Canaan as the “land of the Hebrews,” [quite apart of any promise G’d had made to the patriarchs. Ed.]

Ramban on Genesis 40:15:1

THE LAND OF THE HEBREWS. This means the land of Hebron, wherein dwelt Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham, the head of the lineage, was called “Abraham the Hebrew” (Above, 14:13.) since he came from across the River Euphrates, and he was honored among the nations for in him was fulfilled the blessing, And I will make thy name great. (Ibid., 12:1.) It is for this reason that all of his seed are called Ivrim (Hebrews). They hold on to this name in order not to intermingle with the various peoples in the Canaanite lands, and this name has been established as the name for all Israel’s seed forever. This is the meaning of the verse, He hath brought in a Hebrew unto us, (Ibid., 39:14.) since Joseph told them “I am a Hebrew,” and he did not want them to take him as a Canaanite. And the land where they resided was called “the land of the Hebrews,” that is to say, the land in which the Hebrews are. (But not that it is theirs.) It may be that it was so called because they were its leaders and nobles, even as it says, Thou art a prince of G-d in the midst of us, (Above, 23:6.) and it is further written, Touch not My anointed ones. (Psalms 105:15.)

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:15:1

Eigentümlich wird das Land schon hier ארץ העברים genannt; es muss also diese Familie in den Augen der Völker schon so bedeutsam dagestanden haben, daß das Land als ihr Land bezeichnet werden konnte.

Sforno on Genesis 40:15:1

כי גנב גנבתי וגם פה לא עשיתי מאומה, the reason why he will have me released will be due to your words, for it will be found that neither my status as slave nor that as prisoner is due to any fault of mine. I have never had a trial nor been convicted of any wrongdoing

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:15

For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews. I was not born a slave; I am a freeman who was kidnapped. And here too I have done nothing wrong to justify the fact that they placed me in the pit.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:15:1

כי גנוב גנבתי, “for I have been twice kidnapped, etc.” Not only was I kidnapped from my homeland, but here too I have not committed any wrong that would justify my being in jail.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:15:2

מארץ העברים, “from the land of the Hebrews.” Clearly, Joseph did not speak about a state ruled by Hebrews, but he used this adjective to recall that he was descended from Avraham who had been the first עברי to take up residence in the land of Canaan after leaving Mesopotamia.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 120

“For I was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews” [40:15]. Joseph told them the land from which he came and he was not ashamed among the gentiles that he was a Hebrew. Therefore, he was worthy to be buried in the land of Israel. However, Moses Our Teacher did not disclose his land, as the verse says in Exodus, “an Egyptian rescued us” [Exodus, 2:19]. The daughters of Jethro said that the Egyptian helped us. They called Moses an Egyptian. Therefore, Moses was not worthy to be buried in the land of Israel. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 40:15.)

Midrash

In Ruth Rabbah, it is explained that the mention of "it was" can allude to either trouble or joy. The text relates various instances of trouble in biblical narratives, such as wars and conflicts, and how certain figures faced challenges. In Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, the text describes how different nations responded when asked to accept the Torah, with Israel ultimately accepting it. Additionally, in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, the story of the revelation of the Torah to different nations is recounted, with Israel ultimately accepting it. In Bereshit Rabbah, the offerings made by different biblical figures are analyzed in detail, with each element symbolizing various aspects of their lives and stories. Finally, in Devarim Rabbah, Moses questions why he is not allowed to enter the land of Israel, citing examples of biblical figures who were buried in their own lands.

Bamidbar Rabbah 14:5

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:49). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]….” – this is the offering that he presented in the name of Jacob, who had him precede Manasseh, and in the name of Joseph, who, because of his love, Jacob blessed him all those blessings, just as it says: “He blessed Joseph and said: The God [before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked…]” (Genesis 48:15), and it says: “By you Israel shall bless, saying: May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh…” (Genesis 48:20). “Dish [kaarat]” – this is Jacob; do not read it as kaarat, but rather, as akeret, who uprooted [akar] the right hand from Manasseh in favor of Ephraim. “Silver” – after, “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20); what he said to Joseph: “His father refused, and said: I know, my son, I know; he too shall become a people…” (Genesis 48:19). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – corresponding to the one hundred and thirty words that there are from “he laid it on Ephraim’s head” (Genesis 48:14) until “he placed Ephraim before Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – this is Joseph, who was cast away [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “One” – as he was king in Egypt, just as it says: “One of the people (Avimelekh said this referring to himself.) almost lay [with your wife]” (Genesis 26:10). Likewise it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land…” (Genesis 42:6). “Silver” – after “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver,” as due to his wisdom he was privileged to achieve kingship, just as it says: “After God has disclosed all this to you.… You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:39–40). “Seventy shekels in the sacred shekel” – as Gabriel came and added one letter from the name of the Holy One blessed be He to his name and taught him seventy languages, as it is stated: “He established it as a precept for Joseph [bihosef] (He added a heh, changing Joseph [Yosef] to Yehosef.) when he went out over Egypt; I learned a language I had not known” (Psalms 81:6), as were it not so, the Egyptians would not have accepted Joseph to rule over them. “Both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” – Jacob and Joseph were both full-fledged righteous men, and the two of them resembled one another. This accords with what Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2). It should have said nothing other than: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Reuben.” Why is it stated: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph”? It is to teach you that Joseph resembled his father in every respect. Just as Jacob was born circumcised, so too, Joseph was born circumcised. Just as this one, his mother was barren, so too, that one, his mother was barren. Just as this one, his mother suffered from the pain of her pregnancy, so too that one, his mother suffered during birth. Just as this one, his mother bore two, so too that one, his mother bore two. Just as this one, his brother seeks to kill him, this one, too, his brothers seek to kill him. This one, his brother hates [soneh] him, and that one, likewise. This one is a shepherd and that one is a shepherd. This one is hated [nistam] and that one is hated. (See Genesis 27:41, 49:23.) This one was stolen from twice: “Stolen in the day and stolen at night” (Genesis 31:39); that one, there is a double expression of stealing: “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti] [from the land of the Hebrews]” (Genesis 40:15). This one was blessed with ten blessings, (See Genesis 27:28–29.) and that one was blessed with ten blessings. (See Deuteronomy 33:13–17.) This one departed and went outside of the Land of Israel, and that one departed and went outside of the Land of Israel. This one took a wife outside of the Land of Israel, and that one took a wife outside of the Land of Israel. This one begot children outside of the Land of Israel, and that one begot children outside of the Land of Israel. This one, angels accompanied him, and that one, angels accompanied him. (A midrash says that when Joseph went to his brothers at the behest of his father, three angels accompanied him.) This one ascended to greatness by means of a dream (See Genesis 28:10–16.) and that one ascended to greatness by means of a dream. This one, his father-in-law’s household was blessed on his account, and that one, his father-in-law’s (According to Bereshit Rabba 86:3, Joseph’s father-in-law Potifera was Potifar.) household was blessed on his account. This one descended to Egypt, and that one descended to Egypt. This one ended the famine and that one ended the famine. (See Bereshit Rabba 89:9.) This one administered an oath to his son, and that one administered an oath to his brothers. This one died in Egypt, and that one died in Egypt. This one was embalmed, and that one was embalmed. This one, his bones ascended, and that one, his bones ascended. Because Joseph resembled his father, that is why it is stated: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph”; and that is why it is stated: “Both of them full…” – regarding Jacob and Joseph. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:50). “One…ladle [kaf]” – it corresponds to the palm of his right hand, which he placed on Ephraim’s head. Why does it call it “one”? It is because it is more significant than the left. “Gold…ten shekels” – it corresponds to the ten words that there are from: “Israel extended his right hand” (Genesis 48:14) until “and he was the younger” (Genesis 48:14). “Filled with incense” – Jacob saw this matter through the divine spirit, that Ephraim was worthy for him to place his right hand on his head. Likewise it says: “Guiding [sikel] his hands, as Manasseh was the first born” (Genesis 48:14). His hands were guided [hiskilu] by the divine spirit, just as it says: “Maskil of Eitan the Ezraḥite” (Psalms 89:1). (This is a psalm stated by Eitan the Ezraḥite with divine guidance.) “One young bull, one ram, one sheep in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:51). “One young [ben bakar] bull” – corresponding to Abraham, as it is stated: “Abraham ran to the cattle [habakar]” (Genesis 18:7). “One ram” – corresponding to Isaac, in whose regard it is written: “[Abraham…] took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son” (Genesis 22:13). “One sheep” – corresponding to Jacob, in whose regard it is written: “Jacob separated the sheep” (Genesis 30:40). Why did he sacrifice these three kinds of burnt offerings? It corresponds to the three patriarchs, corresponding to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “Let my name and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, be called upon them” (Genesis 48:16). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:52). “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Elishama son of Amihud” (Numbers 7:53). “One goat as a sin offering” – corresponding to Joseph, as it is written: “They slaughtered a goat” (Genesis 37:31). Why did he sacrifice this corresponding to Joseph? It is because when Jacob blessed them with the name of the three patriarchs, likewise, he blessed them with the name of Joseph and made them dependent upon him, as it is stated: “By you Israel shall bless, saying: May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the two blessings that he blessed them: the former, “[may the angel…] bless the lads” (Genesis 48:16), and the latter, “by you Israel shall bless….” “Five rams, [five goats, five lambs]” – three species, corresponding to three generations that Joseph saw for Ephraim, who were attributed to Joseph, and they were patrilineal houses, as it is stated: “Joseph saw great-grandchildren from Ephraim” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise it says: “These are the sons of Ephraim by their families: Of Shutelaḥ.… And these are the sons of Shutelaḥ: Of Eran…” (Numbers 26:35–36). Ephraim, Shutelaḥ, Eran, these are three sons from three generations. Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five words (In the Hebrew phrase.) of “he placed Ephraim before Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20), as it is from there that Ephraim merited to present his offering first. “This was the offering…” – because he presented the offering in this order, the Holy One blessed be He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Elishama….”

Bereshit Rabbah 88:5

“The chief butler related his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding; its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). “The chief butler related…behold, a vine was before me” – this is Israel, as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils” – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “It was as though it was budding” – the redemption of Israel was budding. “Its blossoms emerged” – the redemption of Israel blossomed. “Its clusters produced ripe grapes” – the vine that budded immediately blossomed; grapes that emerged immediately ripened. “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:11). “Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days” (Genesis 40:12). “In three more days Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your position, and you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink” (Genesis 40:13). “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand” – on this basis the Sages instituted the four cups on Passover eve. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Benaya: Corresponding to the four expressions of redemption that were stated in Egypt: “I will take you out…I will deliver you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Corresponding to the four cups stated here: “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand… you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand…” (These are the first and fourth mentions of the word cup. Between them there are: “I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.”) Rabbi Levi said: Corresponding to the four kingdoms. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the four cups [kosot] of bewilderment that the Holy One blessed be He will give the idolaters to drink. That is what is written: “For so said the Lord, God of Israel, to me: Take this cup of the wine of anger” (Jeremiah 25:15); “a golden cup is Babylon in the hand of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 51:7); “he will rain…upon the wicked [ blazing coals and sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot [menat kosam]]” (Psalms 11:6). (The fourth is: “For a cup is in the hand of the Lord, with foaming wine…” (Psalms 75:10) (Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 10:1).) Corresponding to them, the Holy One blessed be He will give Israel four cups [kosot] of salvation in the future, as it is stated: “The Lord is my lot [menat kosi]” (Psalms 16:5); “I will lift a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (Psalms 116:13): “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup is full” (Psalms 23:5). “A cup of salvation [kos yeshua]” (Psalms 116:13) is not written here, but rather, “a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (The word yeshuot is plural, such that a more literal translation would be “a cup of salvations.” Consequently, this alludes to the third and fourth cups. ) – one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. “If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and take me out of this house” (Genesis 40:14). [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me good tidings; (The butler’s dream, as explained above, alluded to the redemption of Israel, and therefore constituted good tidings. ) I, too, will give you good tidings: “In three more days…if only you remember me…”’ “For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews and here, too, I have done nothing, that they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti]” – Rav Aḥa said: From here [it may be derived] that he was abducted twice. (He was sold by his brothers, and then the Midyanites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites (see Genesis 37:27–28). Alternatively, his being thrown into the pit by his brothers was considered a kidnapping, and he was subsequently stolen from the pit by the Ishmaelites (Maharzu, 84:6).) “And here, too, I have done [nothing]…”

Devarim Rabbah 2:8

“Lord God, You have begun” – he said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, why am I not entering the land? Is it because I said: “Hear now, defiant ones”? It was You who said first: “As a safekeeping, as a sign for the defiant ones”’ (Numbers 17:25). Another matter: “Lord God, You have begun” – Rabbi Reuven said: Moses said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Why are You doing this to me? It was You who first approached me.’ From where is this derived? It is as it is stated: “An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from inside the bush” (Exodus 3:2). He said to Him: ‘After You elevated me, You are demoting me from my elevated stature?’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘But I took an oath.’ [Moses] said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, when I requested, did You not break an oath? Did You not take an oath that You would eradicate Your children, and You reconsidered, as it is stated: “The Lord reconsidered”’ (Exodus 32:14)? Another matter: Rabbi Levi said: He said before Him: ‘Joseph’s bones will enter the land, but I will not enter the land?’ The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘The one who acknowledged his land will be buried in his land, and the one who did not acknowledge his land will not be buried in his land.’ Joseph acknowledged his land; from where is this derived? His master’s wife said: “See, he brought us a Hebrew man…” (Genesis 39:14), and he did not deny it; rather, “I was stolen from the land of the Hebrews” (Genesis 40:15). He was buried in his land. From where is this derived? As it is stated: “The bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32). ‘You, who did not acknowledge your land, will not be buried in your land.’ How so? Yitro’s daughters said: “An Egyptian man rescued us from the shepherds” (Exodus 2:19), and he heard and was silent. That is why he was not buried in his land.

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Bachodesh 5:10

He came and revealed Himself to the sons of Ishmael and asked them: Will you accept the Torah? They: What is written in it? He: "You shall not steal." They: But this is the blessing by which our father was blessed, as it is written (Genesis 16:12) "And he (Ishmael) shall be a brutish man, etc." And when He came to Israel (Devarim 32:2), "in His right hand, the fire of the Law for them," they all opened their mouths and cried (Exodus 24:7) "All that the L–rd says, we shall do and we shall hear!" And thus is it written (Habakkuk 3:6) "He stood and measured the land; He looked and dispersed the nations."

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 41:2

Rabbi Ṭarphon said: The Holy One, blessed be He, rose and came from Mount Sinai and was revealed unto the sons of Esau, as it is said, "And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them" (Deut. 33:2). And "Seir" means only the sons of Esau, as it is said, "And Esau dwelt in Mount Seir" (Gen. 36:8). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Will ye accept for yourselves the Torah? They said to Him: What is written therein? He answered them: It is written therein, "Thou shalt do no murder" (Ex. 20:13). They replied to Him: We are unable to abandon the blessing with which Isaac blessed Esau, for he said to him, "By thy sword shalt thou live" (Gen. 27:40). Thence He turned and was revealed unto the children of Ishmael, as it is said, "He shined forth from Mount Paran" (Deut. 33:2). "Paran" means only the sons of Ishmael, as it is said, "And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran" (Gen. 21:21). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Will ye accept for yourselves the Torah? They said to Him: What is written therein? He answered them: "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. 20:15) is written therein. They said to Him: We are not able to abandon the usage which our fathers observed, for they brought Joseph down into Egypt, as it is said, "For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews" (Gen. 40:15). Thence He sent || messengers to all the nations of the world. He said unto them: Will ye receive for yourselves the Torah? They said to Him: What is written therein? He said to them: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3). They said to Him: We have no delight in the Torah, therefore let Him give His Torah to His people, as it is said, "The Lord will give strength unto his people; the Lord will bless his people with peace" (Ps. 29:11). Thence He returned and was revealed unto the children of Israel, as it is said, "And he came from the ten thousands of holy ones" (Deut. 33:2). The expression "ten thousands" means the children of Israel, as it is said, "And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel" (Num. 10:36). With Him were thousands twice-told of chariots, even twenty thousand of holy angels, and His right hand was holding the Torah, as it is said, "At his right hand was a fiery law unto them" (Deut. 33:2).

Ruth Rabbah, Petichta 7

Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great, and Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Elazar: This midrash came up with us from the Exile: (From Babylonia. Presumably, this is a way of stating that it is an ancient tradition.) Any place that “It was [vayhi]” is stated, [it alludes to] trouble. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great: Any place that “It was [vayhi]” is stated, it can serve [to allude to] either trouble or joy. If it is trouble, there is none like it. If it is joy, there is none like it. Rabbi Shmuel said: There are five [instances of] “during the days of [bimei].” “It was [vayhi] during the days of [bimei] Amrafel” (Genesis 14:1) – what was the trouble there? They waged a war. [It is analogous] to the friend of a king who was located in a certain province. Because of him, the king took care of the province. One time, barbarians came and beset him [the king’s friend]. They say: Woe for us, the king will no longer care for the province as he had done. Likewise, the entire world was created only due to the merit of Abraham our patriarch; that is what is written: “They turned back and came to Ein Mishpat, (Ein Mishpat literally means ‘eye of justice’.) which is [hi] Kadesh” (Genesis 14:7). Rabbi Aḥa said: They came to beset the eyeball of the world. (Abraham.) The eye that overcame the attribute of justice in the world you seek to blind? (The midrash is rhetorically addressing the kings that attacked Abraham.) “Which is [hi] Kadesh” – Rabbi Aḥa said: Hu Kadesh. (The word hi, meaning ‘which is,’ is spelled with a vav as the middle letter, which could be read as the masculine hu. The midrash is reading hi Kadesh as hu kidesh, he sanctified.) He [Abraham] sanctified [kidesh] the name of the Holy One blessed be He in the fiery furnace. (See Tanḥuma, Lekh Lekha 6.) When everyone saw that all the kings came to beset him, they began screaming: Woe [vai]; that is, “It was [vayhi] during the reign of Amrafel.” “It was during the days of Aḥaz” (Isaiah 7:1) – what was the trouble there? “Aram from the east and the Philistines from the west” (Isaiah 9:11) – [it is analogous] to the son of a king who had a tutor who sought to kill him. He [the tutor] said: If I kill him, I will be condemned to death by the king; instead, I will withhold his wet nurse from him, and he will die on his own. So did Aḥaz say: If there are no kids, there are no rams, and if there are no rams there is no flock, and if there is no flock there is no shepherd. So Aḥaz thought to say: If there are no children, there are no adults, and if there are no adults there are no students, if there are no students there are no scholars, if there are no scholars, there are no synagogues and study halls, if there are no synagogues and study halls, the Holy One blessed be He, as it were, cannot rest His Divine Presence in the world. Therefore, I will seize all the synagogues and study halls. That is what is written: “Bind the testimony, seal the Torah in my disciples” (Isaiah 8:16). Rabbi Ḥanina said: Why was he named Aḥaz? It is because he seized [aḥaz] the synagogues and study halls. Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Avin: Isaiah said: “I will wait for the Lord, who conceals His face from the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 8:17). There was no time that was as difficult for Israel as that time, as it is stated: “I will conceal My face” (Deuteronomy 31:18) – in this world. But from that moment, “I hoped for Him” (Isaiah 8:17), as it is written: “As it will not be forgotten from the mouths of their descendants” (Deuteronomy 31:21). Was it [this verse] fulfilled for him [Isaiah]? “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me” (Isaiah 8:18) – were they his [Isaiah’s] children? Were they not his students? It teaches that they were as dear to him as his sons. Once everyone saw that he seized the synagogues and study halls, they began screaming: Woe [vai]: that is, “It was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥaz.” “It was during the days of Yehoyakim” (Jeremiah 1:3) – what was the trouble there? “I saw the land, and behold, it is emptiness and disorder, and the heavens, and their light is not” (Jeremiah 4:23) – [it is analogous] to a king who sent a proclamation to a province. What did the residents of the province do to it? They took it, ripped it, and burned it in fire. They said: Woe to us when the king becomes aware of these matters. That is what is written: “It was, as Yehudi would read three columns or four” (Jeremiah 36:23) – three or four verses. When he reached the fifth verse: “Its besiegers are ascendant” (Lamentations 1:5), (This is the fifth verse of the first chapter of Lamentations.) immediately: “He would cut it with a scribe’s razor and cast it into the fire that was in the fireplace, until the end of the scroll, upon the fire that was in the fireplace” (Jeremiah 36:23). Once they saw that it was so, they began screaming: Woe [vai]; that is, “it was [vayhi] during the days of Yehoyakim.” “It was during the days of Aḥashverosh” (Esther 1:1) – what was the trouble there? [It was] “to kill, and to eliminate all the Jews” (Esther 3:13). [It is analogous] to a king who entered a vineyard and three enemies beset him: The first began picking unripe grapes, the second began trimming the clusters, and the third sought to uproot all the vines. Likewise, the wicked Pharaoh begin picking the unripe grapes; that is what is written: “[Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying:] Every son who is born you shall cast into the Nile” (Exodus 1:22). The wicked Nebuchadnezzar began trimming the clusters; that is what is written: “[He exiled Yehoyakhin.…] and the artisans and the smiths, one thousand” (II Kings 24:15–16). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Yehuda said: One thousand artisans and one thousand smiths; Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All of them were one thousand. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitzḥak said: These are the notables. Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Simon said: These are the Torah scholars. Haman the wicked sought to uproot the entire egg; (Egg, in the sense of the very origins of Israel.) [as] they say buy [the hen] with the egg (A aphorism meaning that he sought to complete the task, leaving no future.) – “to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” (Esther 3:13). When they saw that it was so, they began screaming: Woe [vai]; “it was [vayhi] during the days of Aḥashverosh.” “It was during the days when the judges judged” (Ruth 1:1) – what was the trouble there? “There was a famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1) – [it is analogous] to a province that owed a tax to the king. What did the king do? He sent a tax collector to collect it. What did the residents of the province do? They took him, struck him, and extracted it [the money] from him. They said: What he sought to do to us we did to him. Likewise, during the days when the judges judged, an Israelite person would worship idols, and a judge would seek to bring him to trial, and he would come and flog the judge. He would say: What he sought to do to me, I did to him. Woe unto a generation whose judges are judged; (The midrash is reading the verse to mean that it was in the days that the judges were judged, i.e. punished.) that is, “It was during the days when the judges judged.” Shimon bar Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Everywhere that it [“it was,” vayhi] is stated, [it alludes to] trouble or to joy; if trouble, there is no trouble like it, if joy, there is no joy like it in the world. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman came and suggested a [different] distinction: Everywhere that it says, “it was [vayhi],” [it alludes to] trouble, everywhere that it says “it will be [vehaya],” joy. But it is written: “God said: Let there be light, and there was [vayhi] light.” He said to them: Even that is not light of joy, as the world did not merit to use that light. By the light that was created on the first day, a person could look out and see from one end of the world to the other end. When He perceived that the wicked were destined to appear, like the generation of Enosh, the generation of the Flood, and the generation of the Dispersion, (After the Tower of Babel.) and like the people of Sodom, He took it [the light] away. That is what is written: “From the wicked their light is withheld” (Job 38:15). He sequestered it for the righteous in the future, as it is stated: “Light is sown for the righteous” (Psalms 97:11). They objected to him: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as the heavens are destined to wither; that is what is written: “As the heavens will be eroded like smoke” (Isaiah 51:6). They objected to him: Is it not written: “It was [vayhi] evening and it was morning, a second day.… third.… fourth.… fifth.… sixth” (Genesis 1:8–31). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as everything that was created during the six days of Creation requires action, e.g., it is necessary to sweeten mustard, lupines must be sweetened, and wheat requires grinding. But it is written: “The Lord was [vayhi] with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it is written: “For they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). But it is written: “It was [vayhi] on the day that Moses completed [assembling the Tabernacle]” (Numbers 7:1). He said to them: That, too, is not joy, as it was sequestered when the Temple was built, as it is stated: “Moses was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting” (Exodus 40:35). (The verse does not seem to be related to the point. Perhaps it is brought to communicate that even on the day that the construction of the Tabernacle was completed, the celebration was tempered by the fact that Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting.) But it is written: “It was [vayhi] when Joshua was [at Jericho]” (Joshua 5:13). He said to them: That too is not joy, as Joshua rent his garments, as it is stated: “Joshua rent his garments” (Joshua 7:6). (After the setback at Ai.) But it is written: “It was [vayhi] on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1). (The day of the dedication of the Temple.) He said to them: That too is not joy, as on that day Nadav and Avihu died. (See Leviticus 10:1–2.) But it is written: “It was [vayhi] when the king (David.) dwelled in his house” (II Samuel 7:1). He said to them: That too was not joy, as it was then that Natan the prophet came and said to him: “However, you will not build the House” (I Kings 8:19). They said to him: We said ours, now you say yours. (Prove that every place it says vehaya it is an expression of joy.) He said to them: It is written: “It will be [vehaya] on that day, the mountains will drip with nectar” (Joel 4:18). “It will be [vehaya] on that day that spring water will emerge [from Jerusalem]” (Zechariah 14:8). “It will be on that day that the Lord will set His hand again the second time, [to recover the remnant of His people]” (Isaiah 11:11). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, each man shall keep [a calf of the herd and two sheep] alive” (Isaiah 7:21). “It will be [vehaya] on that day, that a great shofar will be sounded, [and they will come…and bow down to the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem]” (Isaiah 27:13). “It will be that one who is left in Zion and he that remains in Jerusalem [will be called holy]” (Isaiah 4:3). They objected to him: It is written: “And it was [vehaya] when Jerusalem was captured” (Jeremiah 38:28). He said to them: Even that is not trouble but joy, as on that day, Israel made complete penance for their iniquities, on the day that the Temple was destroyed. Conclusion of the prologue to Rut Rabba

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains the accent on the last syllable in the word "נָחֽוּ" by comparing it to other similar words, while in the commentary on Genesis 40:15, Joseph shifts his perspective on his experiences from one of injustice to one of divine providence and redemption, reassuring his brothers that they were part of a larger plan guided by a force greater than themselves.

I Believe; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Vayigash; The Future of the Past 4

This is markedly different from the way Joseph described these events when he spoke to the chief butler in prison: “I was forcibly carried off from the land of the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing to deserve being put in a dungeon” (Gen. 40:15). Then, it was a story of kidnap and injustice. Now, it has become a story of divine providence and redemption. It wasn’t you, he tells his brothers, it was God. You didn’t realise that you were part of a larger plan. And though it began badly, it has ended well. So don’t hold yourselves guilty. And do not be afraid of any desire for revenge on my part. There is no such desire. I realise that we were all being directed by a force greater than ourselves, greater than we can fully understand.

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 7:19:1

וְנָחֽוּ And shall rest. Accent on the last syllable; comp. שָֽׂמוּ (Gen. 40:15), וְשָׂמֽוּ (Num. 6:27).

Second Temple

Abraham was proclaimed ruler of Egypt, proud to be a member of the Hebrew race, and gloried in having done nothing in Egypt, rejecting the values of the people there [20].

On the Migration of Abraham 4:4

[20] Other traits of incorruption were these: he was proclaimed not the subject, but the ruler of all Egypt, the domain of the body (Gen. 41:41): he was proud to own himself a member of the Hebrew race (Gen. 40:15), whose wont it is, as the name “Hebrew” or “Migrant” indicates, to quit the objects of sense-perception and go after those of Mind: he gloried in the fact that “here he had done nothing” (ibid.), for to have performed no single act such as the worthless people there admired, but to have utterly hated and eschewed them all,

Talmud

The text discusses the equivalence of substitute names of vows, oaths, bans, and being a nazir to their respective original terms, based on biblical verses. It also explores the concept of double expressions in the Torah, with interpretations attributed to both Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael. Additionally, the text delves into the topic of circumcision, with discussions on the significance of two circumcisions, the uncovering of the corona, and the extraction of covenant blood. Various interpretations and explanations are provided by different sages, including Rebbi Judah ben Pazi, Rav, and Rebbi Levi.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:1:2

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written (Num. 30:3.) “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban, (Lev. 27:28.) ” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir (Num. 6:2.) ”, why does the verse say “to be a nazir”? From here that substitute names of nazir vows are like nazir vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. (Cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 72, Babli Avodah zarah 27a (and another 18 times without attribution). The quotes are from speeches of Laban and Joseph in Gen. which have no legal implications. This proves that the repetitions are a matter of style.) For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “ (Num. 30:3.) Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths (The second half of the verse is clearly written for emphasis. It implies (a) that a vow is valid only if pronounced, not if only thought of and (b) that any speech which can be interpreted as a vow is a vow. The Babli, 3a/b, quotes both the argument in the style of R. Aqiba and that of R. Ismael without mentioning any names.) . And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow” (This is an application of the second hermeneutical rule of gezerah šawah “equal cut”. If it was established in Num. 30:3 that “vow” means “anything that implies a vow” and in Lev. 27:2 any dedication to the Temple, including bans, is classified as “vow”, it follows that anything which implies a ban is a ban.) . Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir? “A vow, a vow” (Again this is an application of gezerah šawah, but this time the reference quote is Num. 6:2, cf. Note 14.) . Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths (This reference is odd since the argument is about vows, not oaths. One has to assume that the scribe left out the relevant portion of the sentence which should be identical to the one used in the preceding case.) , “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 19:2:2

HALAKHAH: (This and the following paragraph also are in Yebamot 8:1 (Notes 67–84,א). Here they appear as discussions of Mishnah 2.) Circumcising he shall circumcise (Gen. 17:13.) . A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for uncovering (One has to cut the membrane under the prepuce to expose the penis’s corona.) . One for circumcision, the other for the fibers (Cf. Mishnah 6.) . So far following Rebbi Aqiba who said, these are expressions of additions (This interpretation of double expressions is also attributed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Ševuot 27b. Cf. Sotah 7:5 (21d l. 66), 8:1 (22b l. 34), Nedarim 1:1 (36c l. 35).) . From where for Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, going I went, desiring you desired (Gen. 31:30, a speech of Laban without legal implications; this proves that the repetitions are literary devices to express emphasis. Babli Avodah zarah 27a.) , stealing (you were) stolen (Gen. 40:15, Josef’s speech to the cup bearer. Incorrectly copied here by the corrector.) ? Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions (Ex. 4:26.) , from there that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for uncovering; one for circumcision, the other for the fibers. Rav said, circumcising he shall circumcise, from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised (Babli Yebamot 71a.) . Circumcising he shall circumcise, from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile (Gen. rabba 46(8).) . Rebbi Levi said, it is written: But you have to keep My Covenant (Gen. 17:9.) , you and yours (Gen. rabba 46(8); Babli Avodah zarah27a.) .

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:1:12

“Circumcising he shall circumcise (Gen. 17:13.) .” A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering (The follow-up to the act of circumcision in which the skin is cut and plied back to uncover the corona.) . One for the uncovering, the other for the fibers (Eventual fibers of the prepuce which have to be cleaned from the wound. The same argument in the Babli, 72a.) . So far following Rebbi Aqiba who said, these are expressions of additions (This interpretation of double expressions is also attributed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Shevuot 27b.) . From where for Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen (Gen. 31:30, a speech of Laban; 40:15, Josef’s address to the cup-bearer. Both verses are without legal implications; this proves that the repetitions are a literary device to express emphasis. The same argument in Babli, Avodah zarah 27a.) ”? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, “then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions (Ex. 4:26, the inference is from the plural form מולות. {Modern interpreters take the words of the Ismaelite Ṣippora to be Arabic, “poor circumcised one, may it be for opulence”.}) ,” from here that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering; one for the uncovering, the other for the fibers. Rav said, “circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised. “Circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise until he circumcises himself; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile (In Gen. rabba 46(8), this is the argument of R. Joḥanan.) . Rebbi Levi said, it is written: “But you have to keep my covenant.” You and yours (In Gen. rabba 46(8), this is the argument of Rav Huna. In the Babli, Avodah zarah 27a, it is attributed to Rebbi.) .

Tanakh

Yosef's explanation of his situation to the chief butler in prison differed from his account to his brothers, emphasizing his innocence and victimhood [Covenant and Conversation Family Edition, Vayigash, I; The Future of the Past 3].

Covenant and Conversation Family Edition, Vayigash, I; The Future of the Past 3

This is very different from how Yosef explained these events to the chief butler in prison, when he said, “I was forcibly carried off from the land of the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing to deserve being put in a dungeon” (Bereshit 40:15).

Targum

Both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan interpret Genesis 40:15 as Joseph claiming he was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews and imprisoned unjustly.

Onkelos Genesis 40:15

I was kidnaped from the land of the Hebrews, and here I have also done nothing that they should have put me in this dungeon [prison].

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:15

For I was verily carried away dishonestly from the land of the Hivraee and here also I have done nothing evil, that they should put me in prison.

וַיַּ֥רְא שַׂר־הָאֹפִ֖ים כִּ֣י ט֣וֹב פָּתָ֑ר וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־יוֹסֵ֔ף אַף־אֲנִי֙ בַּחֲלוֹמִ֔י וְהִנֵּ֗ה שְׁלֹשָׁ֛ה סַלֵּ֥י חֹרִ֖י עַל־רֹאשִֽׁי׃ 16 E When the chief baker saw how favorably he had interpreted, he said to Joseph, “In my dream, similarly, there were three openwork baskets (openwork baskets Others “baskets with white bread” or “white baskets”; meaning of Heb. ḥori uncertain.) on my head.
Joseph accurately interprets the dreams of the chief butler and chief baker, with the chief baker's dream symbolizing the Jewish people and their fate. Rabban Gamaliel and his father's house were strict in certain practices, such as only baking wafer-cakes on festivals. The use of the word "אף" by the serpent in questioning G-d's words is linked to divine anger. The dreams of the chief butler and chief baker in the Second Temple text symbolize their roles, with the lifting of three baskets of wheaten loaves representing the ruling part of the soul. Rabbi Elazar explains in the Talmud that the baker knew Joseph's interpretation was good because each of them was shown their own dream and the interpretation of the other's dream.

Commentary

The interpretation given by Joseph to the chief butler was favorable, leading the lord of the bakers to share his own dream with Joseph, who interpreted it as a prophecy of Jewish exile. The baskets in the dream were described as containing white bread or being full of holes, symbolizing the Jewish people and their fate. Joseph's interpretations were seen as convincing and accurate, with the chief baker realizing the truth of the interpretation before its fulfillment within three days.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:16:2

כי טוב פתר, “that he had predicted something positive, and he believed him;” his reasoning had been that if someone interprets untruthfully, he does not take a chance to be called a liar after three days.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:16:1

THREE BASKETS OF WHITE BREAD. Saadiah Gaon says that chori means white bread, as in the nobles (chore) (Cf. I.E.’s comment on Gen. 36:20 where he writes, “Nobles are called chorim (literally, the white ones) because they are metaphorically speaking as the color white which resembles light.”) of Judah (Neh. 6:17).

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 40:2

Others “baskets with white bread” or “white baskets”; meaning of Heb. ḥori uncertain.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:16:1

וירא שר האופים כי טוב פתר, When the chief of the bakers saw that Joseph had interpreted well, etc. Since he himself had dreamt the interpretation of the dream of the chief butler he was in a position to evaluate Joseph's interpretation. The same could not be said of the chief butler as the latter did not know whether Joseph's interpretation would prove correct until it would be fulfilled.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:16:2

The words טוב פתר could also mean that Joseph had given a favourable interpretation to the dream of the chief butler. Thus encouraged, the chief of the bakers told Joseph his own dream hoping that Joseph would have a favourable interpretation for him also. His hope was based on the prophecy of Jewish exile that the dream contained. He saw the nations of the world who are compared to vultures consume the Jewish people (compare Targum Yonathan on Genesis 15,11). Israel, on the other hand, is compared to bread as we know from Psalms 14,4: אוכלי עמי אכלו לחם, "who devour My people as they devour bread." When the chief of the bakers spoke about carrying the baskets על ראשי, on my head, he hinted that Israel would be on top of all the nations. You will note that in the description of Pharaoh's activities in the dream of the chief butler, he is not described as drinking the wine, i.e. consuming the Jewish people. He only held the wine in his hand, an expression of paying homage to its worth. Contrast this with the fact that in the dream of the chief of the bakers, Pharaoh, i.e. the vultures, are reported as consuming part of the Jewish people.

Radak on Genesis 40:16:1

וירא, he realised in his heart when he had heard the interpretation Joseph had given to the Chief cup bearer that this was both a true and a positive interpretation, and he was confident that Joseph would also have a similarly positive interpretation for his own dream. He based himself there on something which our sages have called: “most dreams follow the interpretation (by the interpreter).” (Berachot 55). Joseph interpreted the two dreams according to what his reason told him was the most likely interpretation. He was not concerned whether his interpretation would be considered favourable, i.e. as portending something good in store for the dreamer or if the reverse.

Radak on Genesis 40:16:2

סלי חרי, the word חרי is related to the same word in Kings II 12,10 ויקוב חור, “he bored hole.” The baskets are made of thin strips, peeled, with little holes so that they are elastic and look as if plaited. There is no difference between the meaning of the ending י in חרי, and the noun in the regular plural mode חרים. We find such an ending with the letter י in Samuel II 23,8 ראש השלישי, where the noun שליש means “a type of hero, warrior, leader of a contingent of troops.” Sometimes the author contents himself with a partial plural ending, i.e. י, whereas on other occasions he uses the full plural ending ים. According to my teachers (Jerusalem Talmud Beytzah 2,7) the word חרי is derived from חררה, a type of cake baked on hot coals, and according to this interpretation the baskets the baker saw resembled these cakes in appearance. Whereas the lower two baskets contained these kinds of flat cakes, the topmost basket contained the kind of baked goods served to Pharaoh, i.e. superior goods, pastries, baked in an oven or in an oiled pan.

Ramban on Genesis 40:16:1

THAT THE INTERPRETATION WAS GOOD. Onkelos rendered it that he interpreted it well. A similar use is found in the verses: Teach me fair discernment and knowledge; (Ibid., 119:66.) That they were ‘tovoth’ (fair), (Above, 6:2.) which means “pretty.” The intent of the verse is to state that this man [the lord of the bakers] had scorned Joseph, thinking of him as not ever knowing how to interpret the dream, and he would never have told him the dream had he not seen that he interpreted for his friend in a fair and proper manner. It may be that the verse is saying: “And the lord of the bakers saw that he gave a favorable interpretation to the lord of the butlers and he rejoiced. He then told him his own dream which had caused him more anguish than that of his friend.”

Ramban on Genesis 40:16:2

BASKETS OF ‘CHORI.’”Baskets made of peeled willows, made so that they have many holes.” This is Rashi’s language. Rav Saadia Gaon (See the Commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra.) interpreted it as “baskets of white bread,” white as befits the king’s bread, with the word chori being derived from the Hebrew, Neither shall his face now wax white (‘yechvaru’), (Isaiah 29:22.) as well as from the Aramaic where the word chivar means “white.” This is the correct interpretation, for all the baskets in the dream contained the king’s bread, and in the uppermost basket there were all manner of baked goods for Pharaoh. You find it similarly in the language of our Rabbis in the Mishnah: (Beitzah 2:6.) “Large loaves and white cakes (v’chivri) [may be baked on a Festival Day].” And in the Jerusalem Talmud on this Mishnah: “The Rabbis [in discussing the permissibleness of baking extra fine white breads on the Festival Day even though they require more work than ordinary bread] derived the meaning of chori from this verse: And, behold, I had three baskets of ‘chori’ on my head. “ (This establishes that the word chori in the verse and chivri in the Mishnah were considered by the Rabbis of the Talmud as identical. For just as in the case of the king’s bread it means “large and white,” as befits such bread, so does it have a similar meaning in the Mishnah. It is thus obvious that the Rabbis understood the word chori, as did Rav Saadia Gaon, to mean “white.”) Mikeitz

Rashbam on Genesis 40:16:1

כי טוב פתר, his interpretation sounded very convincing, was accepted as the true interpretation.

Rashbam on Genesis 40:16:2

סלי חרי; full of holes. The word חורים, appears as meaning holes in Job 30,6 חורי עפר וכפים, “holes in the ground and in rocks.” It also appears in this sense in Isaiah 19,9 ואורגים חורי, “and the weavers making holes.” Baskets which are usually of woven palm frond leaves have these little holes as the nature of weaving does not permit the resulting texture of the material to be airtight and waterproof.

Rashi on Genesis 40:16:1

In our country there are many such baskets and sellers of fancy rolls — old French oublies — usually put them in these baskets.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:16:1

כי טוב פתר kann nicht heißen: "etwas Gutes gedeutet". Misst man dem Traume und der Deutung irgend einen Wert bei, so kann nicht das Erfreuliche oder Nichterfreuliche des Inhaltes, sondern die Wahrheit oder Wahrscheinlichkeit des Inhaltes über den Wert einer Deutung entscheiden. Es muss sich über den Wert einer Deutung übrigens schon vor dem Erfolge, somit unabhängig von diesem eine Meinung bilden lassen. Denn auch Pharao später erkennt Josef die Palme der Einsicht und Weisheit sofort nach gehörter Deutung zu, ohne erst den Erfolg abzuwarten, ja, glaubt durch den Charakter der Deutung schon des Erfolges im voraus versichert zu sein. טוב פתר heißt jedenfalls "gut gedeutet", obgleich allerdings wenig Beispiele für einen solchen adverbialen Gebrauch des טוב vorkommen. Denkt man bei Träumen oder anderen symbolischen Zeichen, daß derjenige, der den Traum in das Gemüt eines Menschen sendet, ihm damit etwas sagen will, so muss das Symbolartige in dem Traume so sein, daß der Betreffende es sich selbst erklären könne, es muss klar und durchsichtig sein. Wer die Deutung hört, muss, wenn sie richtig ist, sich sagen können: darauf wäre ich auch gekommen, und zwar muss nur eine Deutung möglich sein, wie wir dies schon in dem Worte פתר gefunden zu haben glauben. Dem Schenkfürsten hatte geträumt, ein Weinstock stehe vor ihm usw. Was Josef hinzufügt, ist nichts, als: drei Ranken, die der Weinstock noch zu Blüte und Frucht zu treiben hat, sind drei Tage, die noch vergehen müssen. Alles übrige ist damit von selbst so klar, daß der Schenk sich hätte sagen können: so hätte ich es auch verstehen müssen. Wenn nun aber diese Träume sicher die Vorsehung gesandt und so den herrschenden Glauben an Träume benutzt hat, um Josef zu retten, so sehen wir hier, wie הב"ה in Bildern spricht, und dürften daraus lernen, wie die Deutung seiner Bilder immer das Einfachste und Nächstliegende suchen müsse, nie hinein, sondern heraus deuten müsse und nur dann glauben dürfe "טוב פתר" das Richtige getroffen zu haben, wenn die Erklärung sich so eng und nahe dem zu Erklärenden anschließt, daß man sich sagen muss: es könne fast nicht anders sein und ergebe sich von selbst aus der Sache. — אף אני בחלומי. "Auch ich war in meinem Traume" d. h. wohl, auch ich war der Mittelpunkt, der Gegenstand meines Traumes. Auch mein Traum hat sich um mich bewegt. — סלי חורי, da חורים die Freien, Adeligen bedeutet, so kann סלי חורי: eines Vornehmen würdige Körbe, feine, nicht gemeine Körbe bedeuten.

Sforno on Genesis 40:16:1

כי טוב פתר, he was encouraged to think that Joseph would also come up with positive explanation of his own dream. Our sages use the words “as Joseph had interpreted to them,” (verse 22) to state that most dreams turn out to be in accordance with how the interpreter saw them.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:16

The chief baker saw that he interpreted well. Joseph’s interpretation seemed pleasing and accurate to the baker. Some opinions maintain that in addition to their own respective dreams, each minister dreamed the interpretation of the other. Consequently, the baker knew that Joseph correctly interpreted the butler’s dream. 39 And he said to Joseph: I too, in my dream, dreamed that behold, there were three wicker baskets stacked one upon the other on my head. Wicker baskets are typically used to hold baked goods, as the gaps in the weaves allow for air to pass to the goods inside them.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:16:1

כי טוב פתר, “that he had interpreted the dream positively;” the fact that Joseph predicted fulfillment of the dream within three days convinced the baker that he was telling the truth as otherwise he would be proven a liar within such a short span of time.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:16:2

סלי חורי, “baskets of patisserie.” Rashi explains the word חורי as describing the kinds of baskets, i.e. wicker work. Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon explains the word חורי as referring to bread made of white flour, a delicacy reserved for kings. Linguistically, the word would be related to חיור, “ (Arabic word?)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 121

“The chief baker saw how favorably he had interpreted” [40:16]. The head of the bakers saw that Joseph had properly interpreted the dream. Rashi writes. How did he see that he had properly interpreted? The explanation is that the head of the bakers dreamed that the chief cupbearer would go out of the prison in peace. (Rashi, Genesis, 40:5.)

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 122

“He said to Joseph” [40:16]. The head of the bakers said: I dreamed that I was carrying three baskets in which one carries bread on one’s head. In the top basket were all kinds of delicacies for the king, and the birds were eating it. Joseph responded: the three baskets mean three days. After three days Pharaoh will hang you on the gallows and the birds will eat your flesh.

Liturgy

The text from Siddur Ashkenaz for the Ten of Tevet festival calls for God to repay those who seek to destroy the Jewish people, making them carry their own destruction and feel ashamed. The imagery used likens their hope to a dream about three baskets of bread.

Siddur Ashkenaz, Festivals, Selichot, Ten of Tevet 35

They said, "Let's go destroy them and end their memory." Jealous, vengeful God, repay them, make them carry their destruction. Pay them in accordance with their deeds, make them too ashamed to hope, like a man dreaming a dream about three baskets of bread.

Midrash

Four individuals or groups began their statements with "af" and were eliminated by divine wrath: the serpent, the baker, the congregation of Korah, and Haman. The serpent questioned God's words to Eve, the baker spoke of his dream to Joseph, the congregation of Korah complained about not being taken to the promised land, and Haman boasted about being the only one invited by Queen Esther.

Bereshit Rabbah 19:2

“It said to the woman: Did [af] God actually say…” – Rabbi Ḥanina ben Sansan said: There are four people who began a statement with af and perished by [divine] wrath [af], and they are: The serpent, the baker [in prison with Joseph], the congregation of Koraḥ, and Haman. The serpent – “It said to the woman: Did [af] God actually say…” The baker – “I, too [af], in my dream…” (Genesis 40:16). The congregation of Koraḥ – “Moreover, [af] not to a land…” (Numbers 16:14). Haman – “Moreover, [af] Esther did not bring…” (Esther 5:12).

Bereshit Rabbah 88:6

“The chief baker saw that he interpreted well, and he said to Joseph: I too, in my dream, behold, three wicker baskets were on my head” (Genesis 40:16). “And in the uppermost basket there was all manner of food for Pharaoh, baked products, and the birds were eating them from the basket above my head” (Genesis 40:17). “Joseph answered and said: This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days” (Genesis 40:18). “In three more days Pharaoh shall lift your head from upon you, and shall hang you on a tree, and the birds shall eat your flesh from upon you” (Genesis 40:19). “The chief baker saw…[and he said to Joseph: I too [af]…]” – Rav Ḥama said: They are four who began with af and were eradicated with wrath [af]. (The serpent, the chief baker, the congregation of Koraḥ, and Haman, as explained in Bereshit Rabba 19:2.) “Behold, three wicker baskets” – these are the first three kingdoms. (The first three of the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel and many other peoples: Babylon, Media, and Greece.) “And in the uppermost basket” – this is the fourth kingdom, (Rome.) which imposes taxes upon all the nations of the world. “The birds were eating them” – after they ate [the contents of] the uppermost one, they then ate [the contents of] the lower one. [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me bad tidings; (The baker’s dream alluded to the nations that would subjugate Israel. ) I, too, will give you bad tidings: “In three more days…”’ “It was on the third day, Pharaoh's birthday, he made a feast for all his servants and raised the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants” (Genesis 40:20). “It was on the third day” – the day of Pharaoh’s birthday celebration. “He restored the chief butler to his butlership, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:21). “And he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph interpreted for them” (Genesis 40:22). “He made a feast…he restored the chief butler…and…the chief baker” – it befell this one what was stated to him and to that one what was stated to him.

Esther Rabbah 9:3

“Haman said: ‘Indeed, Queen Esther gave a feast and besides the king she did not bring anyone but me. And tomorrow too I am invited by her along with the king” (Esther 5:12). “Haman said: Indeed [af], Queen Esther…did not bring anyone.” Four began with af and were eliminated with af, (One of the meanings of the word af is anger. The midrash is saying that these four individuals or groups, who used the word af, were eliminated by divine anger due to their sins.) and they are: The snake, the baker, the congregation of Koraḥ, and Haman. The snake, as it is written: “Did God actually [af] say” (Genesis 3:1); the baker, as it is written: “I, too [af], in my dream” (Genesis 40:16); the congregation of Koraḥ, as it is written: “Yet [af] [you did not take us] to a land flowing with milk and honey” (Numbers 16:14); Haman, as it is written: “Indeed [af], Queen Esther did not bring anyone.”

Mishnah

Rabban Gamaliel was strict like Beth Shammai in three cases: not wrapping up hot food on a festival for the Sabbath, not joining together a lamp on a festival, and only baking wafer-cakes on festivals, not thick loaves. His father's house only baked wafer-cakes, but allowed Israel to bake large loaves and charcoal-roasted loaves.

Mishnah Eduyot 3:10

In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai.One may not wrap up hot food on a festival for the Sabbath; And one may not join together a lamp on a festival; And one may not bake [on festivals] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.”

Quoting Commentary

Rabbeinu Bahya explains the significance of the word "אף" used by the serpent in questioning G-d's words in Genesis 3:1:3, linking it to divine anger. The German Commentary on Mishnah Eduyot 3:10:8 references Genesis 40:16 in discussing bread types. Chizkuni interprets Numbers 20:29:1 metaphorically, suggesting that "seeing" can also mean understanding mentally. Depths of Yonah 3:3:10 discusses the concept that truthful words are self-evident, citing examples from Rashbam in Genesis 40:16.

Chizkuni, Numbers 20:29:1

ויראו כל העדה, “the entire congregation saw, etc.” since this verse cannot be understood literally, the Jerusalem Targum renders it as meaning that when the people witnessed Moses and Elazar returning without Aaron, they drew the appropriate conclusions, [especially, seeing that Elazar wore the garments of the High Priest, as described in verse 28. Ed.] They observed Moses having ash on his head and having rent his garments, calling out to Elazar, “woe for my brother Aaron!”An alternate interpretation: we find that the expression ראיה, “seeing” is also used to describe “knowing,” i.e. seeing with one’s mental eye. Prominent examples are: Genesis 40,16, where the chief of the bakers is described as “seeing” that Joseph had properly explained the dream of the chief of the cup bearers. Another example of the root: ראה describing “understanding,” rather than seeing with one’s eyes, is found in Genesis 42,1 where our patriarch Yaakov is credited with seeing that there was grain for sale in far off Egypt, i.e. וירא יעקב כי יש שבר במצרים, “Yaakov “saw” that there was trading in grain going on in Egypt.” The author cites more examples.

Depths of Yonah 3:3:10

The Gemara explains that “Nikkarim Divrei Emet,” “truthful words are self-evident”. The Rashbam (Bereishit 40:16) takes his cue from this Gemara and uses this principle to explain why the Sar HaOfim (Paroh’s chief baker) realized that Yosef properly interpreted the dream of the Sar HaMashkim (Paroh’s cup bearer).

German Commentary on Mishnah Eduyot 3:10:8

das sie dicke Brotkuchen und Weißbrot. Vgl. Gen. 40, 16. Im Talmud steht: חררין (Kohlenkuchen).

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 3:1:3

אף כי אמר אלוקים, “did G-d really say, etc.?” The very first word the serpent uttered was the word אף. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 19,2 commented on this: “four people began their remarks with the word אף, and all four of them perished through אף, divine anger. The four are: the serpent, the chief of the bakers (Genesis 40,16), the community who partook in Korach’s uprising (Numbers 16,14) and Haman (Esther 5,12).

Second Temple

In the Second Temple text, dreams of the chief butler and chief baker are interpreted as symbolizing their respective roles in the household, with the butler seeing wine-related imagery and the baker seeing baskets of bread. The lifting of three baskets of wheaten loaves on the head is allegorically interpreted as representing the ruling part of the soul, the mind.

On Dreams, Book II 23:4

[158] Now the province of the chief butler is drunkenness and of the chief baker gluttony. Each in his vision sees what fits his trade, wine and the parent plant of wine, the vine, in the first case, in the second loaves of the finest meal disposed on baskets which the baker saw himself carrying (Gen. 40:16, 17).

On Dreams, Book II 31:3

[207] “I thought,” it says, “that I lifted three baskets of wheaten loaves on my head” (Gen. 40:16). “Head” we interpret allegorically to mean the ruling part of the soul, the mind on which all things lie, and once indeed that mind cried out loudly and bitterly,  “All these things have been upon me” (Gen. 42:36).

Talmud

In Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah 2:6:4, it is advised to bake bread as thin cakes instead of large loaves to avoid tiring oneself. Rebbi Aḥa and the Sages interpret this differently, with Rebbi Aḥa focusing on the concept of burning rage and the Sages referring to bags of white-flour baked goods. In Berakhot 55b:18, Rabbi Elazar explains that the baker knew Joseph's interpretation of the dreams was good because each of them was shown their own dream and the interpretation of the other's dream.

Berakhot 55b:18

With regard to Joseph’s interpretation of these dreams, the Gemara asks, it is written: “The baker saw that the interpretation was good” (Genesis 40:16); from where did the baker know that the interpretation was good? Rabbi Elazar said: This teaches that each of them was shown his dream and the interpretation of the other’s dream. That is how he knew that it was the correct interpretation.

Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah 2:6:4

“One does not bake his bread as large loaves but as thin cakes.” Since you tire him (Since making single small loaves is more work that making one large loaf.) he bakes only what is needed. Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: what is this great burning rage (Deut. 29:23, root חרר.) . The Sages understand it from the following, and behold, three bags of white-flour baked goods on my head (Gen. 40:16, root חרר.) .

Targum

The chief baker in Genesis 40:16 tells Joseph about his dream of three fancy baskets on his head. Targum Jonathan adds that the baskets contained fine cakes, while Targum Jerusalem specifies that they held hot loaves.

Onkelos Genesis 40:16

The chief baker saw that he interpreted well. He said to Yoseif, I, too, dreamed. Behold there were three fancy baskets on my head.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 40:16

And, behold, three baskets of hot loaves were upon my head

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:16

And the chief baker, when he understood the interpretation of his companion's dream, seeing that he had interpreted well, began to speak with an impatient tongue, and said to Joseph, I also saw in my dream, and, behold, three baskets of fine cakes were upon my head.

וּבַסַּ֣ל הָֽעֶלְי֗וֹן מִכֹּ֛ל מַאֲכַ֥ל פַּרְעֹ֖ה מַעֲשֵׂ֣ה אֹפֶ֑ה וְהָע֗וֹף אֹכֵ֥ל אֹתָ֛ם מִן־הַסַּ֖ל מֵעַ֥ל רֹאשִֽׁי׃ 17 E In the uppermost basket were all kinds of food for Pharaoh that a baker prepares; and the birds were eating it out of the basket above my head.”
Radak explains that "בסל" means basket. Rav Hirsch notes the audacity of the bird eating food meant for Pharaoh. Steinsaltz describes the uppermost basket containing food for Pharaoh. The Midrash interprets Joseph's dreams for the chief baker and chief butler. The commentary discusses the significance of birds in the Torah. The Second Temple text talks about unforeseen events destroying one's plans. Onkelos and Targum Jonathan mention the bird eating from the basket on the speaker's head in Genesis 40:17.

Commentary

Radak explains that the meaning of "בסל" is clear. Rav Hirsch points out that the food in the basket was fitting for Pharaoh, but it is a bird that is eating it, showing audacity by taking it from the head. Steinsaltz describes how the uppermost basket contained food suitable for Pharaoh, which the birds were eating from above Joseph's head.

Radak on Genesis 40:17:1

ובסל, the meaning is clear.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:17:1

Die Speisen waren alle Pharaos würdig, und doch ist es nicht er, sondern ein Vogel, der sie isst, und zwar hat er die Keckheit, sie mir aus dem Korbe vom Kopfe weg zu essen. Das tut kein Vogel einem lebendigen Menschen; den fürchtet er.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:17

In the uppermost basket there was all manner of food for Pharaoh, baked products; and the birds were eating them from the basket above my head.

Midrash

In the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 88:6, Joseph interprets the dreams of the chief baker and chief butler in prison. The dream of the chief baker symbolizes the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel, with Rome being the fourth kingdom. Joseph predicts the chief baker's execution, which comes true on Pharaoh's birthday. The chief butler is restored to his position, fulfilling Joseph's interpretation of his dream as well.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:6

“The chief baker saw that he interpreted well, and he said to Joseph: I too, in my dream, behold, three wicker baskets were on my head” (Genesis 40:16). “And in the uppermost basket there was all manner of food for Pharaoh, baked products, and the birds were eating them from the basket above my head” (Genesis 40:17). “Joseph answered and said: This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days” (Genesis 40:18). “In three more days Pharaoh shall lift your head from upon you, and shall hang you on a tree, and the birds shall eat your flesh from upon you” (Genesis 40:19). “The chief baker saw…[and he said to Joseph: I too [af]…]” – Rav Ḥama said: They are four who began with af and were eradicated with wrath [af]. (The serpent, the chief baker, the congregation of Koraḥ, and Haman, as explained in Bereshit Rabba 19:2.) “Behold, three wicker baskets” – these are the first three kingdoms. (The first three of the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel and many other peoples: Babylon, Media, and Greece.) “And in the uppermost basket” – this is the fourth kingdom, (Rome.) which imposes taxes upon all the nations of the world. “The birds were eating them” – after they ate [the contents of] the uppermost one, they then ate [the contents of] the lower one. [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me bad tidings; (The baker’s dream alluded to the nations that would subjugate Israel. ) I, too, will give you bad tidings: “In three more days…”’ “It was on the third day, Pharaoh's birthday, he made a feast for all his servants and raised the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants” (Genesis 40:20). “It was on the third day” – the day of Pharaoh’s birthday celebration. “He restored the chief butler to his butlership, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:21). “And he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph interpreted for them” (Genesis 40:22). “He made a feast…he restored the chief butler…and…the chief baker” – it befell this one what was stated to him and to that one what was stated to him.

Quoting Commentary

The commentary explains that the mention of birds in three different places in the Torah alludes to the idea that pure birds are more numerous than impure birds, with the phrase "and the birds shall increase" referring to the increase of pure birds, while "and the birds ate them" and "this is the law of the beasts and the birds" specifically refer to the pure birds.

Kitzur Ba'al HaTurim on Genesis 1:22:1

And the birds: There are three [places this appears] according to the tradition: [here, where it states,] "and the birds shall increase;" "and the birds ate them" (Genesis 40:17); "this is the law of the beasts and the birds" (Leviticus 11:46). [This is] a hint to that which they said (Chullin 63b), "pure birds are more numerous than impure birds;" this is [what is alluded to by] "and the birds shall increase," meaning that they will be more, [but] which? "And the birds ate them," meaning those that are pure, and so [too], "this is the law, etc." refers to the pure ones.

Second Temple

The text discusses how unforeseen events can destroy one's plans and possessions completely, leaving nothing behind for the individual who hoped to keep them forever.

On Dreams, Book II 31:8

[212] And therefore the birds (Gen. 40:17), that is the unforeseen chance events which swoop upon us from without, will overrun like fire all the contents and set them ablaze and consume them with their devouring force, so that not a fragment is left to be enjoyed by the basket-bearer who had hoped to carry his inventions and projects for ever as a secure and permanent possession never to be taken from him.

Targum

In Genesis 40:17, both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan mention the top basket containing food for Pharaoh, with the bird eating from the basket on the speaker's head.

Onkelos Genesis 40:17

In the top basket there were various kinds of food for Pharaoh, consisting of baked goods, and the bird was eating them from the basket that was on my head.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:17

and in the upper basket of all delicious meat for Pharoh made by the confectioner and the birds ate them from the basket upon my head.

וַיַּ֤עַן יוֹסֵף֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר זֶ֖ה פִּתְרֹנ֑וֹ שְׁלֹ֙שֶׁת֙ הַסַּלִּ֔ים שְׁלֹ֥שֶׁת יָמִ֖ים הֵֽם׃ 18 E Joseph answered, “This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days.
Or HaChaim, Radak, and Steinsaltz discuss Joseph's interpretation of the dreams of the chief baker and chief butler. The chief baker's dream symbolized his impending execution, while the chief butler's dream indicated his restoration to his position. In the Targum, Joseph explains that the three baskets in the dream represent three days until the chief baker's death, with additional interpretations linking the baskets to the enslavements of the house of Israel in Egypt. Ultimately, Joseph's accurate interpretations of the dreams demonstrate his gift of prophecy.

Commentary

Or HaChaim explains that the formula "this is its meaning" is necessary for dreams to be interpreted accurately, as it allows the listener to tune into the interpretation. Radak points out that the baker's dream indicated his fate would be execution, as he did not see himself serving pastries to Pharaoh like the cup-bearer did. Joseph understood this to mean the baker would be beheaded and not given a proper burial. Steinsaltz highlights Joseph's interpretation that the three baskets in the dream represent three days.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:18:1

זה פתרונו, "this is its meaning." This expression is a necessary formula if the statement of "most of the dreams go after the mouth" which we referred to earlier is to become true. Once the mind has been tuned in to a certain "wavelength," something that is facilitated by the listener having been told "this is its interpretation," the words of the interpretation will superimpose themselves on the dream, i.e. its message. We shall have more to say about this when discussing Pharaoh's dream.

Radak on Genesis 40:18:1

ויען יוסף, he said that also what was forecast for the baker would occur in three days. The goods in the baskets are also of the type which are prepared in a hurry and which taste well only as long as they are fresh, and would not be served to Pharaoh when stale. The principal difference between the two dreams was that the baker did not see himself serving these pastries to Pharaoh, as opposed to the cup-bearer who featured so prominently in his dream. This detail convinced Joseph that the baker would not be restored to his position. Seeing that the alternative to a pardon was only execution, he said to the baker:

Radak on Genesis 40:18:2

ישא פרעה את ראשך מעליך, i.e. he will separate your head from your body with a sword. Subsequently, he would be hung, and Joseph understood that he would not be given a burial from the fact that the baker had dreamt of the birds of prey. These birds feed on flesh which has not been buried.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:18

Joseph answered and said: This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days.

Midrash

The chief baker and the chief butler both had dreams that Joseph interpreted. The chief baker's dream symbolized the nations that would subjugate Israel, with the uppermost basket representing Rome. Joseph predicted the chief baker's death, which came true three days later on Pharaoh's birthday. The chief butler was restored to his position, as Joseph had predicted.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:6

“The chief baker saw that he interpreted well, and he said to Joseph: I too, in my dream, behold, three wicker baskets were on my head” (Genesis 40:16). “And in the uppermost basket there was all manner of food for Pharaoh, baked products, and the birds were eating them from the basket above my head” (Genesis 40:17). “Joseph answered and said: This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days” (Genesis 40:18). “In three more days Pharaoh shall lift your head from upon you, and shall hang you on a tree, and the birds shall eat your flesh from upon you” (Genesis 40:19). “The chief baker saw…[and he said to Joseph: I too [af]…]” – Rav Ḥama said: They are four who began with af and were eradicated with wrath [af]. (The serpent, the chief baker, the congregation of Koraḥ, and Haman, as explained in Bereshit Rabba 19:2.) “Behold, three wicker baskets” – these are the first three kingdoms. (The first three of the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel and many other peoples: Babylon, Media, and Greece.) “And in the uppermost basket” – this is the fourth kingdom, (Rome.) which imposes taxes upon all the nations of the world. “The birds were eating them” – after they ate [the contents of] the uppermost one, they then ate [the contents of] the lower one. [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me bad tidings; (The baker’s dream alluded to the nations that would subjugate Israel. ) I, too, will give you bad tidings: “In three more days…”’ “It was on the third day, Pharaoh's birthday, he made a feast for all his servants and raised the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants” (Genesis 40:20). “It was on the third day” – the day of Pharaoh’s birthday celebration. “He restored the chief butler to his butlership, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:21). “And he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph interpreted for them” (Genesis 40:22). “He made a feast…he restored the chief butler…and…the chief baker” – it befell this one what was stated to him and to that one what was stated to him.

Targum

Yoseif interprets the three baskets in the dream as representing three days in Onkelos Genesis 40:18. In Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:18, Joseph explains that the three baskets symbolize three days until the chief baker's death. Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 40:18 adds that the three baskets represent the three enslavements of the house of Israel in Egypt, with the chief baker receiving punishment for his evil dream. Joseph eventually reveals the interpretation to the chief baker, stating that the three baskets represent three days.

Onkelos Genesis 40:18

Yoseif replied and said, This is its interpretation: The three baskets represent three days.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 40:18

And he said to him, The three baskets are the three heavy enslavements which are to happen to the house of Israel in the land of Mizriam in clay and in bricks, and in all work on the face of the field. It will be that Pharoh kin, of Mizriam will decree evil decrees against Israel and throw their children into the river. Neverthless Pharoh will perish, and his host be destroyed, but the sons of Israel will go forth redeemed with uncovered head. And thou, the chief of the bakers wilt receive punishment; for this dream which thou bast dreamed is evil. But the interpretation of the dream Joseph did not (at once) make known to him; but afterwards Joseph expounded it, When it pleased him. And Joseph said to him, This is the interpretation of the dream. The three baskets are three days.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:18

Joseph answered and said, This is its interpretation. The three baskets are the three enslavements with which the house of Israel are to be enslaved. But thou, the chief of the bakers, wilt receive an evil award, by the dream which thou hast dreamed. And Joseph explained it, as it was proper in his eyes and said to him: This is its interpretation to thyself. The three baskets are three days until thy death.

בְּע֣וֹד ׀ שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֗ים יִשָּׂ֨א פַרְעֹ֤ה אֶת־רֹֽאשְׁךָ֙ מֵֽעָלֶ֔יךָ וְתָלָ֥ה אוֹתְךָ֖ עַל־עֵ֑ץ וְאָכַ֥ל הָע֛וֹף אֶת־בְּשָׂרְךָ֖ מֵעָלֶֽיךָ׃ 19 E In three days Pharaoh will lift off your head (lift off your head Lit. “lift up your head.” Cf. at vv. 13, 20.) and impale you upon a pole; and the birds will pick off your flesh.”
Ibn Ezra interprets "be'od" as "before again" and "yissa" as "remove or raise" in Genesis 40:19, while Rashbam suggests the baker will be beheaded and Tur HaArokh sees Pharaoh raising the cupbearer's head as a promotion. The Midrash discusses conception, dreams, the tribe of Levi, peace, and rewards from God, emphasizing the importance of peace. Musar explains the separate counting of the tribe of Levi to prevent disaster in the desert. Ramban and Rabbeinu Bahya offer interpretations of "kol yotzei tzava" and "se'u" in relation to a census, while Siftei Chakhamim and Ibn Ezra discuss the meaning of "sh'oh" and "li-sheloshet yamim." Targum Jonathan predicts the fate of the baker in Genesis 40:19.

Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains that "be'od" means "before again" in Genesis 40:19, while "yissa" can mean "remove or raise" in reference to Pharaoh lifting the baker's head. Rashbam interprets the phrase literally, indicating the baker would be beheaded, while Tur HaArokh suggests that Pharaoh raising the cupbearer's head signifies a promotion, contrasting with the baker's fate of being hanged. Steinsaltz notes that part of the baker's dream will come true, with the birds eating his flesh instead of the contents of the baskets, indicating no restoration for the baker.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:19:1

WITHIN YET. Be’od (within yet) is to be translated before again. (Od means again. The bet prefixed to it means before. Thus be’od means before again (within yet), and the meaning of be’od sheloshet yamim (within yet three days) is before three days again pass. I.E. makes this point because Onkelos translates be’od, after yet. Thus Onkelos renders be’od sheloshet yamim at the end of three days.) Its meaning is: such a time (Three days.) will not again pass without this happening.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:19:2

SHALL PHARAOH LIFT UP THY HEAD FROM OFF THEE. He will lift it up from its place. It means he will remove it or raise it up on a pole. (The point is that the Hebrew word yissa may mean to remove or to raise up (Cherez).)

Rashbam on Genesis 40:19:1

ישא פרעה את ראשך, in this instance the words are to be taken literally, מעליך, as the Chief of the bakers would be beheaded.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:19

In three more days Pharaoh shall raise, remove, your head from upon you, and shall hang you on a tree. The birds shall eat your flesh from upon you. Part of the dream will indeed be fulfilled, as the birds will eat. However, instead of consuming the contents of the wicker baskets, they will consume your flesh. In this dream, unlike in the butler’s dream, the baker’s hoped-for restoration does not occur. Rather, the birds partake of the baked goods in place of Pharaoh.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:19:1

ישא פרעה את ראשך, “Pharaoh will raise your head.” The meaning of the word ישא when used in conjunction with the cupbearer is not the same as the same word used by the Torah (Joseph) in connection with the chief of the bakers. In the case of the former, it denotes a promotion, as when the Children of Israel were to be numbered in Exodus 30,12 כי תשא את ראש וגו'. Numbering people means each individual has a distinct value on its own, not only as a member of a larger number. In our context, the meaning of the word נשא as “raising” applies equally to “raising” someone’s head by hanging it from a gallows, instead of by promoting the owner of the head.

Midrash

The Midrash discusses various topics, including the process of conception and birth, interpreting dreams, the counting of the tribe of Levi, the importance of peace, and rewards given by God. The text also explores the significance of specific numbers and actions in relation to biblical figures such as Abraham, Jacob, Aaron, and Pinḥas. Peace is emphasized as a reward for righteous deeds and a crucial element in various aspects of life and interactions with God.

Bamidbar Rabbah 11:7

“May the Lord show favor to you, and grant you peace” (Numbers 6:26). “May the Lord show favor [yisa…panav] to you” – He will remove his anger from you. Yisa is nothing other than an expression of removal, just as it says: “Pharaoh will remove [yisa] your head [from upon you]” (Genesis 40:19). “Panav” – this is the countenance [panim] of rage, just as it says: “I will direct My countenance against that person…” (Leviticus 20:6). In other words, He will remove from you that countenance of rage that was fitting to come upon you. “May the Lord show [yisa] [favor [panav] to you]” – when you are standing and praying, as it is stated: “He said to him: See, I have granted [nasati] your request [fanekha]…” (Genesis 19:21). The matters may be inferred a fortiori: If I granted Lot’s request due to Abraham, My beloved, will I not show you favor due to you and due to your forefathers? That is what is written: “May the Lord show favor to you.” One verse says: “May the Lord show favor to you,” and one verse says: “Who will not show favor” (Deuteronomy 10:17). How can both of these verses be realized? When Israel performs the will of the Omnipresent, “May the Lord show favor to you.” When they do not perform the will of the Omnipresent, “Who will not show favor.” Another matter: “May the Lord show favor” – does the Holy One blessed be He show favor? Is it not already stated: “Who will not show favor” (Deuteronomy 10:17)? The Holy One blessed be He said: Just as they show Me favor, I show them favor. How so? I wrote in My Torah: “You will eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless” (Deuteronomy 8:10), but a person of Israel sits, he, his children, and the members of his household, and they do not have sufficient food to satisfy them, but they show Me favor and recite a blessing, and are exacting with themselves for the measure of an olive-bulk or an egg-bulk. (There is a disagreement among the Sages regarding whether one must say Grace after Meals after eating an olive-bulk of bread or an egg-bulk of bread (Berakhot 45a).) Therefore, “may the Lord show favor [to you].” Another matter: “May the Lord show…” – one verse says: “May…show,” and one verse says: “Who will not show” (Deuteronomy 10:17). Until the sentence is sealed, “may the Lord show…”; after the sentence is sealed, “who will not show favor.” Similarly, one verse says: “You hear prayer” (Psalms 65:3), and one verse says: “You have covered Yourself with a cloud [so that no prayer can pass]” (Lamentations 3:44). Until the sentence is sealed, “You hear prayer”; after the sentence is sealed, “You have covered Yourself with a cloud.” One verse says: “The Lord is near to all who call Him” (Psalms 145:18), and one verse says: “Why do You stand afar, Lord?” (Psalms 10:1). Until the sentence is sealed, “the Lord is near to all who call Him”; after the sentence is sealed, “why do You stand afar, Lord?” One verse says: “From the mouth of the Most High, evil and good do not emerge” (Lamentations 3:38), and one verse says: “The Lord was intent on harm” (Daniel 9:14). Until the sentence is sealed, “from the mouth of the Most High…”; after the sentence is sealed, “the Lord was intent…” One verse says: “Launder your heart of evil, Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 4:14), and one verse says: “For even if you launder with natron [and use much soap, your iniquity is stained before Me]” (Jeremiah 2:22). Until the sentence is sealed, “launder [your heart] of evil…”; after the sentence is sealed, “even if you launder…” One verse says: “Return, wayward sons” (Jeremiah 3:22), and one verse says: “If they repent, He does not repent” (Jeremiah 8:4). (Even if they repent, God will not retract the punishment.) This is before the sentence is sealed; that is after the sentence is sealed. One verse says: “Seek the Lord when He can be found” (Isaiah 55:6), and one verse says: “As I live, the utterance of the Lord God, I will not respond to you” (Ezekiel 20:31). This is before the sentence is sealed; that is after the sentence is sealed. One verse says: “I do not desire the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 33:11), and one verse says: “The Lord wished to put them to death.” (I Samuel 2:25). This is before the sentence is sealed; that is after the sentence is sealed. Another matter: “May the Lord show favor to you” – in this world; “who will not show favor” (Deuteronomy 10:17) – in the World to Come. (Repentance is possible in this world, not in the World to Come (Etz Yosef).) Another matter: “May the Lord show favor to you,” and one verse says: “Who will not show favor” (Deuteronomy 10:17). Rabbi Yosei ben Dostai says: How can these two verses be realized? It is, rather, “may the Lord show favor” – regarding a matter between you and Him; “who will not show favor” – regarding matters between you and your counterpart. Rabbi Akiva says: One verse says: “He will cleanse” (Exodus 34:7), and one verse says: “He will not cleanse” (Exodus 34:7). How is it possible to realize these two verses? It is, rather, regarding a matter between you and Him, “He will cleanse”; regarding matters between you and your counterpart, “He will not cleanse.” Ben Azai says: He cleanses for those who repent, but does not cleanse for those who do not repent. Another matter: “May the Lord show favor [panav]…” – He will turn His face [panav] toward you. One who greets his counterpart face-to-face is not comparable to one who greets him from the side. Rather, “May the Lord show favor [panav]” – He will turn His face to you, just as it says: “I will turn [ufaniti] to you and make [you] fruitful” (Leviticus 26:9). “And grant you peace” – peace upon your arrival, peace upon your departure, peace with every person. Rabbi Natan says: “And grant you peace” – peace is the peace of the kingdom of the house of David: “with abundant authority and everlasting peace [upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom]” (Isaiah 9:6). Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says: This is the peace of Torah, as it is stated: “The Lord gives strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace” (Psalms 29:11). Great is peace, as the Holy One blessed be He altered a matter due to peace, as it is stated: “Shall I indeed bear a child? But I have grown old” (Genesis 18:13). (This is what God told Abraham, despite the fact that Sarah had actually said: “And my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12), referring to Abraham.) Great is peace, as the angel that spoke with Manoaḥ altered due to peace. He had said to the woman: “Behold, you are barren and have not given birth” (Judges 13:3), but he did not relate that matter to Manoaḥ. (He refrained from saying this when Manoaḥ could hear, so that Manoaḥ would not blame his wife for their childlessness.) Great is peace, as the Name that is written in sanctity, the Holy One blessed be He said: Let it be erased on the water in order to instill peace between a man and his wife. (This is referring to the procedure of the sota.) Rabbi Elazar says: Great is peace, as the prophets implanted into the mouths of all the people only peace. (See Nahum 2:1, Hagai 2:9, Isaiah 57:19.) Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta said: Great is peace, as there is no vessel that contains blessing other than peace, as it is stated: “The Lord will bless His people with peace” (Psalms 29:11). In the Priestly Benediction as well, after all the blessings, He concluded them with peace: “And grant you peace,” saying that the blessings are of no avail unless accompanied by peace. Rabbi Elazar HaKappar says: Great is peace, as every prayer concludes only with peace, and the Priestly Benediction concludes only with peace. Great is peace, as it is given to the humble, as it is stated: “The humble inherit the earth and delight in abundant peace” (Psalms 37:11). Great is peace, as it is equivalent to everything. We recite: Who makes peace and creates everything. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar says: Even if Israel engages in idol worship but there is peace between them, the Holy One blessed be He, as it were, said: The accuser cannot touch them, as it is stated: “Ephraim is attached to idols, leave him” (Hosea 4:17). But when they were divided, what is stated in their regard? “Their heart is divided; now they will be punished” (Hosea 10:2). That is, great is peace and dispute is despised. Great is peace, as even in time of war, peace is necessary, as it is stated: “When you approach a city [to wage war against it, you shall call to it for peace]” (Deuteronomy 20:10). And it says: “I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemot [to Siḥon, king of Ḥeshbon, with words of peace]” (Deuteronomy 2:26). And it says: “Restore them peacefully” (Judges 11:13). Great is peace, as even the dead require peace, as it is stated: “You will come to your fathers in peace” (Genesis 15:15). And it says: “You will die in peace” (Jeremiah 34:5). Great is peace, as it is provided for penitents, as it is stated: “Creator of the expression of the lips: Peace, peace [for the far and for the near]” (Isaiah 57:19). Rabbi Meir says: Great is peace, as the Holy One blessed be He did not create an attribute more beautiful than peace, which was given to the righteous, as when he passes from the world, three groups of ministering angels greet him with peace. The first says: “He will come in peace” (Isaiah 57:2). The second says: “They will rest on their resting places” (Isaiah 57:2). The third says: “One who walks with integrity” (Isaiah 57:2). It is not sufficient for the righteous that their death is in the hands of Glory, as it is stated: “The glory of the Lord will gather you” (Isaiah 58:8), but they laud them before them with peace: “He will come in peace.” Great is peace, as the Holy One blessed be He did not create an attribute more beautiful than peace, and He withheld it from the wicked, as when they pass from the world, three groups of angels of destruction greet them. The first says: “There is no peace” (Isaiah 48:22). The second says: “The Lord says to the wicked” (Isaiah 48:22). The third says: “You will lie in suffering” (Isaiah 50:11). It is not sufficient for the wicked that their death is at the hand of destroyers, as it is stated: “His soul approaches perdition and his life to the killers” (Job 33:22); and it says: “He will be driven from light to darkness” (Job 18:18); and it says: “Let their way be dark and slippery, with an angel of the Lord pursuing them” (Psalms 35:6); but they vex them and say to them: “There is no peace,” “you will lie in suffering.” Great is peace, as it is given as reward for Torah and mitzvot, as it is stated: “I will grant peace in the land” (Leviticus 26:6). Great is peace, as it is given to lovers of Torah, as it is stated: “Great peace for lovers of Your Torah” (Psalms 119:165). Great is peace, as it is given to those who study Torah, as it is stated: “All your children will be students of the Lord, and the peace of your children will be abundant” (Isaiah 54:13). Great is peace, as it is given to those who perform acts of charity [tzedaka], as it is stated: “The act of righteousness [hatzedaka] will be peace” (Isaiah 32:17). Great is peace, as the name of the Omnipresent is called peace, as it is stated: “He called it: The Lord is peace” (Judges 6:24). Great is peace, as those who reside On High require peace, as it is stated: “He makes peace in His heights” (Job 25:2). The matters can be inferred a fortiori; if in a place where there is no enmity and hatred they require peace, all the more so for a place where all these attributes exist. Rabbi Shimon would say: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is not like the attribute of the Holy One blessed be He. A king of flesh and blood, when he goes out to war he goes with multitudes and legions, but when he goes to make peace, he goes alone. But the attribute of the Holy One blessed be He is not so. When He goes to make peace, He emerges with multitudes and legions, as it is stated: “He makes peace in His heights” (Job 25:2), and then it is written: “Is there a number to His troops?” (Job 25:3). And it says: “The chariots of God are myriads, thousands upon thousands of companies. My Lord is among them, at Sinai, in holiness” (Psalms 68:18). And it says: “Thousands upon thousands serve Him, and myriads upon myriads…” (Daniel 7:10). But when He goes out to war, He goes alone, as it is stated: “The Lord is a Man of war…” (Exodus 15:3) – He wages war with His name and does not require assistance. And it says: “I have trodden a winepress alone…” (Isaiah 63:3). You find that when the Holy One blessed be He exacted retribution from the generation of the Flood, He exacted retribution only alone, as it is stated: “Behold, I am bringing the Flood, water….” (Genesis 6:17). Likewise, from the people of Sodom, He exacted retribution only alone: “The Lord rained [brimstone and fire] upon Sodom and [upon Gomorrah from the Lord from the heavens]” (Genesis 19:24). Likewise when He exacted retribution from the Egyptians, as it is stated: “The Lord smote every firstborn…” (Exodus 12:29). Likewise, He exacted retribution alone from the Emorites, as it is stated: “And the Lord cast large stones upon them” (Joshua 10:11). Likewise, from Sennacherib, He exacted retribution alone, as it is stated: “The angel of the Lord emerged and smote in the camp…” (II Kings 19:35). One verse says: “Is there a number to His troops?” (Job 25:3), and one verse says: “Thousands upon thousands serve Him” (Daniel 7:10). When Israel were exiled, “Thousands upon thousands serve Him”; as it were, the entourage On High was diminished. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai: “Thousands upon thousands serve Him” – one troop; how many troops are they? “Is there a number to his troops?” One verse says: “He counts a number for the stars, and calls them all by names” (Psalms 147:4), and one verse says: “Who brings out their host by number, calling all of them by name” (Isaiah 40:26). (One verse implies that each one is called by a separate name, and one verse implies that they are all called by one name.) When the Holy One blessed be He calls them, He calls all their names simultaneously and they respond, something that is impossible for flesh and blood, to call two names simultaneously. Likewise it says: “God spoke all these matters, saying” (Exodus 20:1). It teaches that He said all of the Ten Commandments in one utterance. And it says: “God spoke one; these are two that I heard. Might belongs to God” (Psalms 62:12). And it says: “Is My word not like fire, the utterance of the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters the rock?” (Jeremiah 23:29). (See Shabbat 88b.) Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai: What is “and calls them all by names”? There is no name repeated; the name that he is called now is not the name that he is called later. Likewise it says: “Why do you ask my name? It is hidden” (Judges 13:18). I do not know to what name I will be switched. One verse says: “David gave to Ornan for the place shekels of gold, six hundred by weight” (I Chronicles 21:25), and one verse says: “For silver, fifty shekels” (II Samuel 24:24). How can both of these verses be realized? It was the place of the threshing floor for six hundred [shekels of gold], the place of the altar for fifty [shekels of silver]. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai: There were twelve tribes, and David took fifty shekels from each and every tribe, the result being six hundred shekels from all the tribes. (See Zevaḥim 116b, where the Gemara explains that according to this opinion David collected from each tribe an amount of silver worth fifty shekels of gold, and paid to Ornan an amount of silver worth six hundred shekels of gold.) Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua says: The threshing floor for six hundred, but “the cattle for the burnt offering, the threshing tools, and the implements of the cattle for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22), were for “fifty shekels of silver.” One verse says: “Solomon had four thousand stables for horses” (II Chronicles 9:25), and one verse says: “Solomon had forty thousand horses’ stables” (I Kings 5:6). How can both of these verses be realized? There were four thousand large stables, with forty thousand horses. One verse says: “It would hold three thousand bat that it contained” (II Chronicles 4:5), and one verse says: “It would hold two thousand bat” (I Kings 7:26). How can both of these verses be realized? It was two thousand for liquid and three thousand for dry goods. From here they said: Two kor of liquid that are three kor of dry goods. (The term bat, which measured volume, represented different volumes depending on whether the item being measured was liquid or solid. The same was true for the kor. Two kor of liquid took up the same amount of space as three kor of dry goods.) Beloved is peace, as for all the deeds and meritorious acts performed by Abraham our patriarch, He gave only peace as his reward, as it is stated: “You will come to your fathers in peace” (Genesis 15:15). Likewise, you find regarding Jacob our patriarch, who requested peace from the Omnipresent, as it is stated: “And I will return [to my father’s house] in peace” (Genesis 28:21). Likewise you find regarding Aaron, who was praised before the Omnipresent only with peace, as it is stated: “My covenant was with him, life and peace” (Malachi 2:5). Likewise you find regarding Pinḥas that He gave peace as his reward, as it is stated: “Behold, I am granting him My covenant of peace” (Numbers 25:12). Likewise, you find that the Torah was analogized only to peace, as it is stated: “And all its paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17). Likewise, you find that the Holy One blessed be He consoles Jerusalem only with peace, as it is stated: “My people will reside in an abode of peace” (Isaiah 32:18). Likewise, He exacted retribution from Amon and Moav only by withholding peace from them, as it is stated: “You shall not seek their peace or their welfare…” (Deuteronomy 23:7). Likewise, Israel is blessed each day with peace, as it is stated: “And grant you peace.”

Bamidbar Rabbah 1:11

“But the Levites by the tribe of their fathers were not counted among them” (Numbers 1:47). “But the Levites by the tribe of their fathers” – the verse comes to say: Because the Holy One blessed be He did not say to Moses initially that he should count the tribe of Levi, as you find that he did not enumerate a prince for the tribe of Levi when he enumerated the princes of the tribes, Moses too did not count it, as Moses said: Had it been the will of the Holy One blessed be He that I count them, He would have told me. That is why it is stated: “But the Levites by the tribe of their fathers were not counted among them,” as he did not wish to count them. Immediately, Moses was standing and wondering why the Holy One blessed be He did not command him to count his tribe, and he did not know whether he would count them or not. The Holy One blessed be He saw that he was wondering; He immediately explained to him why he did not command him to count. That is what is written: “The Lord spoke.… However, the tribe of Levi you shall not count…” (Numbers 1:48–49). Rabbi Pinḥas bar Idi said: What is written at the beginning of the book? “Take a census [se’u et rosh] of the entire congregation of the children of Israel” (Numbers 1:2). It is not stated, “Elevate the head,” “promote the head,” but rather se’u et rosh, (Se’u et rosh literally means “lift up the head.”) like a person who says to the executioner: Remove the head of so-and-so. He thereby made an allusion. Why se’u et rosh? If they merit they will ascend to greatness, just as it says: “Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your position” (Genesis 40:13). If they do not merit, they will all die, just as it says: “Pharaoh will lift up your head from upon you, and hang you on a tree” (Genesis 40:19). It was revealed before the Holy One blessed be He that they would all die in the wilderness, and their heads will be removed; therefore, the Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: “However, the tribe of Levi [you shall not count…] among the children of Israel” (Numbers 1:49). Among the children of Israel you shall not count them, but by themselves, count them. Why? The Holy One blessed be He said: If the tribe of Levi is counted with Israel and intermingles with them, the angel of death will come to kill Israel and the decree will be issued against them that they will not enter the land, but rather, they will die in the wilderness, as it is stated: “In this wilderness, your carcasses will fall, and all those of you who were counted in any of your censuses” (Numbers 14:29), and he will find the tribe of Levi intermingled with them and they will intermingle with Israel to die. That is why he did not count them with Israel, but rather separated them in the tally. And that is also why the language that is written regarding Israel, se’u et rosh, was not stated in their regard, but rather: “Count [pekod] the children of Levi” (Numbers 3:15).

Bereshit Rabbah 88:6

“The chief baker saw that he interpreted well, and he said to Joseph: I too, in my dream, behold, three wicker baskets were on my head” (Genesis 40:16). “And in the uppermost basket there was all manner of food for Pharaoh, baked products, and the birds were eating them from the basket above my head” (Genesis 40:17). “Joseph answered and said: This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days” (Genesis 40:18). “In three more days Pharaoh shall lift your head from upon you, and shall hang you on a tree, and the birds shall eat your flesh from upon you” (Genesis 40:19). “The chief baker saw…[and he said to Joseph: I too [af]…]” – Rav Ḥama said: They are four who began with af and were eradicated with wrath [af]. (The serpent, the chief baker, the congregation of Koraḥ, and Haman, as explained in Bereshit Rabba 19:2.) “Behold, three wicker baskets” – these are the first three kingdoms. (The first three of the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel and many other peoples: Babylon, Media, and Greece.) “And in the uppermost basket” – this is the fourth kingdom, (Rome.) which imposes taxes upon all the nations of the world. “The birds were eating them” – after they ate [the contents of] the uppermost one, they then ate [the contents of] the lower one. [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me bad tidings; (The baker’s dream alluded to the nations that would subjugate Israel. ) I, too, will give you bad tidings: “In three more days…”’ “It was on the third day, Pharaoh's birthday, he made a feast for all his servants and raised the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants” (Genesis 40:20). “It was on the third day” – the day of Pharaoh’s birthday celebration. “He restored the chief butler to his butlership, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:21). “And he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph interpreted for them” (Genesis 40:22). “He made a feast…he restored the chief butler…and…the chief baker” – it befell this one what was stated to him and to that one what was stated to him.

Vayikra Rabbah 14:2

Another matter, “when a woman conceives” – that is what is written: “I will project [esa] my opinion afar, and I will ascribe righteousness to my Maker” (Job 36:3). Rabbi Meir said: This term is employed in two senses; in the sense of song, and in the sense of speech. In the sense of song, regarding the praise of the righteous, (As in the verse: “Take up [se’u] the melody and sound the timbrel” (Psalms 81:3). ) and in the sense of speech, regarding the downfall of the wicked. (As in the verse: “In another three days Pharaoh shall lift [yisa] your head from upon you” (Genesis 40:19). ) “Afar’ is stated regarding the distant who drew near. “I will project my opinion afar, and I will ascribe righteousness to my Maker.” Rabbi Natan said: One contemplates the name of Abraham our patriarch, the one who came from afar. That is what is written: “Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place from afar” (Genesis 22:4). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: We contemplate the name of the Holy One blessed be He, as we were distant and He drew us near to Him. Rabbi Ḥagai said: Matters that are distant from us a journey of five hundred years, as people are asleep on their beds, and the Holy One blessed be He causes winds to blow, clouds to rise, rains to fall, and plants to grow, and he dries them and sets a table before each and every one. Rabbi Shmuel bar Idi said in the name of Rav Aḥa: This verse, if Elihu said it on his own, [he is entitled to] praise. If he said it inspired by the Divine Spirit, [he is entitled to] the praise of praises. Rabbi Levi said three things, [the first of which is]: The way of the world is that if a person deposits a purse of silver in private and [the other individual] returns a litra of gold in public, does he not feel a debt of gratitude toward him? So it is with the Holy One blessed be He, people deposit a putrid drop in private and the Holy One blessed be He returns completed, high quality human beings in public. (The midrash is describing the process of conception and birth. ) Is this not worthy of praise? That is, “I will project my opinion afar, and I will ascribe righteousness to my Maker.” Rabbi Levi said another thing: The way of the world is that when a person is incarcerated in prison, no one pays attention to him. If one would come and kindle a lamp for him there, would [the prisoner] not feel a debt of gratitude toward him? So it is with the Holy One blessed be He; the fetus is situated in his mother’s womb and the Holy One blessed be He kindles a lamp for him. That is what Job said: “When His lamp would shine over my head” (Job 29:3). Is this not praise? That is: “And I will ascribe righteousness to my Maker.” Rabbi Levi said another thing: The way of the world is that when a person is incarcerated in prison, no one pays attention to him. If one would come and free him, and take him out of there, would [the prisoner] not feel a debt of gratitude toward him? So, the fetus is situated in his mother’s womb and the Holy One blessed be He comes and frees him and takes him out of there.

Musar

The Midrash explains that the tribe of Levi was counted separately from the other tribes in order to prevent all of Israel from dying in the desert due to their lack of merit. If the Levites had been counted together with the other tribes, the angel of death would have had authority to kill all of Israel, leading to the decree that they could not enter the Holy Land. Therefore, God instructed Moses to count the Levites separately, using different wording to emphasize their unique status and avoid this catastrophe.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Bamidbar, Nasso, Beha'alotcha, Torah Ohr, Bamidbar 38

Another difficulty is the subsequent statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 1,11, on the verse "but do not count the tribe of Levi, etc." (1,49), that Rabbi Pinchas ben Idi said: "when it says at the beginning of the Book, שאו את ראש, it pointedly does not say גדל את ראש, "elevate the head." The expression "שאו" is similar to the judge telling the executioner to behead the convicted prisoner. By the use of this word, G–d hinted that Israel would have to qualify for greatness only through the accumulation of merits. In that case the meaning of שאו, would be similar to Genesis 40, 12, "within three days Pharaoh will lift your head, (ישא) and restore you to your former position." Should Israel fail to merit greatness however, they would all die, as did the chief of the bakers in Genesis 40,19, who was told by Joseph that Pharaoh would ישא ראשך מעליך "will lift your head off you, and hang you on a pole." It had been clear to G–d at that time, that all the people about to be counted would die in the desert. G–d therefore told Moses to count the Levites not with the Israelites, but separately. The Levites had to be counted separately. If the tribe of Levi had been counted together with the other tribes the angel of death would have had authority to kill all Israel including them, and the decree that Israel could not enter the Holy Land would have become operative, since the Torah says in Numbers 14,29: "In this desert your carcasses will fall, and all of you who have been numbered in accordance with their respective number." G–d separated the count of the Levites in order to head off this catastrophe. This is also why the Torah does not even employ the same wording when referring to the counting of the Levites, but instead of שאן את ראש, we have פקוד את בני לוי in 3,15. So far that Midrash

Quoting Commentary

Ramban explains that the phrase "kol yotzei tzava" refers to those able to assemble in the congregation, not just soldiers, based on various biblical verses. Rabbeinu Bahya suggests that the word "se'u" indicating a census can have positive or negative connotations, depending on the people's behavior. Siftei Chakhamim clarifies that the term "sh'oh" in various contexts can mean "take" in a census or "lift" in a more negative sense. Ibn Ezra notes that "li-sheloshet yamim" means "for the third day," not necessarily adding an extra day, as seen in other biblical examples. Chizkuni supports this interpretation, citing similar language usage in other verses.

Chizkuni, Exodus 19:15:2

לשלשת ימים, according to the plain meaning of these words the meaning is: “in anticipation of the third day.” According to the plain meaning, Moses did not add an additional day of preparation (sanctification) as suggested by some scholars. Other examples of a similar formulation in the Bible as here are Genesis 42,17: ויאסוף אותם אל משמר שלשת ימים, “Joseph put them in jail for three days.” Or, in the verse following: ויאמר אליהם יוסף ביום השלישי, “Joseph said to them on the third day;” or Genesis 40,19: בעוד שלשת ימים, “within another three days;” and in the verse following: ויהי ביום השלישי, “it was on the third day;” or Exodus 19,16: ויהי ביום השלישי, “it was on the third day;” there are numerous other examples.

Ibn Ezra on Exodus; Perush HaArokh 19:15:1

BE READY AGAINST THE THIRD DAY. The meaning of li-sheloshet yamim is, for the third day. According to the plain meaning of the text, Moses did not add a day by himself. (Verse 11 tells us that God told Moses, ve-hayu nekhonim la-yom ha-shelishi (and be ready against the third day). However, our verse reports that Moses told Israel, heyu nekhonim li-sheloshet yamim (be ready against the third day). According to the Rabbinic sage Rabbi Jose, Moses told Israel be ready for three days (which is the literal meaning of heyu nekhonim li-sheloshet yamim). That is, God will reveal himself to you on the fourth day. Moses thus added another day on his own. See Sabbath 87a.) I will bring two faithful witnesses, (That there is no difference between li-sheloshet ha-yamim and la-yom ha-shelishi.) both of which are found in this book. Now it is written, And he put them all together into ward three days (sheloset yamim) (Gen. 42:17). It is then written, And Joseph said unto them the third day (yom ha-shelishi) (Gen. 42:18). Scripture also states, within yet three days (sheloshet yamim) shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee (Gen. 40:19). It is then written, And it came to pass the third day (ba-yom ha-shelishi) (Gen. 40:20). (We thus see that Scripture interchanges sheloshet yamim and yom ha-shelishi. Hence they must have one meaning.) Similarly here, heyu nekhnim li-sheloshet yamim [means be ready for the third day].

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 1:2:1

שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל, “take a census of the entire assembly of the Jewish people, etc.” The Jewish people do not experience an ascent of a spiritual kind unless they perform the laws of the Torah. When the counting of the Jewish people is described here by the word שאו instead of say, פקדו, this indicates that being counted at the command of G’d is a spiritual ascent. The word שאו combines within it two meanings, one the direct opposite of the other. It may mean that one’s head is being elevated in the sense of someone being promoted; on the other hand, the same word is also employed as depicting that someone is being beheaded, such as in the case of the chief baker of Pharaoh’s court whose execution Joseph foretold in Genesis 40,19. We find a similar approach in Tanchuma Bamidbar 8 where the author paraphrases our verse as G’d saying: “I have not been as fond of any nation as I am of you, therefore I have elevated you to be the head just as I am the ‘head’ of all phenomena in this world.” We know the latter from Chronicles I 19,11: “Yours, Lord, are greatness, might, splendour, triumph, and majesty-yes all that is in heaven and earth; to You, Lord, belong kingship and preeminence over all.” G’d says that because of your relationship to Me, I have made you vis-a-vis the nations something similar to My position vis-a-vis all the creatures in the universe.” This is what the psalmist spoke about in Psalms 148,15: וירם קרן לעמו, “He has exalted the horn of His people.” When Moses speaks of G’d making the Jewish people supreme over all the nations of the earth, he has the same thought in mind. When the meaning of the word שאו is “to decapitate,” this is what we read in Genesis 40,19. The Torah deliberately uses a word which may have either of these two meanings in order to warn the people that if they deserve it the census will be beneficial for them; if not, it may have fatal consequences.

Ramban on Numbers 1:3:1

FROM TWENTY YEARS OLD AND UPWARD, ‘KOL YOTZEI TZAVA’ (ALL THAT ARE ABLE TO GO FORTH TO THE HOST) IN ISRAEL. “This tells us that no one under the age of twenty goes forth to the host. ‘Se’u eth rosh’ [literally: ‘take the head’ and generally translated: take ye the sum] of all the congregation of Israel. (Verse 2.) This is as one says to an executioner: ‘take that man’s head’.” (The meaning of this text which stems from Bamidbar Rabbah 1:9 will be explained further on by Ramban. The final quote is not found in our texts of Rashi, although Ramban quotes it from his commentary. The reason for its disappearance from all other texts of Rashi may well be its sharpness of expression which on first sight baffles the student. Ramban, however, recognizing that it is a genuine text which stems from Midrash Rabbah proceeds to explain it appropriately.) This is Rashi’s language. Perhaps the reason for this [law that a male under twenty years old was not liable to military service] is because he is not strong enough for war under the age of twenty, as the Rabbis have said: (Aboth 5:21.) “Twenty is the age for pursuit.” (The Hebrew is lirdof, which is variously interpreted as: “for seeking a livelihood:” or “for seeking one’s life-pursuit.” Ramban here understands it in its literal sense — “to pursue [the enemy in battle].”) But it may be that the meaning of the phrase kol yotzei tzava is “all who go forth to be assembled in the congregation,” because the young men do not take part in such an assembly of the people, and every gathering of the people is called tzava, as in ‘[litzvo] tzava’ (to be counted among the host) for the work of the Tent of Meeting; (Further, 8:24.) he shall return from the ‘tz’va’ of the work; (Ibid., Verse 25.) with the mirrors of the ‘tzov’oth’ that ‘tzav’u’ (women that congregated together); (Exodus 38:8.) and similarly ‘tz’va’ (the host of) heaven; (Deuteronomy 4:19.) and all ‘tz’va’am’ (their host) I commanded. (Isaiah 45:12.) Therefore Scripture explains when speaking of men of war: ‘mi’tz’va’ (from the host of) the war; (Further, 31:14.) and the number of them reckoned ‘bi’tz’va’ (by the host) for the war. (I Chronicles 7: 40.) Scripture states here all that go forth to the host, similar to what it says, all that went out of the gate of the city. (Genesis 34: 24. Ramban’s meaning is that the intention of the verses is: “all that are able to go,” even if they have not actually gone.) It states, ye shall number them by their ‘hosts’ [in the plural], because they consisted of many hosts, since each and every tribe was a great host. But as for Rashi’s expression when he wrote — “This is as one says to an executioner: ‘take that man’s head’” — it is not clear to me why the Sages should interpret the verse in this derogatory manner. If it is because [the people counted here] died in the desert [therefore He said, take the head …] whereas in the case of the tribe of Levi He said Number the children of Levi, (Further, 3: 15.) since they were not included in the decree [that they die in the desert] — [this cannot be so], for in the second census [taken] of those who were to come into the Land it also uses the same [expression], take the head of all the congregation of the children of Israel! (Ibid., 26:2.) But in the Agadah (homiletic exposition) of Vayikra Rabbah (I did not find it there. But a similar exposition is found in Bamidbar Rabbah 1:7. See my Hebrew commentary p. 196, Note 26 for the full text.) the Rabbis explain it as an expression of praise [for the people]: “The term se’u always means ‘greatness’, as it is written, Pharaoh ‘yisa’ (shall lift up) thy head, and restore thee unto thy office. (Genesis 40:13.) Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel: ‘I have given you an exaltation of the head, and I have likened you to Myself. Just as I am exalted above all inhabitants of the world, as it is said, Thine is the kingdom, O Eternal, and Thou art exalted as head above all, (I Chronicles 29:11.) so to you also I have given an elevation of the head, as it is said, Lift up the head of all the congregation of the children of Israel, thus fulfilling that which is said, And He hath lifted up a horn for His people, (Psalms 148:14.) and similarly it is said, and the Eternal thy G-d will set thee on high above all the nations of the earth. ' ” (Deuteronomy 28:1.) I have found further in Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah that the Sages have stated: (Bamidbar Rabbah 1:9.) “Said Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Idi: What is [the meaning of] that which is written at the beginning of this book, ‘se’u eth rosh’ (take the head)? It does not say: ‘lift up the head,’ ‘elevate the head,’ but it says se’u eth rosh, like a man who says to an executioner: ‘take this man’s head’. Here He gave a hint to Moses, se’u eth rosh, meaning that if the people are worthy they will become exalted, just as it is written, Pharaoh ‘yisa’ (shall lift up) thy head, and restore thee unto thy office; (Genesis 40:13.) but if they are not worthy, they will all die, just as it is written, Pharaoh ‘yisa’ (shall lift up) thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree. ” (Genesis 40:19.) Thus the expression [se’u eth rosh which, as Rashi explained, is used in connection with execution] is to be interpreted according to the intention [of the speaker] — in a good way for those who are good. (See Psalms 125:4: Do good, O Eternal, unto the good. Thus Pharaoh said unto the chief executioner: “Take the chief butler and lift up his head and restore him to his office.” But as for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Eternal will lead them away with the workers of iniquity (ibid., Verse 5). Thus in the case of the chief baker, the same expression signified his downfall. In short, the expression of the Midrash which Rashi quoted can be interpreted either for bad or for good. And since it is an expression of elevation etc.) And since it is [also] an expression of elevation, and it is used [here] in the first census, He used the same expression in the second census. (Ibid., 26:2.)

Siftei Chakhamim, Exodus 30:12:1

The meaning of “taking,” as Onkelos translates. . . כי תשא is like, “Do not accept ( תשא ) a false report” (Shemos 23:1). It does not mean “lift,” as in: “Pharaoh will lift off your head ( ישא את ראשך ) from you” (Bereishis 40:19). In Bamidbar 1:2, it says about B’nei Yisrael: שאו את ראש . [There, it indeed connotes, “Lift off their heads,”] because Hashem foresaw that He would decree against them: “In this desert they shall perish” (ibid 14:35). However, pertaining to the Levites it is written פקד את בני לוי (ibid 3:15), since they were not subjected to this decree.

Siftei Chakhamim, Numbers 31:26:1

Make an accounting. [Thusשא] means קבל ["take" or "receive"] as in לא תשא שמע שוא ["Do not receive a false report"] (Shemos 23:1). But it is not in the sense of "raising" as in ישא פרעה את ראשך ["Pharoh will lift off your head"] (Bereishis 40:19). The meaning of ראש [lit. "head"] is an accounting of the total, as in כי תשא את ראש ["when you take a census"] (Shemos 30:12). A total is termed ראש ["head"] because it is the tradition of those who are accounting takers to write the total at the head [i.e. top] of a tally sheet.

Targum

In three days, Pharaoh will decapitate you and hang your body on a tree, where birds will eat your flesh. (Onkelos Genesis 40:19; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:19)

Onkelos Genesis 40:19

In another [At the end of] three days, Pharaoh will lift [remove] your head from off you. He will hang you on a tree, and the bird will eat your flesh from off you.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:19

At the end of three days, Pharoh with the sword will take away thy head from thy body, and will hang thee upon a gibbet, and the birds will cut thy flesh from thee.

וַיְהִ֣י ׀ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֗י י֚וֹם הֻלֶּ֣דֶת אֶת־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וַיַּ֥עַשׂ מִשְׁתֶּ֖ה לְכׇל־עֲבָדָ֑יו וַיִּשָּׂ֞א אֶת־רֹ֣אשׁ ׀ שַׂ֣ר הַמַּשְׁקִ֗ים וְאֶת־רֹ֛אשׁ שַׂ֥ר הָאֹפִ֖ים בְּת֥וֹךְ עֲבָדָֽיו׃ 20 E On the third day—his birthday—Pharaoh made a banquet for all his officials, and he singled out (singled out Lit. “lifted the head of.” Cf. at vv. 13, 19.) his chief cupbearer and his chief baker from among his officials.
Pharaoh celebrated his birthday by judging his servants, restoring the Chief of the butlers and hanging the Chief of the bakers, highlighting the importance of seeking favor with rulers to avoid punishment. Joseph accurately predicts the fate of the chief baker and chief butler through dream interpretations, as seen in the outcome on Pharaoh's birthday. The reconciliation between the King of Egypt and the cup-bearer on Pharaoh's birthday symbolizes the body's desires on the day of birth, not eternal light. The Talmud specifically identifies the king's birthday as being on the third day, associated with Pharaoh's birthday in Genesis 40:20.

Commentary

Pharaoh celebrated his birthday with a feast, during which he acquitted the Chief of the butlers and hung the Chief of the bakers, illustrating the importance of seeking favor with rulers to avoid punishment. The day of Pharaoh's birthday was significant as he made judgments on his servants, with the Chief of the butlers being restored and the Chief of the bakers being found guilty. This event serves as a reminder of the consequences of one's actions and the need to maintain favor with those in power.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:20:1

BIRTHDAY. Hulledet (birth) is an infinitive in the hofal.

JPS 1985 Footnotes, Genesis 40:3

Lit. “lifted the head of.”

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:20:1

יום הולדת את פרעה, “Pharaoh’s’ birthday.” On that day a son was born for the king who was also named Pharaoh. It was a custom to make a feast on the anniversary of one’s birth.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:20:2

וישא את ראש שר המשקים ואת ראש שר האופים בתוך עבדיו, “and he counted the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers amongst his servants.” The Torah enumerates the names of these two courtiers as amongst the servants of the King. The expression וישא is related to the expression כי תשא in Exodus 30,12 where it means “you will count.” Seeing that the Torah mentions these courtiers as included in the courtiers of Pharaoh, the Torah wanted to inform us about their respective fates telling us that Pharaoh took the opportunity of that feast to publicise the final disposition of the cases which had been pending against both the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers. The former was acquitted and restored to his position whereas the latter was found guilty and hung.

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 40:20:3-4

This apparently historically insignificant event contains an important lesson for all of us. It teaches that man must constantly be alert to the fact that all his activities are apt to be judged in light of the system of reward and punishment which the fate of mankind both collectively and individually is based on, and that everyone will have to render an account of his activities as well as of the omissions he has been guilty of before the One Who created this universe The thrust of this paragraph is to tell us that it is proper to seek out the goodwill of the ruler and to be careful not to incur his wrath. This is also why Solomon warns in Proverbs 16,14 חמת מלך מלאכי מות, “the king’s wrath is a messenger of death,” and in 19,12 he says נהם ככפיר זעף מלך וכטל על עשב רצונו, “the rage of a king is like the roaring of a lion; but his favour like dew on the grass.” We also find a verse in Proverbs 16,15 באור פני מלך חיים ורצונו כעב מלקוש, “in the light of the king’s face there is life; his favour is like a cloud in the spring rain.” Solomon compared the king’s goodwill to the dew which is so essential in making things grow, whereas anger and wrath are harbingers of destruction. In all his comments Solomon wants us to apply the logic that if falling out of favor of a terrestrial king is a disaster of no small dimensions, how much more must we be on our guard so that we will not fall out of favor in the eyes of the Lord our G’d. This is why good sense alone should suffice to cause us to conduct ourselves in a manner which is bound to please the Lord. The prophet Amos ( 3,8) phrases it thus: “when the lion roars, who will not become afraid?” On the other hand, Hoseah 14,6 assures us that “ I will be like dew for Israel, it will blossom forth like a lily and strike roots like (the poplar in) Lebanon.”

Radak on Genesis 40:20:1

יום הולדת את פרעה, some commentators say that the day referred to was the anniversary of the day Pharaoh had been born, and that he had been in the habit of celebrating this day annually with a banquet. As to the meaning of the word את, which seems difficult to fit into this explanation, one could cite other examples where the word את appears without apparent need, such as Numbers 26,55 יחלק את הארץ, or in Ezekiel 16,4 ביום הולדת אותך “on the day you were born,” where הולדך would have been perfectly adequate.

Rashi on Genesis 40:20:1

יום הלדת את פרעה HIS (PHARAOH’S) BIRTHDAY. It is called (Avodah Zarah 10a) “The birthday festival”. The causative passive form (הלדת) is used because the infant is born only by the assistance of others, for the midwife delivers the woman. On this account a midwife is called מילדת a Piel form “one who brings to birth”. This passive form occurs similarly (Ezekiel 16:4) “And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born (הולדת אתך)”. A similar passive form is used in (Leviticus 13:55) “after the plague (הכבס) is washed away”, because the washing is done by others).

Rashi on Genesis 40:20:2

‘וישא את ראש וגו means he counted them amongst his other servants — because he counted those who might serve him at his feast — and he remembered these amongst them. The phrase is similar to (Numbers 1.2) “שא את ראש” which signifies counting.

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:20:1

יום הולדת את פרעה, wörtlich: der Tag, an welchem die Mutter dazu gebracht wurde, den Pharao zu gebären; jedenfalls eine eigentümliche Umschreibung. Vielleicht ist dies eine für Pharao rücksichtsvolle Bezeichnung. Es tut der Majestät eines Pharao nicht wohl, ihn als neugeborenes Kind sich vorzustellen. Es wird daher der Gedanke von ihm ab und auf die Mutter hingeleitet, damit jeder Gedanke an ein hilfloses Wickelkind als respektwidrig vermieden werde. הולדת geht nämlich jedenfalls auf das Geschäft der Hebamme. So Jecheskiel (Kap. 16, 4 u. 5), wo die Naturwidrigkeit der Geburt Israels hervorgehoben werden soll: "deiner Geburt waren alle Umstände ungünstig, ohne Wunder wärest du am Boden verblutet". Dort heißt es auch wiederholt משתה - .יום הולדת אותך, daß in alter Zeit ein Gastmahl משתה heißt, scheint darauf hinzuweisen, daß man in alter Zeit geistiger gewesen. Wo Trinken die Hauptsache ist, da ist es ganz unmöglich, sechs Stunden lang, ohne zu sprechen, zuzubringen, während beim Essen der Mund andauernd und nicht eben geistig in Anspruch genommen ist. משתה ist jedenfalls ein menschenwürdigerer Ausdruck. — נשא .נשא ראש heißt auch: das Dasein eines Gegenstandes in den Kreis der Gedanken aufnehmen, daher: zählen. Menschen zählen wird wohl deshalb mit: Köpfe zählen ausgedrückt, weil, wenn eine Menge Menschen zusammenstehen, ihre Leiber eine kompakte, nicht zählbare Masse bilden und nur die Köpfe geschieden hervorragen, somit gezählt werden können. — Beide standen noch auf der Liste der Diener, sie waren noch nicht kassiert, sondern in vorläufiger Untersuchungshaft.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:20:1

Ginusia Day. This means “birthday” in Greek.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:20

It was on the third day, the day of Pharaoh’s public birthday celebration, that he made a feast for all his servants; and during that feast he raised the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants. While Pharaoh sat with his entourage, he was reminded of the absence of the butler and the baker. It seems that when the butler and baker committed their offenses, Pharaoh was angered and had them imprisoned without judgement. Now, Pharaoh issued a ruling: He concluded that the chief butler properly executed his duties and was therefore innocent, while the chief baker acted improperly and was therefore guilty.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 123

“On the third day” [40:20]. The third day came and it was the day that he became king and he made a feast for his nobles. He remembered the two nobles and he restored the cupbearer to his earlier position, and he hanged the baker.

Midrash

The Midrash Tanchuma explains that Joseph's daughters will be worthy of kings, as seen in the reference to scarlet and delights in II Samuel. In Bereshit Rabbah, the chief baker's dream of three baskets on his head symbolizes the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel, with the uppermost basket representing Rome. Joseph's interpretation of the dream accurately predicts the fate of the chief baker and chief butler, as seen in the outcome on Pharaoh's birthday.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:6

“The chief baker saw that he interpreted well, and he said to Joseph: I too, in my dream, behold, three wicker baskets were on my head” (Genesis 40:16). “And in the uppermost basket there was all manner of food for Pharaoh, baked products, and the birds were eating them from the basket above my head” (Genesis 40:17). “Joseph answered and said: This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days” (Genesis 40:18). “In three more days Pharaoh shall lift your head from upon you, and shall hang you on a tree, and the birds shall eat your flesh from upon you” (Genesis 40:19). “The chief baker saw…[and he said to Joseph: I too [af]…]” – Rav Ḥama said: They are four who began with af and were eradicated with wrath [af]. (The serpent, the chief baker, the congregation of Koraḥ, and Haman, as explained in Bereshit Rabba 19:2.) “Behold, three wicker baskets” – these are the first three kingdoms. (The first three of the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel and many other peoples: Babylon, Media, and Greece.) “And in the uppermost basket” – this is the fourth kingdom, (Rome.) which imposes taxes upon all the nations of the world. “The birds were eating them” – after they ate [the contents of] the uppermost one, they then ate [the contents of] the lower one. [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me bad tidings; (The baker’s dream alluded to the nations that would subjugate Israel. ) I, too, will give you bad tidings: “In three more days…”’ “It was on the third day, Pharaoh's birthday, he made a feast for all his servants and raised the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants” (Genesis 40:20). “It was on the third day” – the day of Pharaoh’s birthday celebration. “He restored the chief butler to his butlership, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:21). “And he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph interpreted for them” (Genesis 40:22). “He made a feast…he restored the chief butler…and…the chief baker” – it befell this one what was stated to him and to that one what was stated to him.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 13:2

And he shall yield royal delights (Gen. 40:20). His daughters shall be worthy of kings. Hence, Scripture states: Who clothed you in scarlet with other delights (II Sam. 1:24).

Quoting Commentary

Ibn Ezra explains that "lift up" in Genesis 40:13 means to count, as seen in the context of Pharaoh counting his servants, with the chief butler being listed first. In Exodus, Ibn Ezra clarifies that "against the third day" means "for the third day," with Moses adding an extra day for preparation. In Lessons in Leadership, it is noted that Joseph's dream interpretations were based on logical reasoning, such as linking the dreams of the butler and baker to Pharaoh's upcoming birthday feast.

Ibn Ezra on Exodus; Perush HaArokh 19:15:1

BE READY AGAINST THE THIRD DAY. The meaning of li-sheloshet yamim is, for the third day. According to the plain meaning of the text, Moses did not add a day by himself. (Verse 11 tells us that God told Moses, ve-hayu nekhonim la-yom ha-shelishi (and be ready against the third day). However, our verse reports that Moses told Israel, heyu nekhonim li-sheloshet yamim (be ready against the third day). According to the Rabbinic sage Rabbi Jose, Moses told Israel be ready for three days (which is the literal meaning of heyu nekhonim li-sheloshet yamim). That is, God will reveal himself to you on the fourth day. Moses thus added another day on his own. See Sabbath 87a.) I will bring two faithful witnesses, (That there is no difference between li-sheloshet ha-yamim and la-yom ha-shelishi.) both of which are found in this book. Now it is written, And he put them all together into ward three days (sheloset yamim) (Gen. 42:17). It is then written, And Joseph said unto them the third day (yom ha-shelishi) (Gen. 42:18). Scripture also states, within yet three days (sheloshet yamim) shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee (Gen. 40:19). It is then written, And it came to pass the third day (ba-yom ha-shelishi) (Gen. 40:20). (We thus see that Scripture interchanges sheloshet yamim and yom ha-shelishi. Hence they must have one meaning.) Similarly here, heyu nekhnim li-sheloshet yamim [means be ready for the third day].

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:13:1

SHALL PHARAOH LIFT UP THY HEAD. Yissa means shall lift up. (Pharaoh will raise the chief butler from his fallen state.) In its correct sense, yissa means to lift up by counting. (See note 25.) Proof of this is Scripture stating, and he lifted up (va-yissa) the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants (v. 20). (Here the term va-yissa must mean and he counted because Pharaoh did not exalt the chief baker.) I will explain this term in my comments on the Torah portion Ki Tissa (Ex. 30:12). (In his short commentary on Ex. 30:12, I.E. points out that one who counts people lists them in a row and places the most important at the top. Thus when Pharaoh will count his servants he will have a list of his butlers and bakers made. The name of the chief butler will head the list of butlers and that of the baker the list of bakers. Thus to “lift up” means to count. However, it does so only in a specific sense. It is not a mere synonym for counting. It should be noted that some commmentaries maintain that I.E. is of the opinion that to lift up is another way of saying to count. Cf. Krinsky and Cherez.)

Lessons in Leadership; A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Miketz; The Power of Dreams 5

Second, like Sigmund Freud many centuries later, Joseph could interpret the dreams of others. He did so for the butler and baker in prison and, in this parasha, for Pharaoh. His interpretations were neither magical nor miraculous. In the case of the butler and baker he remembered that in three days’ time it would be Pharaoh’s birthday (Gen. 40:20). It was the custom of rulers to make a feast on their birthday and decide the fate of certain individuals (in Britain, the Queen’s birthday honours continue this tradition). It was reasonable therefore to assume that the butler’s and baker’s dreams related to this event and their unconscious hopes and fears (Ibn Ezra 40:12 and Bekhor Shor 40:12 both make this suggestion).

Second Temple

The King of Egypt, symbolizing the body, reconciled with the cup-bearer after being angry with him for ministering to his drunkenness. This reconciliation occurred on Pharaoh's birthday, a reminder of the passion that led to his desires on the day of his birth into a perishable being, not on a day of eternal light. (On Drunkenness 50:3)

On Drunkenness 50:3

[208] So we see the King of Egypt, that is of the body, though he seemed to be angry with the cup-bearer who ministered to his drunkenness, represented in the holy books as being reconciled to him after a short time. He remembered the passion which excited his desires on his birthday—the day of his birth into a being destined to perish—not on the day of the light, which has no birth, a day which perishes not. For we are told that it was Pharaoh’s birthday (Gen. 40:20) when he sent for the chief cup-bearer from the prison to pour the cup of reconciliation.

Talmud

The king's birthday mentioned in the Talmud is specifically identified as being on the third day, which is associated with Pharaoh's birthday as mentioned in Genesis 40:20.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 1:2:9

“The king’s birthday.” It was on the third day, Pharao’s birthday (Gen. 40:20.) .

Targum

On Pharaoh's birthday, he held a feast for his servants and decided to pardon the chief butler and chief baker, lifting their status among his servants.

Onkelos Genesis 40:20

It was on the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he [Pharaoh] made a feast for all his servants. He lifted [remembered] the head of the chief butler, and the head of the chief baker among his servants.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:20

And it was on the third day, the nativity of Pharoh that he made a feast to all his servants. And he lifted up the head of the chief butler, and the head of the chief baker, in the midst of his servants.

וַיָּ֛שֶׁב אֶת־שַׂ֥ר הַמַּשְׁקִ֖ים עַל־מַשְׁקֵ֑הוּ וַיִּתֵּ֥ן הַכּ֖וֹס עַל־כַּ֥ף פַּרְעֹֽה׃ 21 E He restored the chief cupbearer to his cupbearing, and he placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand;
Ibn Ezra explains "mashkehu" in Genesis 40:21 as the chief butler's drink and in verse 13 as giving him a drink, while Steinsaltz notes Pharaoh restored the chief butler to his position. Chizkuni compares the chief butler's unavoidable crime to a fly landing on a cup. Joseph correctly interprets the chief baker's dream of three baskets symbolizing the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel, with Rome being the fourth kingdom. The chief baker is hanged on Pharaoh's birthday. The phrase "ἐπὶ σπονδαῖς" in the context of pouring wine as cup-bearer is related to "on the conditions of a truce" in the Second Temple period. Targum Jonathan and Onkelos state that the chief butler was reinstated to his position after Joseph interpreted his dream.

Commentary

In Genesis 40:21, Ibn Ezra explains that "mashkehu" refers to the chief butler's drink, while in verse 13 it means giving him a drink. Steinsaltz notes that Pharaoh restored the chief butler to his position. Chizkuni emphasizes that the chief butler's crime was unavoidable, comparing it to a fly landing on a cup.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:21:1

וישב את שר המשקים, “he restored the chief of the cupbearers;” because his crime had been unavoidable, something beyond human control. Who can prevent a fly from parking on the rim of a cup?

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:21:1

UNTO HIS BUTLERSHIP. Mashkehu (his butlership) here is a noun. (Here mashkehu means his drink. The meaning of our verse is: And he restored the chief butler back to being in charge of his drink. In verse 13 it means, gives him to drink.) However, mashkehu in when thou wast his butler (mashkehu) (v. 13) is a verb.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:21

Accordingly, he, Pharaoh, restored the chief butler to his butlership, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand;

Midrash

The chief baker's dream of three baskets symbolized the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel, with Rome being the fourth kingdom that imposes taxes on all nations. Joseph interpreted the dream correctly, predicting the chief baker's death in three days, which came true on Pharaoh's birthday when the chief baker was hanged. The chief butler was restored to his position, as Joseph had also predicted.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:6

“The chief baker saw that he interpreted well, and he said to Joseph: I too, in my dream, behold, three wicker baskets were on my head” (Genesis 40:16). “And in the uppermost basket there was all manner of food for Pharaoh, baked products, and the birds were eating them from the basket above my head” (Genesis 40:17). “Joseph answered and said: This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days” (Genesis 40:18). “In three more days Pharaoh shall lift your head from upon you, and shall hang you on a tree, and the birds shall eat your flesh from upon you” (Genesis 40:19). “The chief baker saw…[and he said to Joseph: I too [af]…]” – Rav Ḥama said: They are four who began with af and were eradicated with wrath [af]. (The serpent, the chief baker, the congregation of Koraḥ, and Haman, as explained in Bereshit Rabba 19:2.) “Behold, three wicker baskets” – these are the first three kingdoms. (The first three of the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel and many other peoples: Babylon, Media, and Greece.) “And in the uppermost basket” – this is the fourth kingdom, (Rome.) which imposes taxes upon all the nations of the world. “The birds were eating them” – after they ate [the contents of] the uppermost one, they then ate [the contents of] the lower one. [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me bad tidings; (The baker’s dream alluded to the nations that would subjugate Israel. ) I, too, will give you bad tidings: “In three more days…”’ “It was on the third day, Pharaoh's birthday, he made a feast for all his servants and raised the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants” (Genesis 40:20). “It was on the third day” – the day of Pharaoh’s birthday celebration. “He restored the chief butler to his butlership, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:21). “And he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph interpreted for them” (Genesis 40:22). “He made a feast…he restored the chief butler…and…the chief baker” – it befell this one what was stated to him and to that one what was stated to him.

Second Temple

The phrase "ἐπὶ σπονδαῖς" in the context of pouring wine as cup-bearer and the common meaning of "on the conditions of a truce" [On Drunkenness, Appendix 62, § 208].

On Drunkenness, Appendix 62

§ 208. Cup of reconciliation. The phrase ἐπὶ σπονδαῖς combines the idea of pouring wine as cup-bearer (Gen. 40:21) and the common meaning of “on the conditions of a truce.”

Targum

The chief butler was reinstated to his position after Joseph interpreted his dream, and he returned to serving Pharaoh by presenting him with his cup (Onkelos Genesis 40:21; Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:21).

Onkelos Genesis 40:21

He restored the chief butler to his position, and he presented the cup into Pharaoh’s hand.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:21

And he restored the chief butler to his butlership, because he found he had not been in that counsel. And he gave the cup into Pharoh's hand.

וְאֵ֛ת שַׂ֥ר הָאֹפִ֖ים תָּלָ֑ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר פָּתַ֛ר לָהֶ֖ם יוֹסֵֽף׃ 22 E but the chief baker he impaled—just as Joseph had interpreted to them.
The chief baker in Genesis was hanged for negligence after a pebble was found in his breakfast roll, fulfilling Joseph's interpretation of his dream. The word "תלה" in Genesis 40:22 is related to hanging, as seen in other instances in the Bible, and the word "עניך" in Genesis 16:11 relates to suffering. Both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan confirm the chief baker's fate as predicted by Joseph.

Commentary

The chief baker was hanged by the king for negligence that resulted in a pebble being found in his breakfast roll, as interpreted by Joseph.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:22:1

ואת שר האופים תלה, “but he hanged the chief of the bakers.” The pebble that had been found in the king’s breakfast roll was due to negligence by one of his underlings.

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:22

and he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph interpreted for them.

Midrash

The chief baker and chief butler have dreams interpreted by Joseph, with the baker's dream predicting his death in three days, which comes true. The baskets in the dream represent kingdoms that will subjugate Israel, with Rome being the fourth kingdom. The chief butler is restored to his position, while the chief baker is hanged, fulfilling Joseph's interpretation.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:6

“The chief baker saw that he interpreted well, and he said to Joseph: I too, in my dream, behold, three wicker baskets were on my head” (Genesis 40:16). “And in the uppermost basket there was all manner of food for Pharaoh, baked products, and the birds were eating them from the basket above my head” (Genesis 40:17). “Joseph answered and said: This is its interpretation: The three baskets are three days” (Genesis 40:18). “In three more days Pharaoh shall lift your head from upon you, and shall hang you on a tree, and the birds shall eat your flesh from upon you” (Genesis 40:19). “The chief baker saw…[and he said to Joseph: I too [af]…]” – Rav Ḥama said: They are four who began with af and were eradicated with wrath [af]. (The serpent, the chief baker, the congregation of Koraḥ, and Haman, as explained in Bereshit Rabba 19:2.) “Behold, three wicker baskets” – these are the first three kingdoms. (The first three of the four kingdoms that would subjugate Israel and many other peoples: Babylon, Media, and Greece.) “And in the uppermost basket” – this is the fourth kingdom, (Rome.) which imposes taxes upon all the nations of the world. “The birds were eating them” – after they ate [the contents of] the uppermost one, they then ate [the contents of] the lower one. [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me bad tidings; (The baker’s dream alluded to the nations that would subjugate Israel. ) I, too, will give you bad tidings: “In three more days…”’ “It was on the third day, Pharaoh's birthday, he made a feast for all his servants and raised the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants” (Genesis 40:20). “It was on the third day” – the day of Pharaoh’s birthday celebration. “He restored the chief butler to his butlership, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:21). “And he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph interpreted for them” (Genesis 40:22). “He made a feast…he restored the chief butler…and…the chief baker” – it befell this one what was stated to him and to that one what was stated to him.

Quoting Commentary

Rashbam explains that the word "תלה" in Genesis 27:33 is derived from the root meaning "to hang," as seen in other instances in the Bible such as Pharaoh hanging the chief of the bakers in Genesis 40:22. He also mentions the word "עניך" in Genesis 16:11, derived from the root ענה, meaning "suffering."

Rashbam on Genesis 27:3:3

The word is derived from the root תלה, “to hang,” We find it used in this sense in Genesis 40,22 in connection with Pharaoh hanging the chief of the bakers, as well as in Judges 5,12 where the word שביך בן אבינועם is derived from the root שבה, Similarly, the word עניך in Genesis 16,11 כי שמע ה' אל עניך, “for the Lord has paid heed to your suffering,” is derived from the root ענה.

Targum

The chief baker was hanged as Joseph had predicted in Genesis 40:22, according to both Onkelos and Targum Jonathan.

Onkelos Genesis 40:22

The chief baker, he hung, just as Yoseif had interpreted to them.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:22

But the chief baker he hanged, because he had taken counsel to kill him, even as Joseph had expounded to them.

וְלֹֽא־זָכַ֧ר שַֽׂר־הַמַּשְׁקִ֛ים אֶת־יוֹסֵ֖ף וַיִּשְׁכָּחֵֽהוּ׃ 23 E Yet the chief cupbearer did not think of Joseph; he forgot him.
The chief butler forgot about Joseph, delaying his release from prison for two years. The lesson is to trust in God rather than relying on others. Moses, Queen Esther, and Joseph showed humility and gratitude by not overlooking those who had helped them. Joseph's trust in the chief butler instead of God led to his delayed release.

Commentary

The chief butler did not mention Joseph to Pharaoh as he had promised, ultimately forgetting about him completely. This failure to remember Joseph delayed his release from prison for two years, as he had relied on the butler for help. The word "remember" in this context implies not just recalling in memory, but also taking action to help.

Chizkuni, Genesis 40:23:1

ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף, “but the chief of the cup bearers did not remember Joseph. Since he did not bring Joseph’s plight to Pharaoh’s attention as soon as he had been released, he forgot him totally, erased him from his memory

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:23:1

YET DID NOT THE CHIEF BUTLER REMEMBER JOSEPH. He did not verbally mention him to Pharaoh. (According to I.E. zakhar (usually translated remembered) here means mentioned, as in make mention of me (ve-hizkartani) unto Pharaoh (v. 14).) The words tizkeru (shall ye mention) and zakhar (he remembered), in And the burden of the Lord shall ye mention (tizkeru) (Literally, shall ye remember.) no more (Jer. 23:36) and he remembered (zakhar) Vashti (Est. 2:1), are similar.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:23:2

BUT FORGOT HIM. In his heart. (Thus the verse tells us that the butler not only failed to mention Joseph to Pharaoh, he totally forgot about him.)

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:23:1

ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף, and the chief butler did not remember Joseph, etc. This means that although he had not yet forgotten him, he did not remember him either. At the beginning he simply did not recall Joseph's name, something that Joseph had asked him to remember.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 40:23:2

This verse also informs us that the chief butler subsequently forgot Joseph completely, he erased the incident from his heart. The Torah indicates that once one has decided not to remember something or somebody such a memory can be blocked out completely. Unless the chief butler had made a conscious effort to blot Joseph from his mind he would have remembered the incident from time to time. Perhaps the Torah wrote וישכחהו, he forgot him, in order to hint that this was a deliberate act of forgetting. Alternatively, as long as G'd did not remember Joseph's condition there was no point in the chief butler remembering him either. It could also be that the word וישכחהו means that only he forgot Joseph whereas G'd most certainly did not forget him.

Radak on Genesis 40:23:1

ולא זכר, he did not remember to do him a favour.

Radak on Genesis 40:23:2

וישכחהו, not to mention him to Pharaoh.

Rashbam on Genesis 40:23:1

ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף, as soon as he came out of prison. Joseph had asked him to remember his case as soon as he would come out of prison, but he did not remember.

Rashbam on Genesis 40:23:2

וישכחהו, he kept forgetting him until Pharaoh had his dream which defied satisfactory interpretation. When G’d performed a miracle for the sake of Joseph, he was forced to remember him.

Rashi on Genesis 40:23:1

ולא זכר שר המשקים AND THE CHIEF OF THE BUTLERS DID NOT REMEMBER HIM on that day,

Rashi on Genesis 40:23:2

וישכחהו AND HE FORGOT HIM afterwards. Because Joseph had placed his trust in him that he should remember him he was doomed to remain in prison for two years. So it is said (Psalms 40:5) “Happy is the man who maketh the Lord his trust and turneth not to (רהבים) the arrogant” — i.e. doth not trust in the Egyptians who are called arrogant (Genesis Rabbah 89:3 cf. Isaiah 30:7).

Rav Hirsch on Torah, Genesis 40:23:1

שכח, verwandt mit שגח ,שגע ,שגה. Siehe oben 8, 1. שכח heißt ein Vergessen durch Eingenommensein von etwas anderm. Verwandt auch mit שקה: getränkt, voll werden. שכח geistig: so voll von etwas sein, daß für anderes kein Raum ist. Dem Schenkfürsten lag es nicht am Herzen, das Gedächtnis an Josef fortwährend aufzufrischen, er war so von der Gegenwart erfüllt, daß er ihn vergaß.

Siftei Chakhamim, Genesis 40:23:1

Afterwards. Because Yoseif depended on him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it written here that the butler failed to remember? If to tell us that he did not deal kindly with Yoseif, this is already written: “It was at the end of two full years... the chief butler spoke to Pharaoh...” (41: 1-9). Perforce, it tells us that Hashem caused the butler not to remember Yoseif for two years because Yoseif depended on him. (Kitzur Mizrachi) In Shemos Rabboh ch. 7 it is explained that Yoseif deserved only ten years in prison, corresponding to his bad reports about his ten brothers. But since he said to the butler, “But remember me... and mention me,” two more years were added, because Yoseif mentioned זכירה twice. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Steinsaltz on Genesis 40:23

But despite the fact that the chief butler witnessed the complete accuracy of Joseph’s interpretation, the chief butler did not immediately remember the request that Joseph made of him. Rather, as time progressed he forgot him, as he no longer had any interaction with him.

Tur HaArokh, Genesis 40:23:1

ולא זכר שר המשקים, “but the chief of the cupbearers did not remember.” The repetition means that he neither remembered Joseph by mentioning him, nor even by recalling him in his heart. Some commentators claim that the word וישכחהו is meant to tell the reader that the cupbearer did not fail to remember Joseph because of hatred, but only because he really forgot him.

Tze'enah Ure'enah, Vayeshev 124

“The chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph” [40:23]. The nobleman did not remember the good that Joseph had done, that he should remember him positively before Pharaoh. Since Joseph had relied on the nobleman, therefore he had to sit in prison for two years, so that he would rely on God to help him. (Rashi, Genesis, 40:23.)

Midrash

Pharaoh punished his officers by confining them to prison, where Joseph served them. The chief butler and baker both had dreams, which Joseph interpreted correctly. The chief butler was restored to his position, as Joseph predicted, while the chief baker was executed. Additionally, the queen gave birth to a son, bringing great joy to all of Egypt. Joseph asked the chief butler to remember him to Pharaoh, hoping to be released from prison.

Bereshit Rabbah 88:7

“And the chief butler did not remember Joseph, but forgot him” (Genesis 40:23). “And the chief butler did not remember…” – each day, he would stipulate conditions, and an angel would come and reverse them. (He would stipulate to himself that when something would happen, that would be a reminder to him to mention Joseph to Pharoah. The angel would ensure that it would not happen.) He would tie knots (He would tie knots in his garments, as a reminder to tell Pharaoh.) and an angel would come and untie them. The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You forget him, but I will not forget him.’ (God did not want Joseph’s salvation to come about through the butler. ) That is what is written: “And the chief butler did not remember.” Another matter, the chief butler forgot you, but I will not forget you. Who was expecting Abraham and Sarah, who were old, to have a son born to them? Who was expecting Jacob, who crossed the Jordan with [but] his staff, to expand and become wealthy? Who was expecting Joseph, who experienced all these troubles, to become king? Who was expecting Moses, who was cast into the Nile, to become what he became? Who was expecting Ruth, who was a proselyte, to return to the kingdom of Israel? (She returned with Naomi to the Land of Israel and became the mother of kings of Israel. ) Who was expecting David to become king until the end of the generations? Who was expecting Yehoyakhin to leave prison? Who was expecting Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya to emerge from the fire? Who was expecting, in the days of Haman, that the Holy One blessed be He would save Israel? Who expects the exiles to achieve renown and glory? Who expects the Holy One blessed be He to raise the fallen booth of David, as it is stated: “On that day, I will raise the fallen booth of David” (Amos 9:11). [Who expects] that the whole world will become one group, as it is stated: “For then I will convert all the peoples to a pure language, for all of them to call in the name of the Lord, to serve Him with a common effort” (Zephaniah 3:9).

Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Miketz 3:1

What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 40:23): YET THE CHIEF CUPBEARER DID NOT REMEMBER JOSEPH. R. Berekhyah the Priest said: YET < THE CHIEF CUPBEARER > DID NOT REMEMBER. He had been remembered, and he was married. (Cf. Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34, which is probably correct in rendering the last clause as follows: AND HIS BURDEN LIFTED.) But (ibid.) HE FORGOT HIM. He had said outside: I will go and tell Pharaoh about him. Immediately: HE FORGOT HIM. Until the proper time had arrived for him to leave, the Holy One brought false charges against him in order to slander him. Thus it is stated (in Genesis 41:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THE END OF TWO FULL YEARS.

Sefer HaYashar (midrash), Book of Genesis, Vayeshev 23

And when Pharaoh saw what his officers had done unto him, he ordered them to be punished ‎and to be confined in the prison house. And the chief of the guards placed Joseph to wait on ‎Pharaoh's officers, and they were in confinement a full year. And at the end of the year both ‎of them dreamed dreams in one night in the place where they were imprisoned. And Joseph ‎came in unto them in the morning, and behold they were dejected. And Joseph asked ‎Pharaoh’s officers: Wherefore look ye so sadly to-day? And they said unto him: We have ‎dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter for it. And Joseph said unto them: Relate ye ‎your dreams unto me and God will answer your peace as you desire. And the chief butler told ‎his dream unto Joseph, and he said: In my dream behold I have seen a great vine was before ‎me, and upon that vine I saw three branches, and they grew up suddenly, and they budded ‎and blossomed and the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grapes, and I took the grapes and I ‎pressed them into a cup and I gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand and he drank. And Joseph said ‎unto him: The three branches that were on the vine are three days, and within three days the ‎king will command and will release thee and they will restore thee unto thy place, and thou ‎shalt deliver Pharaoh’s cup into his hand after the former manner when thou wast his butler. ‎But think thou on me and let me find grace in thine eyes, that thou wilt mention me unto the ‎king when it will be well with thee, and show mercy unto me, I pray thee, and bring me out of ‎this prison, for I have been stolen from the land of Canaan, and sold for a slave into this place, ‎and also what has been told unto thee concerning the wife of my master, is false, and they ‎have placed me into this pit without any cause. And the chief butler replied unto Joseph, ‎saying: If the king will do well with me as heretofore according to thy interpretation, I will do ‎unto thee all that thou desirest and I will get thee out of this pit. And when the chief baker saw ‎that the interpretation of Joseph was good, he approached Joseph likewise and related his ‎dream, saying unto him: In my dream I saw, and behold, I had three white baskets on my ‎head, and I saw, behold, in the uppermost basket there was of all manner of bake meats for ‎Pharaoh, and the birds did eat them out of the basket upon my head. And Joseph said unto ‎him: The three baskets that thou hast seen are three days; yet within three days shall Pharaoh ‎lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shalt eat thy flesh ‎from off thee as thou hast seen in thy dream. And in those days the queen was delivered, and ‎on that very day she bare a son unto the king of Egypt. And when it was reported that the first ‎born son hath been born unto the king all Egypt rejoiced exceedingly, the princes of Pharaoh ‎as well as his servant.‎

Musar

The lesson from this text is that one must only place their trust in God himself.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Derekh Chayim, Vayeshev 18

ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף וישכחהו . The lesson here is clearly that one must only place one's trust in G–d Himself.

Quoting Commentary

Moses, Queen Esther, and Joseph all demonstrated humility and gratitude by not using their elevated positions as excuses to overlook those who had helped them. They all continued to show deference and respect to those who had supported them in the past, regardless of their current status.

Sforno on Exodus 18:7:1

ויצא משה, Moses did not stand on ceremony, using his position to await the arrival of his father-in-law at home, but he went some distance to meet the man in whose house he had received so many favours. We find that Queen Esther, similarly, did not use her elevation to Royalty as an excuse to no longer defer to Mordechai who had raised her. (Esther 2,20 “Esther continued to carry out Mordechai’s instructions as she had done when she lived under his roof.”) Joseph also did not use his exalted position to look down on his brothers. The Chief of the butlers, who had reason to be grateful to Joseph, is an example of ingratitude, as we know from Genesis 40,23, “he did not remember Joseph, in fact he erased him from his memory.”

Targum

Joseph put his trust in the chief butler instead of in God, leading to the chief butler forgetting about him until the appointed time for his release (Onkelos Genesis 40:23, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:23, Targum Jerusalem Genesis 40:23).

Onkelos Genesis 40:23

[However] the chief butler did not remember Yoseif, but forgot him.

Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 40:23

Joseph left the mercy above, and the mercy beneath, and the mercy which accompanied him from his father's house, and put his confidence in the chief butler: he trusted in the flesh, and the flesh be tasted of, even the cup of death. Neither did he remember the scripture where it is written expressly, Cursed shall be the man who trusteth in the flesh, and setteth the flesh as his confidence. Blessed shall be the man who trusteth in the Name of the Word of the Lord, and whose confidence is the Word of the Lord. Therefore the chief butler did not remember Joseph, but forgat him, until the time of the end came that he should be released.

Targum Jonathan on Genesis 40:23

But because, Joseph had withdrawn from the mercy that is above, and had put his confidence in the chief butler, he waited on the flesh. Therefore the chief butler did not remember Joseph, but forgat him, until from the Lord came the time of the end that he should be released.